Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web



02 Dec 2008

Burress Done For Season, Suspended

ESPN's reporting that Plaxico Burress has been suspended four games and placed on the non-football injured list, which officially ends his season anyway. The story's not up yet, so it links to a Plax placeholder.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 02 Dec 2008

49 comments, Last at 04 Dec 2008, 10:34am by Wanker79

Comments

1
by MJK :: Tue, 12/02/2008 - 7:24pm

Even without Burress, who's going to beat the Giants from the NFC? He was an effective but not totally vital part of their offense. Eli's turned the corner, their running game is solid, and their defense is very good. Maybe one of the NFC south teams (Tampa Bay or Carolina) might have a shot, or Dallas on a good day...

Question: Because Burress is placed on the non-football injured list, does this mean that the games he misses DO NOT count towards his four-game suspension? I.e. will he be forced to miss his first four games next year? (assuming he returns to play)

4
by poboy :: Tue, 12/02/2008 - 7:55pm

Question: Because Burress is placed on the non-football injured list, does this mean that the games he misses DO NOT count towards his four-game suspension? I.e. will he be forced to miss his first four games next year? (assuming he returns to play)

My understanding is that the Giants (not the NFL) suspended him for conduct detrimental to the team, so it's likely a moot point, as I suspect he'll be cut. The NFL suspension probably won't come until the legal process has run its course. If so, then Plaxico's lawyer should try to slow down the legal process as much as possible and hope some team will pay the receiver to play next year, because Plax's earning potential after 3.5+ years in prison will be approximately nil.

9
by Britomart (not verified) :: Tue, 12/02/2008 - 11:59pm

Does it really seem likely that he could end up spending more than a few months in prison? I would have assumed that even non-celebrities don't do a full three years for something like this.

11
by Anonymous (not verified) (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 12:14am

If found guilty, the problem is that there is a Mandatory prison sentence of not less than the 42 months. So yes, people in new york who get caught like this get that level of sentence. Judges don't necessarily like those minimums, but their hands are tied...

27
by tuluse :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 11:13am

I'm guessing most people plea down to a lesser crime.

10
by Andrew B :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 12:11am

Well, the Eagles were 5 points away from beating them a few weeks ago, and 7 points of that margin was due to Plaxico Buress' individual ability, while a lot of the other 29 points was due to Jim Johnson's fear of Plaxico's ability causing him to play 6 and 7 in the box most of the game.

Lets see what happens Sunday, yes?

The Original Andrew

29
by Mark S. (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 1:15pm

Well, let's see, the Giants beat the Ravens by 20. The Ravens beat the Eagles by 29. Therefore, the transitive property states the Giants will win by a score of around 49 on Sunday.

2
by Anonymous111 (not verified) :: Tue, 12/02/2008 - 7:28pm

Does that mean he's also going to miss the playoffs?

3
by Harris :: Tue, 12/02/2008 - 7:40pm

Well, the Eagles could beat the Giants without Plax to stretch the field because they have excellent corners and a terrific pass rush. I don't expect this to happen because Coughlin owns Reid, Westbrook still isn't completely healthy and the Eagles have no answer for that running game. The bigger question is whether Pierce will get suspended and whether the defense is a good without him.

"A little celery is always nice after a good pee."

13
by Andrew B :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 12:30am

Harris:

Such a negative nelly you are!

Coughlin owns Reid? Well, Coughlin was 0-2 in 2004 losing by 14 and 21 points, 2-0 in 2005 by winning by 10 and 3 (in overtime, Akers kick goes "doink" off the upright) points with Mike McMahon playing QB, 1-2 in 2006 winning by 6 points (in overitme thanks to Michael Lewis not holding fumble he fell on and a well placed Trent Cole kick to the nuts) and losing by 14 and 3, 2-0 in in 2007 by 13 (Kiwanuka down but not down by contact) and 3 (Akers kick goes "doink" off the upright) points , and 1-0 in 2008 by 5 points.

I suppose, if you credit Coughlin with incredible mind-force ESP powers to make kicks by Akers "doink" off the upright and fail to go through, and to make Trent Cole kick Kareem McKenzie in the nuts, then yes, Coughlin "owns" Reid.

