United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: College QB arrested, suspended after claiming ‘cocaine’ on his car was bird poop. It was bird poop.
Source:
Saturday Down South
URL Source: https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/s ... on-car-was-actually-bird-poop/
Published: Aug 3, 2019
Author: SDS Staff
Post Date: 2019-08-11 09:33:59 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 27504
Comments: 348
Chalk another one up to faulty drug field tests: Georgia Southern QB Shai Werts has been suspended following an arrest earlier in the week. Werts was arrested following a traffic stop on Wednesday night in Saluda, South Carolina. According to reports, Werts was originally pulled over for speeding. When the officer attempted to pull him over, however, he kept going and reportedly called 911 to explain that he wasn’t pulling over in a dark area. After reaching town, Werts then pulled over and was arrested for speeding. The QB was then asked about the white powder on the hood of his car, and he claimed it was bird poop that he tried to clean off at the car wash. The officer tested the powder, and it tested positive for cocaine with two different kits and in two different places on the hood of the car. “Everything about him and inside his vehicle made him appear as a clean person but the hood of his car was out of place,” the police report states. Werts denied any knowledge of the origin of the cocaine. The officer wrote that the powder appeared to have been “thrown on the vehicle and had been attempted to be washed off by the windshield wipers, and wiper fluid as there was white powder substance around the areas of the wiper fluid dispensary.” In addition to speeding, he was charged with a misdemeanor possession of cocaine. This is all really bad news because Georgia Southern plays LSU Week 1. Al Eargle, the Deputy Solicitor for the 11th Judicial Circuit which includes Saluda County, told Werts’ attorney, Townes Jones IV, that these kinds of charges would not be pressed on “his watch,” Jones said. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) tests were conducted on the substance samples collected from the hood of Werts’ 2016 Dodge Charger, but the results confirmed that no controlled substance was present in the samples. “I have not seen (the SLED results) yet,” Eargle said on a phone call Thursday night. “But I was informed that the test did come back and that there was no controlled substance found.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 90.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
The officer tested the powder, and it tested positive for cocaine with two different kits … Damn … You libertarian drug promoters even birds doing cocaine now. What is this frickin world coming to …
Which is essentially your admission that drug tests conducted by police departments are either completely corrupt or completely incompetent. I can't quite imagine how big a dumbass any cop would have to be to be so unaware of the properties of crystal cocaine and how it looks if exposed to moisture. What, did the cop think that the QB had, in the process of being pulled over, thrown his coke stash forward (into the wind) onto his windshield and then tried to wash it away with wiper fluid? There is no other way to read this. Corrupt lab and/or corrupt cops. Probably both. Oh, look. It's a black QB. Let's just frame his black ass with phony drug tests that make any pile of poop test positive for cocaine. Thanks for playing. If you were a decent human being, you'd be ashamed of what you've posted here. It does matter to have a black man falsely accused of narcotics and to have such an arrest on his record. Like you even care about this victim of false arrest. I hope he can sue their asses off for defamation of character. He should never have been charged with cocaine possession without a full lab test.
It could have been wet/damp powdered cocaine. "What, did the cop think that the QB had, in the process of being pulled over, thrown his coke stash forward (into the wind) onto his windshield and then tried to wash it away with wiper fluid?" I think that was the theory, actually.
You know as little as the cop did. He was trained. He has no excuse for being so ignorant.
What's he supposed to do when the substance tests positive -- twice? Let the guy go because he's black?
Should the police department keep using these field tests since they have been proven to give inaccurate results? If they use them again should they be held accountable and sued? Does the real victim the quarterback have a case against the police department for not using a reliable drug test? Why didn't the police know the drug test was inaccurate, don't they test them? If the police knew it gives false readings and it did int he past should the be sued for even more money? Do you go down on cops?
