Cory Rodgers Arrested.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Refusing to sign autographs and buy drinks at the bar starts brawl.

The Packers 4th round pick has not signed a contract and does not have the money idiots think he has.

http://www.nbc5i.com/sports/9280384/detail.html

 

[tromadz]

that doesnt sound like his fault at all. "buy me a drink with money you don't have or we'll beat your *** with pool sticks."

what kinda stupid **** is that?

He shouldnt be having a gun like that though, but its not like he shot at anyone(however those bullets DO have to come down and could hit someone)

I hope that works out.

 

[IPBprez]

I gotta ask.....

THESE WERE CHEESEHEADS?

Damn sure, NOT where I come from!

Although I do know some packer fans who worry more about who they're seen hangin' with, than they are being real Packer fans... real sad to see, too!

If you're more worried about the appearance that someone else was born with, than you are about hangin' with other Cheeseheads... U got issues!

It's always been my deduction that Wisconsin Hospitality was all about being Cheesheads "together" ... no matter what....!

Hence, the Motto I created for our IPB Club.......

That crap is pure idiocy and total nonsense - they are NOT Packer fans......

(Edit, after the fact - DOH)

Okay this is in Texas -- that says it all - probably all Dallas Cowboy fans, to boot...

The other three arrested were disabled with Taser guns before being arrested.

Serves 'em right -- shoulda done it twice, like they do on Stargate!

 

[calicheesehead]

Why are you at a bar, with a gun, while you're trying to stay in shape after just being drafted in to the NFL? Box of hammers IMO.

 

[IPBprez]

Why are you at a bar, with a gun, while you're trying to stay in shape after just being drafted in to the NFL? Box of hammers IMO.

Depends on the location of the Bar, dude! BIGtime.....

'sides, he was hangin' with his buds from College, probably for one last hoo-ha!

Those other three need to have the book thown at 'em....!
Smells a lot like Detroit and the incident against the Pacer's Players.

 

[C-Mize]

So much for drafting for character....

 

[DePack]

Damnit!! This was the return man we've been looking for. There are waaaaaayyyyyy too many guns on the streets. He must be a real idiot to fire it off knowing cops are around.


I wish they had video of the 3 guys being tazered.........I must be sick...I can watch that stuff all night long. Nothing funnier than a drunk being tazered.

 

[tromadz]

well we have blackmon and jennings and lucas to do return work

as well as carroll(who didnt do too bad as a returner, we know he can HOLD on to the ball!)

But my personal pick for our KR is NAJEH DAVENPORT! He has done it before, and he is like a bowling ball! The first guy he makes contact with always gets destroyed and it is hilarious!

 

[packers34]

thats it cut him, thats all the packers need now is a gun wielding idiot, to get arrested, before he even makes the team. showes how much of a person you are if your not smart enough to know not to carry let alone shot of a gun in a populated area.

 

[tromadz]

lol, lets wait until he sees a judge before we cut him.

For all we know he could have been defending his life. They could have attacked him for not signing autographs and buying rounds. These attackers WERE gangbangers, you know. They werent a couple of lawyers stopping to get a drink after a long day, they were THUGS.

While I definitely agree that having a gun and shooting it off is dumb 99% of the time...lets just wait and see what happened, and what WILL happen to Rodgers in court.

 

[Raider Pride]

Perhaps the NFL needs to move the date up for the NFL Rookie Symposium to the first Thursday after draft day.

It is so sad, that so many kids, in so many miscellaneous and varied ways attempt to commit friend related professional suicide right after they hit the home run and get drafted.

Now I do not know of course what happened here, but you are whom you hang with, and that is and always will remain a fact. The one thing the NFL Rookie Symposium will drill into these kids is to cut ties if the ties are not in the best interest of representing the NFL and heretofore the young fans that look up to NFL Players.

Sadly, too many players want to go back to the same haunting grounds they grew up in to say…. “Look what I have done.â€

 

[Bruce]

Just as when Carroll was arrested, I think it is important to slow down and wait for the story to unfold before jumping to conclusions -- one way or the other. Being arrested is not the same as being convicted.

BTW I agree Raider, the NFL needs to work with these kids the moment they are drafted. In this multi-billion dollar industry they certainly can afford this wise investment.

 

[Buckeyepackfan]

This is where veteran leadership needs to come in to the picture.
When he gets back to camp someone needs to grab a hold of him and set him straight on how to handle himself in public.
I remember Tyrone Williams getting into some gang related trouble when he was a rookie and some of the veterans taking him under their wing and help get his head on straight.
Hanging out with your College teamates, going to a bar is not that uncommon, but what was Rogers thinking when he fired off a gun in public?
Someone needs to get ahold of him in camp and get across to him that he is in the NFL now, things are different.