Oh, and the Eagles answer for the running game is Brandon Jacobs proclivity to fumble against the Eagles. 4 starts, 4 forced fumbles, 4 fumbles lost. Combine that with Eli Manning's proclivity to throw interceptions to the Eagles - 2 in 2004, 0 and 3 in 2005, 1 (excluding the Brian Dawkins tie-catch), 2, and 1 in 2006, 1 and 0 in 2007, and 1 in 2008. That would be 11 interceptions (1 of every 7 Eli has ever thrown) in 9 games (1 of every 8 he has ever played), and Giants-Eagles games are always fun. Between multiple "Miracles of the Meadowlands", every Eagles fan should know that no game in the swamp is ever out of reach or unwinnable barring something unlikely such as a last minute return TD.

The Original Andrew

15
by Key19 :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 12:34am

Seems to me like Jacobs is due for a few fumbles not lost then.

19
by Alex51 :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 3:12am

Seems to me like someone doesn't understand the Gambler's Fallacy.

23
by Omroth-UK (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 7:10am

Sounds to me like /you/ don't understand the fumbles thing. 4 fumbles is bad for the Giants, 4 fumbles lost is actually good for them.

34
by Wait, what? (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 2:09pm

I must not understand it either. If your RB fumbles four times, that's bad, but if you lose all of those fumbles, it's good?

(All of this aside, I don't think four fumbles is an indicator of much of anything, regardless of who recovers them. I think the Eagles certainly have a chance to win, but Plax's absence doesn't change things all that much.)

41
by Alex51 :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 5:55pm

4 fumbles is bad for the Giants, 4 fumbles lost is actually good for them.

How is losing 4 fumbles good for them? Last time I checked, turnovers were bad. And losing all 4 of your fumbles doesn't make you any less likely to lose fumbles in the future.

5
by JasonK :: Tue, 12/02/2008 - 8:46pm

Seems like the right move to me. The Giants said that their doctors estimated a 4-6 week recovery time, which seems reasonable. (Plax's attorney said he was ready to play, which is ludicrous-- a bullet passed through the skin and muscle of his leg; that doesn't heal to the point where you can safely play tackle football in a couple days.) Given that timeframe, the NFI list is where he belongs. Plax misses out of 4 weeks of salary, but will still get the roster bonus he's due in a week.

The suspension seems proportional, given the precedents I can think of, but I agree with the above poster that the ongoing criminal investigation will probably make it an academic matter.

Pierce's involvement does make me nervous, though. Hmmm-- Ray Lewis obstructing justice in a murder case : No suspension, $250,000 fine from Tagliabue :: Antonio Pierce obstructing justice in a firearm possession case : ??? from Goodell

16
by Andrew B :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 12:36am

Pierce needs to be suspended at least for a game or two. Otherwise, the treatment of Pacman Jones and others is totally outrageous. Right now, Pierece is a party to multiple crimes in NYC (covering up possesion of an illegal firearm, participation in misreporting a firearm injury at a hospital, participation in misreporting a firearm incident at a nightclub, taking an instrument of a crime out of state, etc.).

The Original Andrew

22
by deep64blue :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 6:03am

Don't think he'll get the roster bonus - that's why they put him on the NFI; technically he's not on the roster.

6
by dmb :: Tue, 12/02/2008 - 10:57pm

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned here yet: Burress's teammate, Steve Smith, was robbed at gunpoint earlier last week. I stated in the previous Burress thread that given the rash of violent crimes directed at high-profile athletes, it's not entirely surprising to see a high-profile athlete get in trouble for improperly carrying a firearm in public. After all, even if it's not necessarily the right way to go about things, it's pretty easy to see how someone who feels threatened would end up in this sort of situation. Hearing that Burress's teammate was victimized earlier in the week only strengthens my belief that while Burress made some stupid decisions, there are an awful lot of people in the general public who would probably act similarly if put in the same situation. Burress got here for being stupid, but I think people are giving him more flak than he deserves because they're not really thinking about the larger context of the incident.

