Broncos LB Von Miller under criminal investigation

[INbengalfan]

11 minutes ago, DontTazeMeBro said:

Isn’t he into farming? Maybe he’s growing something illegal. Or maybe his work force is illegal. Or maybe he’s using the farm to launder money for the Yakuza. Or maybe he’s letting smugglers land planes on his farm. Or maybe he’s feeding something illegal to his chickens. 

His college freshman roommate was a guy named Bale Betteger, who ended up shot in the face in New Mexico.  Cops got nothing, so let's look into his celebrity college roommate...

[Broncofan]

Take it FWIW...

 

[G]

5 hours ago, DutchFalcon said:

 so be wary of any man who keeps a chicken farm. 

I've got quite a few chickens too. Some of them are lap chickens and what they don't eat, I've got a tractor for the rest of the mess. 

[Hunter2_1]

12 hours ago, DutchFalcon said:

quarterback

• Brick Top : You're always gonna have problems lifting a quarterback in one piece. Apparently the best thing to do is cut up a quarterback into six pieces and pile it all together.

  Sol : Would someone mind telling me, who are you?

  Brick Top : And when you got your six pieces, you gotta get rid of them, because it's no good leaving it in the deep freeze for your mum to discover, now is it? Then I hear the best thing to do is feed them to chickens. You got to starve the chickens for a few days, then the sight of a chopped-up quarterback will look like curry to a pisshead. You gotta shave the heads of your victims, and pull the teeth out for the sake of the chickens' digestion. You could do this afterwards, of course, but you don't want to go sievin' through chicken doo-doo, now do you? They will go through bone like butter. You need at least sixteen chickens to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a chicken farm. They will go through a quarterback that weighs 200 pounds in about eight minutes. That means that a single chicken can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, "as greedy as a chicken".

  Vinny : Well, thank you for that. That's a great weight off me mind. Now, if you wouldn't mind telling me who the **** you are, apart from someone who feeds quarterback to chickens of course?

Do you know what Nemesis means?

[BroncosFan2010]

IDK why athletess get into relationships with career strippers. Like, not run of the mill strippers but 'I am going to do this job as a way to get social media exposure, become quasi famous and latch onto someone famous' strippers. 

Not going to speculate on what happened, but the above remains true regardless. It boggles my mind. 

[Superman(DH23)]

On 1/15/2021 at 2:20 PM, JAF-N72EX said:

Do you really think the PD would launch an investigation over verbal abuse? 

As been said, we don't know anything yet so let's not jump to conclusions. This could be nothing or it could be something. Who knows.

There is no such thing as verbal abuse (legally speaking).  Now if you threaten violence against somebody that is an assault.  But saying mean things to somebody else is protected by the 1st ammendment still.

[ET80]

19 hours ago, DutchFalcon said:

quarterback

• Brick Top : You're always gonna have problems lifting a quarterback in one piece. Apparently the best thing to do is cut up a quarterback into six pieces and pile it all together.

  Sol : Would someone mind telling me, who are you?

  Brick Top : And when you got your six pieces, you gotta get rid of them, because it's no good leaving it in the deep freeze for your mum to discover, now is it? Then I hear the best thing to do is feed them to chickens. You got to starve the chickens for a few days, then the sight of a chopped-up quarterback will look like curry to a pisshead. You gotta shave the heads of your victims, and pull the teeth out for the sake of the chickens' digestion. You could do this afterwards, of course, but you don't want to go sievin' through chicken doo-doo, now do you? They will go through bone like butter. You need at least sixteen chickens to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a chicken farm. They will go through a quarterback that weighs 200 pounds in about eight minutes. That means that a single chicken can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, "as greedy as a chicken".

  Vinny : Well, thank you for that. That's a great weight off me mind. Now, if you wouldn't mind telling me who the **** you are, apart from someone who feeds quarterback to chickens of course?

Errol: Ah. Tyrone. You stupid fat bastard

[Superman(DH23)]

20 hours ago, RamblinMan99 said:

Can't imagine a guy like him in the middle of a criminal investigation.  

I mean, he raises chickens.  

I understand that if any more words come pouring out your mouth, I'm gonna have to eat every chicken in this room.

