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:40127 Comments:348
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 wasnt 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.
The officer tested the powder, and it tested positive for cocaine with two different kits
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.
to be so unaware of the properties of crystal cocaine and how it looks if exposed to moisture.
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?"
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?
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.
Not wanting to intrude here but I thought I'd pass along this ugly rumor.
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.
#34. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#33)(Edited)
A K A Stone to misterwhite:
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.
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.
Misterwhite to Tooconservative, A K A Stone
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 absolutely correct on the defamation lawsuit if you cared to file one.
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 know, this seems petty, but hear me out. Good luck is not a religious or emotional statement in any way. Its 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, its 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 dont work to affect them, leaving us in the passenger seat of our lives.
Second, good luck implies, to the person youre saying it to, that they need luck to succeed. Instead of encouraging or helping them, youre wishing for the world to conspire in their favor. If you had a friend who was about to compete in a contest, you wouldnt 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, its 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, its a meaningless statement because it acknowledges there is no way for you to affect this luck. Either way, youre 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.
Youll do great. Instead of merely wishing positive things, this communicates confidence in who youre talking to. Give a dog a good name, and hell live up to it.
I believe in you. While youll do great communicates confidence and assurance, I believe in you communicates personal faith. Knowing that someone else personally believes in you is an incredibly reassuring feeling.
Best wishes. If youre looking for something formal to go in an email, this is a good alternative. Best wishes is polite and appropriately formal for email sign- offs or meetings.
Fingers crossed. This is more of a casual alternative to Best wishes.
Hope it goes well. If you want to stick with the traditional meaning of I want the best, you can stick with saying hope (whatever it is) goes well. You can also say Wish you well.
Dont fuck it up. If youve got an asshole streak and a charming disposition, this is definitely the funniest option.
Why are you appealing to a nonexistent luck when it is God who directs the events of the world?
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.
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.
Now, you've told me the symptoms, but can you pinpoint the exact cause? (I can)
I can tell you why the Church has mostly died in Europe, and is rapidly fading in North America, and starting its descent in Latin America too.
But being that I'm Catholic, all past experience has taught me that we have to re-fight the Reformation to even get to the beginning of the conversation, and that all such re-fights (which happen a million times a year all over the world) never result in getting to the beginning of the conversation. (Which is one of the reasons why the Church continues to die at an accelerating clip.)
Truth is, Christians would rather that the Church die and not exist in two or three generations, then compromise on anything, let alone admit they are wrong. Therefore, the Church is almost dead in Europe, is dying in North America, and has begun to die in Latin America.
My only reason for writing this at all is that I guess I still hold a small spark of hope that Christians can behave like the Germans and French have managed to do. But I really just expect the Church to die, because I don't think the good will truly exists to save it.
But being that I'm Catholic, all past experience has taught me that we have to re-fight the Reformation to even get to the beginning of the conversation, and that all such re-fights (which happen a million times a year all over the world) never result in getting to the beginning of the conversation. (Which is one of the reasons why the Church continues to die at an accelerating clip.)
Agreed. Sometimes the best way to move forward and actually agree amicably is not to debate at all. Just try to draw closer, recognize common interests.
It's a disgrace how the ancient Christian churches in the Mideast have met such horrible persecution as we have meddled there and invaded. I can't understand why people are so indifferent to them.
Truth is, Christians would rather that the Church die and not exist in two or three generations, then compromise on anything, let alone admit they are wrong. Therefore, the Church is almost dead in Europe, is dying in North America, and has begun to die in Latin America.
Your remark brings to mind something I thought about recently about Judaism. As we all know, Jews have been saying "Next year in Jerusalem", especially in the Diaspora outside Israel itself. So they've dreamed of Jerusalem all these years but they don't move there and many of them won't even visit Israel or just prefer other destinations. So they've had 70 years to get with the program and just move to Jerusalem. Yet every year, they keep repeating "Next year in Jerusalem". I know you can see the humor.
So I considered what might happen if, say, a bolt of lighting came out of the sky and obliterated the mosque on Temple Mount and scare the Muslims so much that they didn't even want to rebuild it.
And Israel could then build the Third Temple. What I wondered was how many Jews would leave Judaism is they actually had to practice the animal sacrifices demanded in the Old Testament. Would they summon the priestly family, prepare the purification rituals, slaughter the animals, then sell the carcasses in the local market afterward? Or would modern Jews just be so horrified at the thought of handing an animal to a priest to slaughter it to expiate their sins in a blood sacrifice?
I think many of the two most liberal Jewish denominations would just quit Judaism completely. These people are already intermarrying their temples out of existence, no matter what the rabbis do. I think many modern Orthodox Jews, like Ben Shapiro, would also try to find some way not to observe animal sacrifice in a Third Temple.
I think some Orthodox Jews might support the Temple sacrifices. But not all. And some Orthodox Jews don't think that the Israel established in 1947 is the real Israel of which scripture speaks, that it is a fake.
I do wonder just how many Jews in the modern era really want to expiate their sins by handing an unblemished lamb to a priest to have its throat cut at the Third Temple. That's a lot more graphic than just reciting Next Year In Jerusalem every year.
If they did build the Third Temple and started sacrificing, can you even picture the heads exploding over at PETA HQ? You could sell tickets on PPV for a confrontation like that.
Anyway, Jews do give lip service to rebuilding the Temple. And certainly lots of Christian prophecy books describe it as coinciding with the False Prophet, the forerunner of the Antichrist. And the Antichrist will then commit the abomination of desolation (idolatry) in that new Temple. But when you get right down to it, do Jews or even Christians want to see animal sacrifice on altars in the Mideast? I think most of them would hate the idea.