I heard he does suck a few nightsticks. Not wanting to intrude here but I thought I'd pass along this ugly rumor. After all, if it's a false accusation, whitey shouldn't mind at all that he's being falsely accused. whitey loves to defend cops making false charges in unlawful arrests, even corrupt cops. I also heard he once went down on a state trooper for a gallon of gas but that could just be an ugly rumor someone here at LP made up.
So you don't know that it's true, you did not ensure that it's true, yet you published it anyways. And, based on your previous posts about me, you published that with actual malice. This means it must have been made with disregard for the truth, and with the intention of doing harm to my reputation on this forum. I'd say I have an airtight defamation lawsuit. Or at least enough to get you kicked off this forum.
A K A Stone to misterwhite: After all, if it's a false accusation, whitey shouldn't mind at all that he's being falsely accused. whitey loves to defend cops making false charges in unlawful arrests, even corrupt cops. I also heard he once went down on a state trooper for a gallon of gas but that could just be an ugly rumor someone here at LP made up. So you don't know that it's true, you did not ensure that it's true, yet you published it anyways. And, based on your previous posts about me, you published that with actual malice. This means it must have been made with disregard for the truth, and with the intention of doing harm to my reputation on this forum. I'd say I have an airtight defamation lawsuit. Or at least enough to get you kicked off this forum. I say that you are wrong about ever getting Stone to kick TC off this forum. He will never do it, albeit the right thing to do with the malicious and vulgar defamation of character displayed by TC. I predict Stone will not do shit about it. We shall see …
misterwhite v AKA Stone, Tooconservative et al? Yeah good luck with that Parsons.
I know, this seems petty, but hear me out. “Good luck” is not a religious or emotional statement in any way. It’s something we say to each other to communicate ‘I want the best for you (in this matter).’ But “good luck” is a terrible way to say this. Despite being a common phrase, it’s got a couple of significant problems. First, “good luck” is a pessimistic phrase. It encourages, as the psychologists say, an external locus of control. In non-psychology-speak, this means the phrase “good luck” encourages us to see events as outside of our control (as opposed to within our control). When we perceive outcomes as outside our control, we don’t work to affect them, leaving us in the passenger seat of our lives. Second, “good luck” implies, to the person you’re saying it to, that they need luck to succeed. Instead of encouraging or helping them, you’re wishing for the world to conspire in their favor. If you had a friend who was about to compete in a contest, you wouldn’t tell them “I hope the judge is feeling lenient today,” but to say “good luck” is to say the same thing. Last, “good luck” is a terrible phrase no matter what your religious orientation. If you are a theist, and believe in god, it’s bordering on blasphemous. Why are you appealing to a nonexistent ‘luck’ when it is God who directs the events of the world? If you are an atheist, it’s a meaningless statement because it acknowledges there is no way for you to affect this luck. Either way, you’re out of luck (get it?) Some obvious religious alternatives to “good luck” include “blessings” and “thoughts and prayers.” But there are some great secular options as well.
Eccl. 9:11 I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. I sometimes find myself saying "good luck" to the unbeliever...because that's about all they have...time and chance.
Isn't that just some variety of "Good luck on your little path to hell"? It's not surprising the country is turning atheist. The organized churches seem like smug self-interested morality clubs, often using their tax status to provide entertainment/services to their members at discount, that do very little for anyone but their own. And possibly the larger influence is with the charismatics and healers and other flim-flam people you can see on those awful cable channels. And it is difficult to discern anything that resembles a serious doctrinal view in modern churches. I look at local churches and people I know in them and they all seem to believe most anything they want, even if it opposes the church's offical doctrine. Preachers won't even get close to doctrinal preaching. So, if you're talking to me, I'd rather not hear any smug "Good luck in hell" talk. It got old a long time ago. Little wonder that people want nothing to do with religion any more. It's more a rejection of the sales force than Christianity itself.
