LT2_3

I'm not sure Goodell will do anything until it's all resolved. There is still too much of a chance for this all to get settled out of court with the prosecutors dropping everything but the summary driving suspension for failing to blow, and Benson signing an agreement not to go after the actual cops that carried him from the boat to their car. As for Ginny, I don't see this as something she cares about. As for Honeybears, I've read that she saw married players leaving a Bears function arm in arm with the cheerleaders. That's a bit more than thinking they are unwholesome in appearance.

Okay dude. You list out all of the incidents in detail with dates for Robinson, Allen, and Stevens to establish a pattern over multiple years, and then I'll explain to you how their situations are completely different with this situation if you still need me to. I'd retract the "watching the Bears" thing pretty quickly too if I were you. Even though it looks bad now, I'd put at better than 50/50 that Benson is still with the team this year. He simply hasn't had the body of work of a Stevens, Allen, or Robinson in the legal area to have that happen. Most players get a second chance. Some even get 3rd and 4th chances. Benson is starting on his 2nd chance now. I'm not blindly supporting anyone. I would seriously like things to work out with the dum dum so we haven't actually wasted a 1st rounder completely, and the cap hit of a premature release won't mess up plans for signing other players. I want what's best for the Bears and IMHO that includes Benson pulling his head out of his rear end and playing well for the next two years.

That is wild speculation. It was my understanding that teams would be penalized draft picks for chronic repeat offenders of serious crimes. You know - Pacman and Henry type guys. I really don't think a couple of pending alcohol related charges and a speeding ticket are going to illicit any kind of penalty from the league. Granted we'll have to wait and see, but I really think this event doesn't get him released. It may get him put on double secret probation though.

I don't see Benson getting released for this. It's nothing like Tank's situation where he had weapons charges and a SWAT team at his house. The fact that he has the other charges still pending complicates the situation further. The Bears need to wait out the thing before making a decision. I think they had a bit of egg on their face after releasing Tank before everything was worked out and he ended up not even being charged.

Anyone else think it's odd that the newspaper had this story written and posted - complete with mug shot and a statement from a police spokesman - 13 minutes BEFORE he was even released on a Saturday morning? The article was posted on the Statesman web site at 8:47 and proclaimed his release in the past tense at around 9:00am. I don't know what really transpired obviously, but it seems that the Police were VERY anxious to get this out to the media ASAFP.

Okay dude. You've lost ALL of my respect. But that's irrelevant I'm sure. LT

Ok dude. He's said nothing of meaning before. Now, he's admitting that he needs to do things differently by either action, or the acceptance of coaching. I'm not guaranteeing that the change in attitude or approach means anything, I'm just saying that it's nothing we've seen before and are in uncharted waters. Different circumstances = perhaps different results. Things are different. That's all I'm saying.

Well, if we simply go by things from the past, I've never seen any indication that he was coached on what to say (or listened to said coaching). So, if he was willing to be coached on what to say and WAS coached, THAT shows that he reconizes that he needs to do things differently. If he came up with that on his own, then THAT shows that he reconizes that he needs to do things differently. I totally get the "doubting Thomas" approach, but geez, this is a sign of greater awareness no matter how you slice it.

I dunno. The recent year where we didn't use 3 and wasn't the year we went to the SB, Orton was the guy that didn't get injured. Orton seems pretty durable and I doubt he would get benched for one of the rookies due to poor play if Rex gets injured. I think 2 starters this year at most. Heck, last time we only used 2, we went 11-5 and had a home game in the playoffs.

That's what I think he's trying to say. What do you think he's trying to say? He's not particularly well spoken. The only thing I might have enhanced a bit was the part where he was talking about taking heat/ knew he had things that he needed to work on. That was shaded by him then commenting that it caused him to look in the mirror. That's implicit acknowlegement that he needs to improve in some areas. I think he's "literally" misunderstood most of the time.