7
by E :: Tue, 12/02/2008 - 11:17pm

I agree, this suspension and all of the coverage of this incident seems disproportional to what Plax did here. I do not condone his behavior in any way, but is it really an offense worthy of a season-long suspension and eventually being cut by the team? This was an act of stupidity, not malice. Someone brought up Ray Lewis - not only was he never suspended, he is celebrated. Plax is getting a raw deal.

8
by markschepp23 (not verified) :: Tue, 12/02/2008 - 11:59pm

I agree - what Plax did was wrong and deserves to be suspended and probably to miss the rest of the year. But it's what he's facing down the rod that doesn't seem fair. The fact that his career and freedom are in such jeapordy when guys like Pacman, Ray Lewis, and Tank Johnson (who knows from illegal weapons charges!) are still playing and even prospering is pretty unfair. Personally I hope he's back with the Giants next year.

24
by roguerouge :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 8:06am

The solution to the lack of fairness, of course, is to deal with Pacman and Tank Johnson, not to NOT deal with Pacman, Tank Johnson, and Plaxico Burress.

32
by Mark S. (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 1:35pm

Yeah, I agree with that. I did say it was right for Plax to miss the rest of the season and forfeit somewhere, if reports are to be believed, in the neighborhood of $3M. It's what he's facing in the future that's scary & way out of proportion.

17
by bob (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 12:50am

apparently the offense is worthy of 3 and a half years in prison.

14
by Andrew B :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 12:33am

Buress' wife is a lawyer. He's played for the Giants since 2005. He's got millions of dollars. If he really was worried about his safety (because Plax is hardly a thug - he's actually a pretty good guy), he obviously could have obtained the necessary NYC and NJ gun permits to allow him to carry concealed around the Metro area. The fact that he didn't even have a still valid permit from Florida shows just how dumb he was about the whole issue.

The Original Andrew

20
by dmb :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 4:52am

Right -- like I said, I'm not condoning how Burress went about trying to accomplish his goal (obviously, it was stupid), but I don't think people should be surprised that an incident like this happened -- frankly, it probably could've happened to any number of other players instead. These guys are required, for much of their waking hours, to think of themselves as indestructible. When quickly and harshly confronted with the reality they're not, some are going to adapt well (Fred Taylor), some will try to adapt but do so poorly (Burress), and some will probably refuse to adapt at all.

When media stories concerning this incident bring up Burress's past troublemaking, they imply (or sometimes explicitly suggest) that this particular event was intentional troublemaking rather than simple incompetence mixed with a bit of laziness. I just have a hard time not believing it's the latter ... and if it is, it would be nice if the media and general public simply let his new injury be his punishment (and lesson) and leave it at that. Of course, the Goddell criminal "justice system" and the actual criminal justice system will have something to say about Burress's life for the near future (as you can probably tell, I hope they're at least moderately lenient), but there's no reason for this story to dominate sports headlines in the meantime.

39
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 5:21pm

"(because Plax is hardly a thug - he's actually a pretty good guy"

According to what? I'd hardly consider someone who brings a gun to a nightclub a good guy.

26
by Jeff M. (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 11:05am

I think the Steve Smith incident is a perfect example of why Burress was particularly stupid to carry. Smith got mugged, handed over his cell phone and jewelry, and walked away. I'm sure he's getting enough money to replace those without any hardship. Plax is worried about somewhat holding him up for his bling, carries illegally, and loses $35 million or so if this ends up ending his career. He certainly could have replaced whatever was stolen with one game check--just hand everything over if you're robbed!

28
by Joe T. (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 11:59am

You can't assume that if you cooperate you'll get away from such a situation unharmed. I'm not going to assume my mugger is a rationale individual, if so, he probably wouldn't be holding people up.

Didn't you ever see Batman?

35
by Love is like a bottle of gin (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 2:41pm

You are not serious are you?

I would estimate the chance of you getting shot goes up exponentially if you have a gun and attempt to use it.