It's not surprising the country is turning atheist. The organized churches seem like smug self-interested morality clubs... When I say "good luck" to a person it is said with a most heavy heart. Your assessment of the church...is true. With one exception: there IS doctrinal preaching in many churches but it is obviously not helping. Now, you've told me the symptoms, but can you pinpoint the exact cause? (I can) And, your feelings about the church's condition...is it anguish for something you love?
I don't attend any more. I got tired of the pettiness and some of the preaching I was hearing was clearly wrong in basic understanding of scripture. Bad preaching, rivalry of different factions, lack of interest in simply gathering to amicably worship, ... it just seemed so irrelevant and unfulfilling. I thought about driving farther to find a church but I didn't have any confidence of finding anything better within driving distance. I could tell some real horror stories about the last one I attended. It was a disgrace, nothing godly about it. Let's hear it. Offhand, my guess is you'll offer a prophetic note, the church falling away from sound doctrine as the Second Coming becomes imminent and Christians face persecution before the appearance of the False Prophet and then the Antichrist. Itchy ears, rejecting sound teaching, the takeover over churches and government posts by those who will be the accusers of the brethren during the Tribulation.
You are still giving me symptoms! When I call my brother the doctor* back home and ask about an old classmate who's sick he always says the exact same thing in a hushed voice "I can't talk about it" (never uses the dramatic "YOU KNOW I can't talk about it"). Even so, he knows the exact diagnosis. Why then will he not tell me! Because I'm the guy who just wants to know. The "let's hear it" guy with hardly any skin in the game, unlike the actual patient and the patient's loved ones. Maybe I feel that way right now, Tooconservative. I do understand your concerns about the church. *He got the brains, I got the girls, then, he then got the mansion, I got the...drafty frame house in a cow pasture. Talk about rotten luck!
Some might say you got the better deal. Depends on how many cows you got.
Depends on how many cows you got. I was just about to say...I still feel kinda sorry for him! Cattle. They are the measure of wealth in the Bible. That's why AOC and her ilk want to take them away from us (all the while themselves dining on good ole hambugrers)
Well, cattle and gold were all the rage a few thousand years ago. Or even a century ago. You'll notice that almost no rich people are trying to get into ranching and there are no billionaire cattle barons in the modern era. Modern tycoons are more likely to invest money in luxury bomb shelters on old missile bases than to invest that same money into owning land suitable for grazing cattle or to put that money into building dairies to profit off milk production. Modern dairies supply our milk, we have many sources of protein. Times have changed since the ancient era. I don't think taking cows away as a means of depriving people of wealth as part of a Satanic conspiracy is the actual motive of AOC and her neo-communist girl gang. They simply lack the imagination and religious background that would be needed to try to impose such a cow-free regime for religious or political reasons. Frankly, they're too stupid and uninformed to even think of something that traditionally religious. You seem to think AOC and her Marxist Girl Scout troop know a lot more about religion (or anything else) than what they do know. In truth, they don't know much about anything at all and mostly recite half-digested Lefty drivel from their former college professors. They're not that smart and they really weren't dedicated political ideologues who actually read their Marx and Gramsci and Alinsky and try to apply those principles to government. Cattle are not a measure of real wealth in a world of plentiful food. The ancient world, like almost the entire history of mankind, was a world of food insecurity. And in ancient times, cattle were a source of protein, a way to keep your household alive and in decent health by converting that useless grass on unfarmable lands into food, both milk and beef. And owning cattle, like sheep or goats, often made the difference in whether your children survived a famine. I'm not sure we should get every economic idea we have from the Old Testament. Would we want to return to a biblical ban on Jews or Christians engaged in usury (bank loans)? Leaving aside the historical record in which Christians in Europe outlawed usury for Christians so there could be no Christian bankers but also barred Jews in their ghettos from most other professions which meant that one of the few ways that Jews could make money and survive was through making loans as a lending house. And if one of the local merchants or barons was