I dunno. I liked what he had to say there in that quote. I interpret what he said as ....... "It means alot to have a coach that believes in me and is willing to say so. My first two years I really wasn't as involved as I would have liked to have been. I've made mistakes and need to learn from them. In fact, there are alot of things that I need to work on, but it's not overwhelming. We had a bad year last year that led to some finger-pointing but ended in a good place, with everyone, including me, looking in the mirror. There are three things I need to focus on to have a successful season: 1. I need to approach things in a new way, and just focus on the details of what I'm doing at the time. 2. I need to work on my interpersonal relationships and work to be a leader of this team. 3. I need to maintain intensity so that I'm giving 110% effort at everything I do." Take it for what it's worth, but I think that was a pretty insightful quote if you can translate the slang.

They've already offered him a $5 mil signing bonus, and extra mil per year for the remaining 4 years, and an extra year with a salary ranging somewhere between $7.5 and $9 million. This has never been about whether the team was willing to pay him more, it's really been about Urlacher wanting more and having it guaranteed. He says that he wants more money than what they're offereing, but I'd bet that he'd take the current offer if more of it was guaranteed in case he has to retire due to age/injuries.

I was more referring to the verbal/physical variety: Walk a straight line heel to toe - hard to do with a leg injury - a sprained ankle can cause failure when you're sober Say the alphabet backwards - Who can do that when at peak mental acuity? Automatic failure Close your eyes, tilt your head back, and touch your nose - a head cold can cause failure when sober Ambiguous directions can cause failure - Someone is told to count from 1 to 4 and back down to 1 four times. Does that mean counting 1234321234 or does it mean 123443211234? Also asking for clarification is an automatic failure. Some cops consider using your fingers to keep track how many times you've said it as failure too The thing is that a field sobriety test like that when you are pulled over in a car is more of a guide to determine whether a breathlyzer should be administered. This was somewhat valid back in the days when they didn't have portable ones in their cars. In the case of when boating, they can't really do the physical tests because a moving/floating boat throws off balance. As for the verbal ones, the cops can consider any hesitation in speech a failure and require further testing. It's not so hard to think that some cops in that situation would consider it a formality and plan to fail someone on any old flimsy reason so they can do further testing on shore. That got short circuited when Benson wanted to know why they wanted to do further testing when he was able to pass all the tests that they had given him. That's when they pepper sprayed him - from what I've read. When it comes to "resisting arrest", any time someone doesn't do exactly what the officer asks without question, it can technically be considered "resisting arrest". The problem is that for someone to be considered "resisting arrest" they actually have to be arrested for something for the "resisting" charge to be valid. So in this case, the point where Benson got pepper sprayed, there was no longer any question that he was going to be charged with something whether they actually thought he was drunk or not. They HAD to just to justfy their actions or else it's blatent police brutality. I personally think that the rest of the stuff that happened on the way to the squad car was an attempt to really piss Benson off so he would take a swing at them. I'm looking forward to hearing the audio tape. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if the prosecution try to enter a transcript of it in evidence instead of the actual tape so that interpretation could be far more subjective.

I did too at first, but when you put it in context with your questioning of why Benson was tested if there was someone else capable of driving the boat, and it makes me think about it twice. Field sobriety tests are notoriously subjective. I know a guy that failed a field sobreity test when asked to say the alphabet backwards. The funny part is that he hadn't been drinking.

It also seems odd that the officer asked if anyone else was okay to pilot the boat BEFORE they had the results of the sobreity test. It sounds like they had already decided what the results were going to be beforehand.