 

[CaliforniaCheez]

Well the way it is reported it was the gang members attempting to extort purchases of liquor and have him sign blank documents. The gang of extortionists threatened to use pool cues in a club-like fashion. It was three of them that were so uncivilized in the presence of police that they had to be restrained through the use of a taser.

Certainly the discharge of warning shots against those threatening to do you great bodily harm is a justifiable defense to any charges. He certainly was attempting to prevent greater crimes and continued criminal activity.

His judgement in the selection of a place to socialize with his former teammates is questionable.

These street gang criminals hopefully will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Once again the use of a gun prevents harm to lawful citizens.
Once again the police resolve a situation with a taser instead of killing these crimminals.

Is it any wonder why there are gated communities??

 

[4packgirl]

great post, calicheez!! btw - doesn't EVERYBODY in texas carry a gun...not that there's anything RIGHT with that!! :wink:

 

[cheesey]

Well the way it is reported it was the gang members attempting to extort purchases of liquor and have him sign blank documents. The gang of extortionists threatened to use pool cues in a club-like fashion. It was three of them that were so uncivilized in the presence of police that they had to be restrained through the use of a taser.

Certainly the discharge of warning shots against those threatening to do you great bodily harm is a justifiable defense to any charges. He certainly was attempting to prevent greater crimes and continued criminal activity.

His judgement in the selection of a place to socialize with his former teammates is questionable.

These street gang criminals hopefully will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Once again the use of a gun prevents harm to lawful citizens.
Once again the police resolve a situation with a taser instead of killing these crimminals.

Is it any wonder why there are gated communities??

If i could legally, i would carry a gun. It's not ME you have to worry about. It's the THUGS that are criminals you need to worry about. Like Cali says here, "Once again the use of a gun prevents harm to lawful citizens." Now.....he should NOT have shot off into the air with it, thats dangerous. But he didn't shoot anyone.
Criminals LOVE unarmed victims. Some people seem to think "all we have to do is make more anti gun laws, and it will lower crime." My answer to that is.......arn't there ALREADY laws that say it's against the law to use a gun to commit a crime? Yup, there are THOUSANDS of such laws already! Then WHY are these crimes committed daily? Because CRIMINALS already HAVE no reguard for the law. So you think more LAWS are going to affect them? Nope. The ONLY ones affected by gun control laws are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. As the old saying goes, and it's STILL true....."When you outlaw guns, only OUTLAWS will have guns!"
What we need to do to REALLY lower crime, is SERIOUS enforcement against these scumbags when they use a gun to commit a crime. NO plea bargan, they do SERIOUS hard time. If they are locked up, they can't re-commit crimes, right? The only way is to get these punks OFF the street, to make law abiding people like us SAFE again.

 

[SuperRat]

Saying that law abiding citizens should be able to carry around handguns, and that will prevent crime, is very questionable. If somebody is trying to commit a crime against you and you pull out a gun, yeah they might back off and it might save you, but it is much more likely that if they have a gun also that you will get shot and more violence will occur. More access to handguns will also result in more gun accidents. I'm not positive about this, but I think I recall England having much less gun crime than the U.S because of their very strict gun laws.

 

[cheesey]

Actually, it's the opposite. Australia is a perfect example. They took away ALL guns from law abiding citizens, and violent crime went through the roof. The criminals STILL had their guns. You think a "gun law" will make criminals say "Oh MY! They have stricter gun laws. I'm gonna go RIGHT now and turn in my gun." Nope.....it won't happen.
If, as in your posting, you say "If somebody is trying to commit a crime against you and you pull out a gun, yeah they might back off and it might save you, but it is much more likely that if they have a gun also that you will get shot and more violence will occur." All that gun needs to do is save my life, or my loved one's life ONCE, and i'd say it was worth it, don't you agree?
Here's the kicker........the bad guy ALREADY has his gun! You think you being unarmed is going to cause HIM to not be armed? Most of these punks are cowards, and will run if confronted with resistence, with a gun in THEIR face. They get their "courage" with their weapon. What would have happened at the Columbine massacre if one or two of the teachers in the school had been legally armed? MAYBE they could have stopped those punks BEFORE innocent children and adults were wounded or killed. Trust me........i DON'T want to shoot anyone, and i hope i never have to. But if someone breaks into MY home and threatens MY loved ones, THEY will be sorry they did. I have owned guns since i was 16. I have YET to commit a crime with one. And neither has ANY of the "gun toting" people in my family. Why do you think Police carry guns? They HOPE they never need them, but if they DO, they want to have instant access to one, for self defense, or the defense of innocent people. Again......the laws affect ONLY law abiding citizens, NOT the punks!
There are right to carry laws all around this country, and it HAS lowered violent crimes where good people were allowed to defend themselves. And where these laws were passed, people had to be trained to properly know HOW to use a gun, so it wasn't just handing people guns to go off shooting like in the old west. Unlike the scum that buys a black market gun for $50 and thinks that makes him a man. And the bad guys will ALWAYS have weapons.
If someone uses a baseball bat to rob a store, and beat the store clerk, should we outlaw baseball bats because SOMEONE might miss use them? Of course not. Or should we outlaw law abiding citizens from driving cars, because drunks kill thousands of innocent people every year using their cars after they get drunk? Again, of course not. So why should law abiding citizens be punished for the actions of criminals? Go after the BAD guys, and punish THEM. Not me!