too deep in debt, he could rile up the local barflies against the Jews and they would invade the ghettos, burning and killing. But especially burning down the offices of Jews who had records of money owed to them by the merchants and nobility. If the Jew banker is dead, his bank burned, and his heirs have no record of debts owed to them by the local "Christian" merchants and nobility, poof, that merchant or baron is instantly a lot richer and doesn't have to give up anything. However, credit will be tighter in the future since you've ruined those who lend money for interest. OTOH, if you could effectively erase all your debts in one night of pogrom that you incited against your Jew banker, you didn't have much need for loans any more. And tighter credit meant you had fewer individuals who could aspire to using loans to acquire more wealth and compete with you for ownership of retail shops, import/export businesses, owning farmland and ranchland, etc. IOW, killing off your Jew banker and erasing your debts kept your potential creditors from having access to loans so they could compete with you for economic opportunities. I think the closest you'd come to cattle as a measure of wealth in the modern era would be bond holders who, until the 2009 crisis, were always paid off for their investment before all other creditors. The feds broached that standard by screwing the GM bond holders completely and just treating those bonds as being worth less than the fairly worthless GM stock which was and still is worth less than the stock of toy companies like Mattel. In fact, those bond holders might have been better off to own GM stock than to have invested in GM bonds. Perhaps you are not directly acquainted with the realities of owning and caring for cattle in the modern era. You wouldn't generally consider ranchers to be wealthy if you knew enough of them. They are generally asset-rich but cash-poor their entire lives. And the land needed to graze cattle has increasingly devolved into fewer and fewer hands as the schools and counties continue to pile up more laws and taxes on the ranchers. A lot of rural states tend to live off these people's taxes while the big businesses like Walmart pay very few taxes in those states while paying their employees so little that they qualify for welfare programs which will further burden the rural economies including the ranchers who hold the most land that is subject to property taxes. Cattle are a way to use land that would otherwise be worthless for agriculture. That was true in ancient times as well as the modern era. When economic activity advances, you see cattle being priced out of their former pastures due to the encroachment of small landowners who want an acreage they can keep a few horses on and not have to live 20' away from their neighbors in a suburban housing tract. Rural gentrification does have an effect, especially considering how much land in America is owned by the feds and its use for housing or ranching is restricted.
For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. Ps 50:10 Ps 50:10 is a precious verse to Christians. When God says He can supply our needs this is one of the ways He assures us that He can do it! This verse was going through my mind when I replied to Deckard. Perhaps cattle aren't the measure of wealth to humans (nowadays) but they ARE (still!) a measure of wealth to God. And rightfully so. Everything about a cow is, well, delicious. There is no other meat like beef (that is available to the common man). The same with their milk. Not to mention their gentle natures and their calming affect on the stressed out soul. Therefore, I DO believe there is a satanic conspiracy to deprive us of the richness of cattle. ie. cattle are the cause of climate change by farting/burping etc. this is such a lie! If it were true then kill off all those ruminants in Africa. Better yet just get rid of horses, the most gaseous creature you'll ever encounter. Ah, but no, these are the favored animals of the elite. Today, cattle are being absolutely vilified. And what is being championed: dogs and goats. Just walk into Tractor Supply. The livestock aisles have been all but replaced by endless aisles of dog food and dog treats and dog this and dog that. The same is happening in other venues with stinking goats. Just do a little word study in the Bible on cattle, dogs and goats. And, BTW, nobody said AOC or any other minion actually had to be smart. You continually surprise me. Did you say you are 6 ft/145 lbs. Slender Man! So it's not a myth! Time for you to carry on that noble family tradition. Buys cows soon. You will be asset rich once again!
There are a lot of very tall but very slim men in my family. I'm one of the shorter ones. The taller, the slimmer. I think they all weigh 160 or less but we don't inquire about each other's weight.
Those are some enviable ratios. My closest friends, all hitting retirement age, all running marathons.