I was discussing your issue with a buddy that I hung out with back in my pre-21 days and we each recalled an incident from those days where we had deftly avoided any consequenses from encounters with the police during parties. In mine, I was 21 and was at my parents during the summer and they were on vacation. Most people there were over 21, but when the cops showed up, we moved everyone underage into the laundry room in the basement before I answered the door. I apologized for the noise and promised to shut down the DJ system for the night. They left and we kept the sound system at a much lower level and the cops never came back. Then my buddy recalled an incident the same summer at another buddy's house and said "Yeah man. It was like 5 days before my 21st birthday and I wasn't about to be jumping into closets at that point." I think they saw a bunch of people standing there with drinks in their hand and they figured we all had to be 21 and went away after asking us to turn down the music. We both were in agreement that we ALWAYS had a plan for what to do if the cops came. (even if we showed bad judgement and didn't follow the plan exactly within a week of our 21st birthday) We always had a designated door answerer that was over 21 or the person who's apartment it was would answer the door and step outside to talk to the cops, while everyone else poured all the open alcohol down the drain and hide the rest in closets so it's not in plain sight, rinsed the empties and put them in garbage bags. The theory was that there would be no evidence that anyone present drank anything there and the best they could do is charge all the under age folks with was underage consumption if they bothered to take them all downtown to give them breathylizers. Of course, only living 20 miles from Wisconsin where the drinking age was 18 gave everyone a possible out by claiming that they drank there and then came to this party. In any event, we always had a plan. It just amazes me that you and your friends didn't have a plan for what to do if they showed up. Although I DO have to admit that it sounds like these cops probably entered with the attitude like they had a right to. I think that our own personal experiences have shaded our opinions about this Benson incident. I've been screwed over by the cops and got out of it. I learned that the cops aren't always right. You got screwed by the cops and really got screwed. You perhaps learned that you can never be too careful? I'm seriously glad you got through your probation without further incident. Another BS charge could've really effed up your life. Hey nfo! Is that close enough to a personal attack?

Bear Trap - you did get screwed. I'm glad you came through it with no further issue.

1. Don't know 2. Why even ask that? There is nobody in the front office or on the coaching staff from way back then. 3. I don't think the oline will be as bad unless there are injuries.

Absolutely and thank you. For those unfamiliar with the drinking game "Hi Bob", here's a description: http://www.webtender.com/handbook/games/hibob.game Anyone else over 21 still have any drinking games that they like to partake in?

Thanks Nfo. That's what I'm on about. What do they teach kids in college these days that they don't know that they have the right to refuse entry to the police? Heck, I learned that in HS while throwing parties when my parents were out of town.

I live in Illinois. I was living in Rolling Meadows when a cop asked me to open the door, I refused, and they left me a $50 ticket stuck to my door for "failing to obey a police officer". OOOooooooo huge penalty for not opening the door for the cops. I could have beaten it, but it would have cost me more than $50 to hire an attorney for the occasion. I did consult an attorney and he guessed that the cop was hoping that I wouldn't pay it so they could get a warrant issued for my arrest. I was in the parking lot of a night club in Hoffman Estates, when a cop saw green leafy material through the window of a parked car and thought he had "probable cause" only to have the judge toss the whole thing out because the cop had no way of determining that it wasn't tobacco. In other words, if there is another possible explanation, they only have "possible cause" and they don't have the right to trample your civil rights because they THINK something might be going on. Standing up for your rights against illegal search and seizure may look suspicious to the cops, but that doesn't give them the right to enter your house without a warrant. That's like worrying that a cop thinks you're guilty of something just because you refuse to talk to them without an attorney present. If they want to stake out your place all night and wait for people to leave, you just have to wait them out and have no one leave until they are completely sober. Trust me. They will get bored and leave after a few hours. For the record, I have friends that are cops. I am not biased against all of them. Then again, they admit that most people don't understand their rights as well as I do unless they are an attorney, and the police take advantage of that. You are a prime example. You think that you have to do whatever a cop says just because they are cops and obviously have no clue as to what rights you already have. A few end comments: * - It cracks me up that you think that people over 21 don't play drinking games. I'm 41 and still enjoy a good game of "Hi Bob" * - I ask about the education thing because as of the early 80s when I went to High School, all seniors had to pass a "Constitution test" just to graduate from HS. I am personally amazed that so few people understand the Bill of Rights if this requirement is still intact. * - Where DO you live? You've never answered the question. * - Thanks for the kind words about my cap analysis.