 

[SuperRat]

All that gun needs to do is save my life, or my loved one's life ONCE, and i'd say it was worth it, don't you agree?

Yeah and what I am saying that the gun is just as likely to endanger your life much more. If somebody is burglarizing your house and you pull a gun on that person, if that person has a gun, he is much more likely to shoot you. Also if that person is burglarizing your house and you have a gun inside the burglar can possibly gain access to the gun, and now you have a burglar with a gun to deal with. If you are getting burglarized and are unarmed, then there is much less of a likelihood that anything fatal is going to occur. I'm not saying that victims having guns never save lives or are never effective, I'm just saying that it raises the stakes and can occur in more violence.

As for the arguement about the bad guy already having the gun, that is like saying bad guys already have drugs. Yes they do but the police are responsible for recovering them. This has been made worse with the non renewal of the automatic weapons ban. The main point of a ban would be to make it harder for criminals to get more weapons to commit crimes. Yes criminals would still find ways, but there wouldn't be any people walking into a store and buying a gun and walking to a 7-11 and robbing the place. It is now much easier for criminals to get AK-47s. Is that right? Also it could probably be shown that more people get shot accidently by people with guns in their homes, than people that get shot for commiting crimes in said homes. Somebody coming home late at night getting shot by paranoid gun openers is more likely than somebody commiting a crime in the house and getting scared away by guns.

As for Columbine, teachers having guns? Are you serious? That is just not logistically do-able.

I'm all for people using a baseball bat to rob a store over a gun. That reduces the possibility of a fatality so incredibly much.

Also I'm not saying that there aren't people that can be very responsible with guns, but it is a fact that there are many people that shouldn't be handling guns. I don't know if I'm even sure I would support a total gun ban, but gun restrictions do save lives.

 

[LambeauEast]

Sooo...how 'bout them Packers?

 

[cheesey]

All that gun needs to do is save my life, or my loved one's life ONCE, and i'd say it was worth it, don't you agree?

Yeah and what I am saying that the gun is just as likely to endanger your life much more. If somebody is burglarizing your house and you pull a gun on that person, if that person has a gun, he is much more likely to shoot you. Also if that person is burglarizing your house and you have a gun inside the burglar can possibly gain access to the gun, and now you have a burglar with a gun to deal with. If you are getting burglarized and are unarmed, then there is much less of a likelihood that anything fatal is going to occur. I'm not saying that victims having guns never save lives or are never effective, I'm just saying that it raises the stakes and can occur in more violence.

As for the arguement about the bad guy already having the gun, that is like saying bad guys already have drugs. Yes they do but the police are responsible for recovering them. This has been made worse with the non renewal of the automatic weapons ban. The main point of a ban would be to make it harder for criminals to get more weapons to commit crimes. Yes criminals would still find ways, but there wouldn't be any people walking into a store and buying a gun and walking to a 7-11 and robbing the place. It is now much easier for criminals to get AK-47s. Is that right? Also it could probably be shown that more people get shot accidently by people with guns in their homes, than people that get shot for commiting crimes in said homes. Somebody coming home late at night getting shot by paranoid gun openers is more likely than somebody commiting a crime in the house and getting scared away by guns.

As for Columbine, teachers having guns? Are you serious? That is just not logistically do-able.

I'm all for people using a baseball bat to rob a store over a gun. That reduces the possibility of a fatality so incredibly much.

Also I'm not saying that there aren't people that can be very responsible with guns, but it is a fact that there are many people that shouldn't be handling guns. I don't know if I'm even sure I would support a total gun ban, but gun restrictions do save lives.

