Okay, let me get this straight: You guys in Plano can’t catch a bunch of white high school kids running a freaking heroin cartel in Plano High for two years. That took credit cards. But you guys are all over Michael Irvin and his weed pipe and “weed residue”. Yeah, way to prioritize, guys. Don’t worry about the lady murdered last week. Don’t worry about the asshat running around impersonating police officers and groping women on the side of the road. Don’t worry about that serial rapist you’ve got running around. You stick to that Michael Irvin beat.

I’m usually one to shy away from racism calls. On this one, I’m pretty sure that Michael Irvin would not have been arrested if he hadn’t been black.


  1. Mexigogue says:

    One time this cop pulled over my friend Carlos and found a tiny piece of a joint in his ashtray. He had Carlos sitting by the side of the road while he searched his car (he was going to let him go if he didn’t find a significant amount). The cop was digging around and came upon an enormous crescent wrench (Carlos works on cars). Cop says:

    “What’s this? A roach clip for smoking giant roaches?”

    Then the cop puts the crescent wrench up to his lips and acts like he’s smoking a giant roach. Carlos cracks the fuggup and the cop lets him go with a warning. That’s what should have happened to Michael Irving and his paraphanalia.

  2. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    If anybody needs a joint it’s Michael Irvin. Have you seen ow excited and animated he gets on ESPN?

  3. HMT says:

    hahahah.. I’m actually ok with this Phelps. As UNLV noted, Michael Irvin makes me nervous just watching him. His commentaries are almost “too” colorful.


  4. Citizen Quasar says:

    Michael Irvin would not have been arrested if he wasn’t a Dallas Cowboy (probably not, anyway).

    As is true in most cases, dumbasses end up in authority because nobody wants to be bothered with the responsibility. This is especially true for large metro areas and, from my experience, is especially true in the Metroplex.

    All drugs ought to be legal anyway. It is the offensive and aggresive things that people do sometimes when they are wacked out that should be crimes. The drug may affect the severity of the punishment as in “negligence” as a modifier for an alcoholic who commits tort by killing someone while driving drunk. But getting drunk (or smashed, loaded, or whatever) should not be a crime.

  5. Linny says:

    so… should the Michael Irvin situation have been ignored?

  6. Mexigogue says:

    Don’t you know about all the problems marijuana causes? Haven’t you seen Reefer Madness??

  7. Linny says:

    what would your reasoning be for ignoring this situation? are you ignoring it because he is black? are you ignoring it because there are white people doing things that are worse?

    because… that’s how you are coming off and if that’s the case…

    you’d be the pot calling the kettle black as far as racism is concerned.

    racism is not “made equal” by overlooking a crime committed by one race to compensate for crimes overlooked by others…

  8. Phelps says:

    No, I am for ignoring it because it is an insignificant violation of a statute that prosecutes a victimless crime. It should be ignored the same way the police ignore jaywalking and driving 3 mph over the speed limit. It is called investigative discretion, and they should have exercised it, especially in light of the drain this sort of thing puts on police resources.

    This isn’t the broken glass theory. This is arresting the person whose windows were broken for littering glass on the ground while ignoring the kid with the pocket full of rocks.

  9. Linny says:

    I totally disagree that it is a victimless crime… so I guess that’s where we really differ on the subject… his race was never an issue for me moreso the laughable excuse he gave gave me a slight chuckle

  10. Phelps says:

    Where are the weed victims?

  11. HMT says:

    I was a weed victim. I was trying to watch Pantera once but the stage was foggy.

  12. Mexigogue says:

    You don’t qualify as a victim if you’re the one blowing the smoke. Nice try though.

  13. Linny says:

    man… i posted such a great response and it disk-a-peered… woe is me…

    suffice to say that yes, those who smoke mary-j-wanna have (the possibility) of many victims in many, many ways… it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to put two and two together as far as the possible ramifications of the actions of one who is high on the magic weed

  14. Phelps says:

    BFD. You could say the same about mastrubation. Or sexy clothes. Or singing. Or keeping dogs as pets. That doesn’t mean that any of those things should be outlawed.

  15. Mexigogue says:

    If masturbation is outlawed then only outlaws will masturbate. Think about it. . .