The truth about rebuilding the Temple is that it will end up just being the sin of I of Israel if they do it.
You may remember that when Je of I of Israel if they do it.
You may remember that when Jeroboam split off the North Kingdom (Israel) from Ju Judah during the reign of Rehoboam (son of Solomon), that he immediately began to to worry that the fact that the Temple and altar was in Jeru to to worry that the fact that the Temple and altar was in Jerusalem would in inevitably drag Israel back into unity with Judah because of the religious ti tie. Every year, the inhabitants of Israel would have to make three pi pilgrimages into Judah. So Jeroboam built altars in the North and commissioned a a priesthood to perform the sacrifices on those altars ( a a priesthood to perform the sacrifices on those altars (frequently translated as as "high places" in the English).
And you may recall that God sent prophet after prophet to Israel, warning them that the "High Places" were an abomination, because God had ordained ONE altar for Israel, and the ONLY priests who could sacrifice upon it were those directly descended from Aaron. That bloodline, and that bloodline ONLY, was authorized to perform the sacrifices. Anybody else who did was was in fact performi performing a blasphemous act. Thus, the " performi performing a blasphemous act. Thus, the "priests" of the North were an abominat abomination, even though they were following the same rites and rituals.
Now recall two things that Jesus said: First, that not a letter of the law could could change until the end of the world. could could change until the end of the world. The Law was for the Israelites at Sinai Sinai and their lineal descendants in I Sinai Sinai and their lineal descendants in Israel, and nobody else. People have tried tried to write the Christians into tha tried tried to write the Christians into that law, but that defies Jesus who said NO change changes until the end of the world. change changes until the end of the world.
Second, recall that Jesus said that the Temple would be destroyed in that gene generation, and it WAS, in 69 AD, by Titus and the Roman Army.
Reading Josephus, we discover the dramatic scene during the conquest of Je Jerusalem in which the priests, barricaded into the Temple, sought to surrender to to the Romans, but Titus refused t to to the Romans, but Titus refused their surrender, stating that THEY had been th the source of the rebellion and all of the bloodshed, and ordering that they be ex executed to a man. When God sen ex executed to a man. When God sent the Roman Army to destroy the Temple, the pr priesthood was destroyed with it.
So, if you built a new Temple, you will have erected an altar, a high place, but where are you going to get the Aaronic priests? They all died in 69 AD. It is IMPOSSIBLE to find anybody who is their descendant. Oh sure, there are LEGENDS of this and that, but that's all they are, popular legends. Note again that ONLY the Aaronic priest can perform the sacrifices, that for anybody ELSE to do it - even meaning well (as the priests of Israel did) - is an abomination befo before God. Note tha befo before God. Note that God left no wiggle room: the law cannot be changed even by a by a letter until th by a by a letter until the end of the world.
God intended exactly this result. Sure, you can build an altar where the Te Temple used to be, but if you revive the sacrifices, you're doing no different th than the Northern th than the Northern Kingdom did: you are creating a false priesthood to perform ab abominations on a high place. There is absolutely no way to determine whether AN ANY Aaronic prie AN ANY Aaronic priests survived the fall of Rome, and no possible way to choose pr priests that descended from Aaron.
Oh, sure, the Jews who spent the money and effort to rebuild the Temple would CLAIM that the Cohanite genetic marker is "proof" of Aaronic descent, but th that's just wishful thinking.
Truth is, Jesus said that the Law could not change and gave a New Covenant for individuals only, different, new wine in a new bottle. He also predicted the destruction of the Temple. And God made that happen, shattering the old wine in the old bottle and removing from the earth the possibility of fulfilling the terms of the Hebrew Covenant. Because it can't be changed, it CAN'T be revived, even if you rebuild the temple. At best, all you can do is recreate the sin of the Northern Kingdom, carrying out sacrifices on an altar with politically-selected non-priestly hands, and that never has and never will ple please the God of Israel.
So nope, the old rites can never be restarted, not unless God himself reveals a an Aaronic heir.
According to the Bible, Israel will revive the sacrifices.
That it doesn't please God, well, they just can't see that right now.
According to the Bible, Israel CANNOT revive the sacrifices unless they have an Aaronic priesthood, which they CANNOT reconstitute, so absent a revelation from God of a new Aaronic priesthood, the sacrifices cannot ever be rightly resumed.
Sanhedrin have no more power to make new priests than Jeroboam, king of Israel, did.
Israel has some of the most extensive DNA tracing research programs around.
They might be able to find an Aaronic family unless you assume that no ancient priest ever slept around when they got a chance. Or they could do enough to insist that they had located such a priestly descendant. Even if there were detractors, any scandal would die down in 20 years or less once the Temple was there.
You might still be disputing whether he was a real Aaronic priest but they wouldn't care a bit what some Gentile thought.
I have no doubt whatever that what you have said, DNA-wise, is exactly what those who are hellbent on setting up a new temple will do.
I also know, that we have no way of knowing who is a descendant of Aaron.
You're right, nobody cares what a Gentile thinks.
What matters is what God thinks.
If they push ahead and get it wrong, God will smite them - and they still won't get it. Religious nuts never seem to.
For my part, it's perfectly clear that there is nothing in the Old Testament for me after the laws given by God to Noah and his family after the Flood. After that, it's all the story of Abraham and his descendants, which I am not.
I know that the early Christian Jews - notably James, John and Paul - were very much into their "Jewishness" and worked very hard to synthesize the two convenants, because they just couldn't believe that the Old had nothing to do with life after death - they were very impressed with their Jewishness.
But they end up contradicting Jesus on several points, so they can't be taken seriously in those places where they depart from what the Son of God said.