It's biggest advantage is for running. When you're skinny, you can run a long long ways. I recall a few times when I was on foot chasing stubborn cows and chased them down. They could outrun me on foot but I kept catching up. I did put them in the corral after chasing them for miles. They were kind of surprised that any human would actually chase them that far. Otherwise, a real disadvantage is that it's hard to get clothes that fit well. The clothes for those body types are made for teenage boys or guys in college. I sometimes resort to those but I don't like to look like I'm going through my third adolescence. Still, I do like clothes that fit my body type, not baggy stuff made for heavier people. So sometimes I will buy teen clothes, a little embarrassing at my age. I would only be officially underweight at 6' at 137 pounds. I do recall from age 18 to my mid-thirties, nothing I could eat would push my weight up a single pound past 134. I consumed 3000-4000 calories a day for a few years in there, never managed to gain a pound. Like my weight was set on cruise control. I did weigh as little as 120 when I got mononucleosis once when I was 20 or so. Ended up in the hospital, then off work for a few weeks, couldn't climb the three flights of stairs at work without resting on each flight until over a month later. Man, I was sick. And so thin I looked almost like an Auschwitz survivor. I couldn't look at myself in the mirror 'cause I was so thin. Being underweight isn't a joke for the person who is suffering from it. I had an aunt, maybe 5'5" who never weighed more than 85 pounds. And she did do a lot of work, harvesting her cherry trees and gardening. She had two kids, never weighed more than 100 pounds. Skinniness can be a family trait just as obesity is. I admit I do feel sorry for the people, many of them much younger than me, that can't even walk around Walmart without riding an electric cart. But then, I weigh half as much so of course it is easier to get around. I think it is easier being older if you aren't heavy. When you're younger and stronger, you can be heavy and still do a lot of stuff. When you're older, the pounds just weigh more and people get immobile. So I'd rather be my weight and look too slim, even if my old aunts are pushing 90 are telling me I'm too thin, rather than to be a cousin or two that I have on the other side of the family that are kinda obese and can't walk up a small hill without risking cardiac arrest. I always wanted to weigh 170 as long as 25 pounds of it weren't just my gut hanging over my belt. Nothing sillier looking than a skinny man with big gut hanging out. But if I can't pack those 25 pounds on as muscle, I'd rather just let my body be slim, the way it wants to be. It's a little late to get it to change. BTW, there is a new study that indicates far higher mortality rates for strokes and heart attacks among thinner people than people with normal weight and even the obese. So being skinny can kill you in your sixties from a stroke or heart attack that people of regular weight and even obese people would survive. Or so the doctors are saying now. The folks on those electric carts at Walmart will probably outlive me and buzz around Walmart on their electric carts, shopping away for decades after I'm gone from a slim heart attack or a skinny stroke. But that's okay with me anyway. I've always cared a lot more about how well I lived than about how long I lived. Being old and sick and increasingly helpless has never been the main goal of my life. In fact, it sounds really awful and pitiable. Also, I find America has become like a foreign country, not the country I grew up in and felt more connected to. I don't want to live so long that I don't even recognize the country at all.
Had that when I was 17. If someone really wants to get thin (not you TC), just get a good dose of giardia. If you survive the first 48, and that's a big if, you can control it enough that weight loss becomes remarkably easy and even comfortable. I'm surprise some weight loss gurus haven't harnessed it yet.
People do say you can't be too rich or too thin. Well, they're wrong. You can be too thin to be healthy. I don't think I ever was but I never wanted to weigh less than I did, always wanted to be a little bigger, a little stronger. But I was pretty wiry and could dead-lift close to twice my weight (highest weight: 257 pounds lifted from a standing position, standing on one foot). Well, it was an unusual thing and that's why I remember it since I never lifted weights otherwise. I know because I was lifting something I received by freight from overseas and it had been weighed for shipment. I lifted one end of it and it weighed 514 pounds according to the scale ticket on the waybill. Lifting one end of it required an initial force of 257 pounds. I recall some other stuff, like hauling 100 pounds of salt, a 50 lb sack on each shoulder, and hiking it 300 or so yards to cross a creek on a tiny log and then carrying it another quarter-mile to the salt tubs. I was only a little winded by that. Sometimes when I unloaded salt, I would pick up 4 sacks at once but I thought 200 pounds was too much for my frame, considering you had to maneuver and stack them. I didn't want the back problems so many farmers get from doing stuff like that. As you probably would guess, I did come up with a lot of ways to use leverage to get things done. It's good to be real strong if you farm or ranch but it isn't required. You just have to be more creative about finding ways to do the same things without using brute physical strength. I knew plenty of farmers that weren't very big or musclebound. A handful were as slim as me, maybe more thin. I can think of a few that were my age that probably did weigh less than me. And I've seen women on farms that can get around quite a bit of heavy work if they know what they're doing.