[Daniel]

19 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

There is no such thing as verbal abuse (legally speaking).  Now if you threaten violence against somebody that is an assault.  But saying mean things to somebody else is protected by the 1st ammendment still.

Maybe not in your state.

But all that Tennessee (and most MPC states, I assumed) requires for an assault is to put another person in fear.  I've seen plenty of verbal assault charges that did not include any threats.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Daniel

[Superman(DH23)]

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Maybe not in your state.

But all that Tennessee (and most MPC states, I assumed) requires for an assault is to put another person in fear.  I've seen plenty of verbal assault charges that did not include any threats.

This isnt a state issue.  Free speech is protected by the constitution, you know the first ammendment.  "Putting somebody in fear" is not the established test.  So if a state is actually trying to prosecute using that as the standard, it would never stand to court scrutiny.  The test is "a reasonable belief of threat to person or persons".  So again, simply saying mean things is not enough to establish assault.  That does not mean that you have to specifically say "I'm going to punch you" or the like, just that what you say has to be a reasonable threat of violence, such as "you better watch your back".  Its one of the reasons stalking is an incredibly tough charge to prosecute.  What usually must occur is a no contact order, then you prosecute violation of the no contact order.

[Daniel]

6 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

This isnt a state issue.  Free speech is protected by the constitution, you know the first ammendment.  "Putting somebody in fear" is not the established test.  So if a state is actually trying to prosecute using that as the standard, it would never stand to court scrutiny.  The test is "a reasonable belief of threat to person or persons".  So again, simply saying mean things is not enough to establish assault.  That does not mean that you have to specifically say "I'm going to punch you" or the like, just that what you say has to be a reasonable threat of violence, such as "you better watch your back".  Its one of the reasons stalking is an incredibly tough charge to prosecute.  What usually must occur is a no contact order, then you prosecute violation of the no contact order.

That's not true.  It is a charge.  I represent two people for that exact thing right now.  Threats can be perceived, they don't have to be explicit.  And there are a ton of categories of speech that aren't protected by the first amendment.

[Superman(DH23)]

11 minutes ago, Daniel said:

That's not true.  It is a charge.  I represent two people for that exact thing right now.  Threats can be perceived, they don't have to be explicit.  And there are a ton of categories of speech that aren't protected by the first amendment.

Actually there aren't. Speech is protected at nearly all times (in terms of prosecution).  There are very few exceptions.  Threats of violence is obviously one.  And the supreme court has established the test.  Granted the test could be changed, but that's very unlikely to happen.  And I'm not saying it has to be an explicit threat of violence, I'm saying that the supreme court has established the test there must be a "reasonable belief of a threat to do harm".  I can say to you "I hope a piano falls on your head" and there is no reasonable belief that I have intent to do harm to you.  That is protected speech.  But if I say, "I'm going to be waiting for you after work", that could be a reasonable threat of violence.  I havent said explicitly that I was going to do anything.  But if you and I are going back and forth in an arguement, it's reasonable to assume that I'm expressing bad intentions.  In the specific case that was being brought up, "I hope you have a miscarriage."  There is no reasonable belief that Von intends harm.  Its protected speech.  

[BigTrav]

On 1/16/2021 at 4:07 PM, BroncosFan2010 said:

IDK why athletess get into relationships with career strippers. Like, not run of the mill strippers but 'I am going to do this job as a way to get social media exposure, become quasi famous and latch onto someone famous' strippers. 

Not going to speculate on what happened, but the above remains true regardless. It boggles my mind. 

Same reason they get flash cars and expensive watches? Trophy girl completes the set.

[Soko]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

Maybe not in your state.

But all that Tennessee (and most MPC states, I assumed) requires for an assault is to put another person in fear.  I've seen plenty of verbal assault charges that did not include any threats.

I’m glad I don’t work anywhere that goes off this, we’d be even busier than we already are...

On topic, doubt anything legal comes out of this (based on what little we know at this time). NFL suspension potentially on optics alone, very likely an end to his days in Denver, and a sour way to make the news in the (I assume) waning days of his career. 

[kramxel]

22 hours ago, ET80 said:

Errol: Ah. Tyrone. You stupid fat bastard

How far to the russian's?