First........if a guy comes into my home and he's already armed, you can be sure he intends to use it. Bad guys DON'T carry guns as a deterrent to GOOD people that might also be carrying. Rapists often are armed, and my wife knows how to use my gun. She ALSO knows to say "Who is it, i am ARMED and will SHOOT if you don't answer." So if whoever it is comes in, they BETTER answer, or run.
With waiting for the Police to take care of the bad guys, you can be *****, tortured, and murdered before anyone can stop it. There are WAY too many bad people in this world today to wait for the cops.
Oh.....and "automatic" weapens have been illegal for years already. NONE of them are legal. What the gun haters are TRYING to do is lump "semi-automatic" weapons in with it.........which would make most hunting rifles illegal to own. It's a back door approach to take away more of our rights in this country. If you don't want to own a gun, thats FINE with me. But why take it away from NON CRIMINALS? You think because i own a gun, that i'm more likely to use it to commit a crime? Thats just not so. And once that right is taken away form us, we will NEVER get it back. Do gun accidents happen? Yes. But NOT rampant like you make it sound. Lots more people die in car accidents then GUN accidents, Again, should we take away YOUR right to drive and own a car, because an accident MIGHT happen?
You said "As for Columbine, teachers having guns? Are you serious? That is just not logistically do-able. " Yes, i AM serious. In todays world, where some ticked off kid may come to school to kill someone that "dissed" him, why shouldn't they have TRAINED people in the school that could stop a killer from fullfilling his plan? They had to "wait" for the Police......you know how THAT turned out.
You also said "Also I'm not saying that there aren't people that can be very responsible with guns, but it is a fact that there are many people that shouldn't be handling guns." Yes, and it's a FACT that there are many people that shouldn't get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car. Yet that happens in EVERY city everyday. So again, should YOU have your right taken away because someone else is irresponsible? Like i said.........where "right to carry" laws have been passed, the people that want to carry a gun HAVE to pass criminal background checks, pass a gun safety course AND a proficiency test to PROVE they know how to handle their gun properly. They arn't just handed a gun and told "There ya go!" Like they hand out drivers licenses. Yes, there are some people that should NOT own a gun. They are prevented by all the checks i just noted. In a perfect world, no one should HAVE to defend themselves against attack. This is NOT a perfect world we live in. And it's just getting worse. Criminals are MUCH more willing to kill then back in the 1950's.

 

[4packgirl]

Sooo...how 'bout them Packers?

uhhhh...yeah, they're great, aren't they??

 

[cheesey]

Sorry if i ticked anyone off.........too many of my ancestors fought for the "right to keep and bears arms" that we have been promised as Americans. I love this country and the freedoms that have come with it. We have so much freedom, that came at such a price to soo many of our military men. I'm just not willing to give that away so easily. I know most anti-gun people THINK they are helping, when in fact they are just doing the bidding of those that want to chip away at our rights. When countys are taken over, even by a dictator, the first thing they do is disarm the citizens, so they can't defend themselves. This is fact.........look at countrys in world war 2, or Cuba. Or any country that is communist or run by a dictator.

 

[GakkofNorway]

lol you should take a trip to Norway cheesey

 

[SuperRat]

yeah this isn't really the place to discuss such an issue, but just to come back with a couple points. Yes criminals do use guns without intending to use them. This happens all the time. Dude pulls out a hand gun and points it at somebody and demands that the person gives up their money/car/whatever. The threat of the gun is enough. Guns used in crimes are used in that purpose much more often than shots actually being fired. Somebody breaking into a home with a gun intends to use it primarily as a deterrent to people that may foil their plans such as calling the police or what have you. They are used to threaten into submission and when a gun toting criminal comes face to face with a gun toting victim, there is much more chance of actual violence and shooting occuring.

Guns shouldn't be in schools at all. Even if teachers are trained to use them it would be very hard to be 100% sure that students couldn't gain access to them. Armed guards in school where it is there only job is different. That is understandable although I still would have some issues with having any guns inside the school, it would be understandable to have people paid to keep order, but not teachers.

As for the car point, guns are made to harm, be it animals or people or whatever, cars aren't.

The assault weapons ban did expire and yes it did need better wording to protect hunting guns, but it does mean that automatic weapons can be legally sold now. Nobody was using the wording of the ban to remove hunting weapons, so it wouldn't of hurt to renew it or at least make a new ban that worded things correctly to get dangerous weapons that have no real use other than to harm people, such as AK-47s, off the streets.

I think there needs to be more restrictions to hand guns at the very least. Maybe make people that want to own a hand gun go through all the safety courses and such, not just if they want to legally carry it.


That's all for me, we have been getting a ways off topic here, so if you want to discuss it any further you can private message me.