No. They had every right to question him under the guise of a safety inspection. That is entirely independent of whether he was drinking or whether they saw open containers on the boat - which in Texas btw is not illegal. Okay, so what did they hear that your buddies say that implied that they were underage? It's not against the law for you to have people over 21 over and let them drink. What was their probable cause for thinking that the people drinking in there were underage as opposed to over 21? If everyone was possibly over 21, what reason did they have for coming into the place in the first place? Because the music was loud? Didn't you turn it down immediately upon request? You don't have to open the door to say: "Sorry. Won't happen again" Either there is alot more to this than you are saying, or you would've been fine by shutting off the music, shutting everyone else up, and not answering the door. They may have had "probable cause" to talk to you, but there is a HUGE threshold when it comes to them entering a domicile by force. No judge is going to grant them a warrant to go in just because the music was too loud earlier in the evening. If you live in the USA, that is a direct violation of the Bill Of Rights. I really don't think you understand the term "probable cause". It varies by the situation. If the cops have a report of someone screaming in terror, they have "probable cause" that someone is in danger and can enter a domicile by force to save them. If thye have a report of loud music and/or hear it themselves, they can ask for it to be turned down, but cannot enter by force. A judge would laugh at them for asking for a warrant for asking to enter by force for loud music that has already subsided. I've also been in a situation where cops felt they had "probable cause", I disagreed, and they ended up beating the crap out of me and a buddy because we were "resisting arrest". It went to court, and it all got tossed because the judge didn't agree with their interpretation of "probable cause". So, when I talk about "probable cause" I'm not talking about the police interpretation of the term, but what is likely to hold up in court. So in your case, they may have had "probable cause" to question you, they didn't have anything that would rise to the point of violating the Constitution - ie entering your domicile by force without a warrant that wouldn't be granted on such flimsy sh!t. Where do you live again? I'm just curious where the educational system is so bad that you don't even understand the Bill Of Rights.

I agree that the cops had every right to question him. However, from everything I've read about boating law in Texas, he wasn't considered "driving the boat" because the engine was off and the boat was free floating at the time. The equivalent thing in a car would be that the car is parked legally in a place where it's legal to drink in your car and the keys weren't in the ignition. The cops could talk to the guy, but they would have no reason to give him a sobreity test because he wasn't driving at the time. Oh, and I'd still like to know where you lived that a landlord gives keys to his apartments to cops for any old reason.

Where do you live that a noise complaint is probable cause to enter a home? Being loud is a fine at most just about anywhere. This is where we disagree. If he wasn't navigating the boat at the time, it would be like a cop walking into a bar and asking who drove the black BMW to the bar and taking them outside for a sobreity test even though he would have had the choice to either not drive home himself or wait until he was sober. There are alot of details that we don't know that would clarify this, but as I understand the situation, the was no probable cause to support the investigation. You are being incredibly unclear here. An open container is probable cause for what? My point about probable cause is that there is no probable cause to think that Benson was planning on driving the boat impaired and he wasn't driving the boat at the time. OK, first off, I have never heard of a landlord giving keys to the police so I don't know where this "common knowledge" comes from. Secondly, if your apartment or duplex does not have a chain bolt, you should install one. At that point, even if the Police have keys, they can't enter the premises without being invited or have a warrant. In a similar situation, I once had a noise complaint where a cop came and wanted me to open the door. I refused and spoke to him through a window. He got all pissed off and ranted and raved and went back to his car to radio HQ to find out what to do. He ended up leaving me a $50 ticket stuck to my door for failure to comply with a police officer. I paid the fine and never had another problem. If the door is chain bolted, they would still need a warrant to enter the premises if the only thing they had for probable cause was a noise complaint. This does make me wonder further where the heck you live. The bottom line is that the Police can't enter someone's home forcibly without a warrant or probable cause that someone is in imminent danger of serious bodily harm. It's called unreasonable search and seizure and it's in the Constitution. The thing that screwed you was that you didn't have a lock that the landlord couldn't give them a key for. That's on you for not knowing any better in the first place. My point is that he wasn't driving the boat at the time so they had nothing to charge him with even if he was drunk.

100% agreement. The only way someone could possibly maintain that Benson put himself in a bad situation is to suggest that he had a designated captain whether he was drinking or not. And even THAT'S a stretch. That's why I'm looking forward to a transcript of the audio. I want to know if the - uh - officers asked who's driving the boat, or whether they asked who owns the boat. It's a key element in determining if they had any possible probable cause to put Benson in a position to "resist arrest" in the first place. Even if they asked who's driving the boat, Benson said HE was, and they wanted to test Benson for being drunk, that's similar to walking into a bar, asking who drove a particular car in the parking lot, and then testing him for being drunk even though he's not driving the car at the time.