There are no replies to Comment # 90. End Trace Mode for Comment # 90.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Gatlin, misterwhite (#1)
The officer tested the powder, and it tested positive for cocaine with two different kits …
#6. To: Tooconservative (#4)
to be so unaware of the properties of crystal cocaine and how it looks if exposed to moisture.
#8. To: misterwhite (#6)
It could have been wet/damp powdered cocaine.
#13. To: Tooconservative (#8)
He was trained. He has no excuse for being so ignorant.
#19. To: misterwhite (#13)
(Edited)
What's he supposed to do when the substance tests positive -- twice? Let the guy go because he's black?
#30. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#19)
AKA to whitey: Do you go down on cops?
#33. To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#30)
Not wanting to intrude here but I thought I'd pass along this ugly rumor.
#34. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#33)
(Edited)
Do you go down on cops?
Tooconservative to A K A Stone: I heard he does suck a few nightsticks. Not wanting to intrude here but I thought I'd pass along this ugly rumor.
Misterwhite to Tooconservative, A K A Stone
I say that you are absolutely correct on the defamation lawsuit if you cared to file one.
#35. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone, Tooconservative (#34)
I say that you are absolutely correct on the defamation lawsuit if you cared to file one.
#39. To: Deckard (#35)
(Edited)
Yeah good luck with that Parsons.
#41. To: Gatlin (#39)
Why are you appealing to a nonexistent ‘luck’ when it is God who directs the events of the world?
#43. To: watchman (#41)
I sometimes find myself saying "good luck" to the unbeliever...because that's about all they have...time and chance.
#44. To: Tooconservative (#43)
Isn't that just some variety of "Good luck on your little path to hell"?
#45. To: watchman (#44)
And, your feelings about the church's condition...is it anguish for something you love?
Now, you've told me the symptoms, but can you pinpoint the exact cause? (I can)
#46. To: Tooconservative (#45)
Let's hear it. Offhand, my guess is you'll offer a prophetic note, the church falling away from sound doctrine as the Second Coming becomes imminent and Christians face persecution before the appearance of the False Prophet and then the Antichrist. Itchy ears, rejecting sound teaching, the takeover over churches and government posts by those who will be the accusers of the brethren during the Tribulation.
#47. To: watchman (#46)
*He got the brains, I got the girls, then, he then got the mansion, I got the...drafty frame house in a cow pasture. Talk about rotten luck!
#49. To: Deckard (#47)
Some might say you got the better deal.
#50. To: watchman (#49)
(Edited)
Cattle. They are the measure of wealth in the Bible. That's why AOC and her ilk want to take them away from us (all the while themselves dining on good ole hambugrers)
#78. To: Tooconservative (#50)
Cattle. They are the measure of wealth in the Bible.
#80. To: watchman (#78)
Did you say you are 6 ft/145 lbs. Slender Man! So it's not a myth!
#81. To: Tooconservative (#80)
6 ft/145 lbs.
#84. To: watchman (#81)
(Edited)
Those are some enviable ratios.
#87. To: Tooconservative (#84)
(Edited)
I did weigh as little as 120 when I got mononucleosis
#90. To: watchman (#87)
Replies to Comment # 90.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]