If players have a legal prescription for it is it allowed in the NFL? In that form it's legal in California and some other states too.
It was both an assault and a battery. A battery is the intentional offensive touching of another person. (Defnition of "offensive" is a reasonable person standard. If you accidentally bump someone on a crowded subway would a reasonable person consider that a battery? Probably not.) The touching doesn't even have to be you personally, it only needs to be attached to you. So, if your horse gets touched while you're riding it or a thief snatches a purse from off your shoulder both of those would be considered a battery. If a 90 year old lady taps a D lineman on the forehead with her cane, it is a battery and also assault because he had imminent apprehension even though it was a 90 year old lady. Assault is the imminent apprehension of a battery. So when the drink liquid was coming out of the glass and flying towards the girl's face that moment was the assault. She was imminently apprehending the battery. If the girl was asleep when he threw a drink on her it would only be battery because while she's asleep she cannot be consciously aware of an imminent apprehension. As you can see the media doesn't have a fucking clue when they report something as an Assault. Assaults are usually included with a battery but because the general population doesn't know the legal difference between a battery and assault they just use the word assault. I hope this answered your question.
It never actually happened. Two or three days after we traded for him the chick that accused him took it back and said it was the guy standing next to him.
That's pretty extensive. Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure how shit like that be considered assault, but this makes sense.
I doubt it because you don't actually get a prescription for it, you get a recommendation. It would probably be an interesting supreme court case though.
I completely agree. I think this is simply a product of some pretty interesting editing done on the part of the writer. I bet Santonio was trying to say something to the effect of... "I'm not a bad person, which is why I'm not going to change who I am and will remain the same person that came into the league however many years ago. The off the field issues are what they are, but I'm passed them. I've made mistakes and owned up to them, but those incidents have nothing to do with the person I believe myself to be, so I'm not changing anything."
jet haters will eat the article up and call everyone on the team thugs but i think santonio basically means that he didnt use his suspension to find god or some other life changing thing but rather he feels he didnt need to change because he aint gonna fuck up again
I have the feeling (like it or not) that this guy will be enrolled for some media training in due course - he does come across as a bit of a dick in that interview (probably intentional on the part of the reporter) and if you go out of your way to say "cant do nuthin to change me" next time you get in trouble the league is going to come after you in a major way.
Think almost every player suspended has the same thoughts. It is dangerous to come out & speak honestly like that though. If he is going to be suspended in the future, they will definitely apply some additional games because he's not putting up the proper front. I like the honesty but Holmes needs to make sure he stays out of trouble now.
I'm pretty sure it's a prescription. http://www.webehigh.com/news/detail.php?choose_subject=1&newsId=331&CITYID=0 Either way, you're right about the court case. I'm sure it will happen someday in one of the leagues.
My understanding is there has been a court case, in California (shocking), but I don't have the cite. The case said that the employer still has a right to deny employment to someone who uses drugs, just as an employer can fire someone for coming to work intoxicated on alcohol. But... I think while that may be the case now, it may change. The problem is that drug testing for pot merely shows residue in your blood and does not show current intoxication. So using a drug test to either deny employment to or fire someone with a pot card who shows pot in his drug test can be argued to not be reasonably related to a valid business purpose when compared to the societal interest in accommodating people with disabilities who would, with such an accommodation, be productive members of society. Or that's the argument I would make. It might get some traction, someday.
the only thing that changed is he's going to use clean urine this time instead of getting his homeboys who had smoked a couple of weeks before