  16. Linny says:

    your argument doesn’t hold water… if that’s the case then absolutely nothing should be illegal and everything anyone wants to do at any time they want to do it should be perfectly okay to do…

    and while I’m all for the whole “freedom” crap… we (human beings – regardless of location) are not and never will be truly free to do whatever to whomever, even if that “whomever” is our own selves.

    I have a family full of alcoholics, drug addicts and the such… I’ve seen first had the effects of mind altering substances on the person taking them but even worse has been the innocent victims that have been affected by someone elses indulgence in things that we have, collectively as a society by majority rules, decided should be controlled or banned. I personally know of one dead baby, one dead 7 year old and a kid with permanent brain damage all because they had the unfortunate circumstance of being, in some way, in contact with someone who was using weed.

    Now… could they have gotten hit by a bus? sure… did they? no… their parents were directly responsible for their deaths and all of their parents were high on weed when it happened.

    I’ve never heard of a child being killed while their parent masturbated but then again, I wouldn’t be surprised.

    All I’m saying is… if it’s currently illegal and it’s well known and published that it’s illegal than a person who is caught with it should be punished…. don’t like the laws change them.

    my soap box just collapsed… I think I need to lose a few 🙂

  17. Phelps says:

    that we have, collectively as a society by majority rules, decided should be controlled or banned.

    This is the operative part, and it is what I disagree with. Society has no business deciding what I do if I’m not impugning the rights of another. If I were to smoke a joint, it wouldn’t break anyone’s leg or pick anyone’s pocket. You know a bunch of people who were hurt because of being “in contact with someone who was using weed?” I know people who were hurt by someone in a state of stupid. That doesn’t mean we should go locking up stupid people.

    All I’m saying is… if it’s currently illegal and it’s well known and published that it’s illegal than a person who is caught with it should be punished…. don’t like the laws change them.

    Not all laws are punished, nor should they. A very, very few laws are punished. It is called prosecutorial discretion. It is one of the foundations of English Common Law. “Just because it is illegal doesn’t make it automatically wrong, which is why the prosecutor and the jury have a chance to put a stop to it before it gets out of hand.” That is the law of the land.

    your argument doesn’t hold water… if that’s the case then absolutely nothing should be illegal and everything anyone wants to do at any time they want to do it should be perfectly okay to do…

    My argument is that actions should be illegal, not things. You say weed hurts people, and I say nay-nay. You say, “well, what if they toke up and drive?” I say it is already illegal, because it is DUI. You say, “well, what if someone gets high and then breaks into a house?” I say it is already illegal to burglarize a house. Actions that hurt other people are already illegal, and drug prohibition laws just muddy the water and get innocent people hurt. (Like the toddlers that get shot when the police raid a house at 3am to seize 8 oz. of pot.)

  18. Linny says:

    wow… I totally disagree with everything you said. I don’t think that has ever happened so score one for you.

    smoking weed is an action… happens to be illegal in the United States – right or wrong isn’t the point… it’s simply a fact.

    prosecutorial discretion is wrong and is one of the main reasons the US is full of wussie liberals.

    somthing that is illegal is illegal… right or wrong… it’s still illegal. something that is illegal might not necessarily be “wrong” in your opinion – or mine – but maybe would be to your next door neighbor or the guy down the street… but until it is no longer illegal it should still be punished when discovered – when we don’t punish someone who breaks the law we send a mixed message and then wonder why in the world no one is following the law… if we aren’t going to punish a broken law then we should get it off the books… but that won’t happen because politicians are afraid of offending the moral minority. legalize marijuana usage, doesn’t bother me none, won’t affect me one way or the other really…

    for instance… it’s illegal to have oral sex in Michigan… why? because what politician wants to be the one to say… “hey, lets get rid of that oral sex law”? does it ever get prosecuted? almost never… but… that’s not prosecutorial discretion, that’s spineless politicians caving to so-called moral christian pressure

    statistics will back me up on this… drug usage is a contributing factor to many other crimes. and, no, it’s not the only factor… just the one you and I are discussing at the moment.

    as for the baby killed in the drug raid… you appear to be blaming the police… what about the parents dealing drugs out of their home where their family lives? aren’t they really the ones responsble? thats the problem with our country… no one accepts responsibilty for their actions… it’s so much easier to blame the other guy…

    and… for the record… stupid people should be locked up… IMO of course 🙂

  19. Phelps says:

    Okay, so your argument is for a benevolent police state. Not the first time I’ve heard someone argue in favor of tyranny.