I actually live in a town with a large mugging problem. Dozens of people getting mugged at gun point over the past few months, not one of them has been hurt in the slightest way (none of them has resisted), and I think if you looked at crime statistics you would see that is overwhelmingly the norm. The people pointing a gun at you may not even have a loaded gun, and if they do they certainly do not want to use it. What might incite them to use it is a sudden movement from yourself that looks threatening.

Carrying a gun makes you feel safer, but it does not actually make you safer.

I am kind of ambivalent on the gun control issue myself, I see a lot of value in having an armed populace, but carrying weapons around town and to nightclubs for self defense is the height of stupidity.

40
by Joe T. (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 5:22pm

W/o trying to spark a debate on the matter, yes, I'm dead serious (pun intended). The complacence with which Americans deal with "routine" muggings is why muggings take place on the scale they do. If citizens start going Chuck Bronson every time they got held up maybe such "petty" crime would begin to decline.

I agree, carrying a gun in a nightclub is dumb, basically because its provocative, if its the kind of nightclub I'm envisioning. Carrying about town for your own defense is not. Carrying about town without a permit when its required by the local authority is dumb. I carry a concealed gun frequently. I have the proper permits. I carry it where I legally can, and don't carry it where I legally can't (banks, civic buildings, bars) or am requested not to by private authorities.

I can fill this thread with anecdotes from people I've personally known who've had to draw, shoot and kill in self-defense, and also with stories about when a firearm could have given a person a fighting chance, unarmed people who were compliant with the wishes of an armed assailant and were killed anyway. A knowledgeable, trained and responsible individual equipped with a firearm IS safer in threatening situations.

I'll defend Plax's right to carry a gun. But I agree he's a moron, for not knowing when its legal and when its proper to carry, and also for carrying while imbibing alcohol (a big no-no).

43
by roguerouge :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 7:28pm

Joe, I think the better response to dealing with "routine" muggings is to have a greater role for the cop WALKING a beat, rather than responding after the fact or in emergencies only. Bratton's "broken windows" theory of policing works well. There's a lot to be said for community watches as well. Having cities spend money to fix crumbling infrastructure and, as a result, open up good blue-collar jobs in construction is another means to damp down the economic desperation that produces muggers. I guess I'd put "vigilantism as deterrent" about fourth or fifth on my list of viable ways to reduce crime. But I would put the right to bear arms as one way, yes.

I can agree with you, however, that responsibly taking advantage of your right to bear arms is not remotely close to what Plax was doing when he decided to go drinking and not have a proper gun license.

44
by Love is like a bottle of gin (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 7:43pm

I would encourage you to call your local police department, or the FBI and ask them what they think your response should be if you are robbed at gunpoint while carrying a holstered weapon. I doubt many of them would recommend you even mention you have it, much less attempt to use it. They would just tell you to hand over your valuables, the same thing you would do if you had no weapon.

People do draw shoot and kill in self defense, but these are typically police officers and military personal. A civilian probably has the best chance to do so safely when they are the ones with the element of surprise, but in such cases "killing in self-defense" should not really be your priority, quietly fleeing should be.

The fewer gun vs gun encounters there are the fewer shootings there are, period.

Like I said not I am necessarily pro gun-control but carrying a gun with the assumption you are protecting yourself is just stupid. The risks outweigh the rewards unless you consider the contents of your wallet of roughly equal value to your life.

Maybe if everyone was armed there would be a sizable deterrent effect on petty crime, but the number of escalations in petty arguments and domestics disputes that would involve a fired weapon would also increase at higher rate. As it currently is it does not look as though a significant enough proportion of the population will be armed to deter crime anyway. Yes carrying a gun makes you feel safe and powerful and strong, but it does not actually make you more safe.

45
by John Doe (not verified) :: Thu, 12/04/2008 - 12:36am

My wallet may not be worth being shot over, but my wife/children/family are. If some guy tries to take my wallet I can give it to him. If he tries to take someone I care about, I am not powerless to defend them.

I believe muggings would drop if more people exercised their right to bear arms. If there was a 50-50 chance your intended victim is armed the risk is no longer worth a couple 20s.

Guns are a red herring in our society, they distract people from getting to the bottom of the real problem. The Swiss own more guns (on average) than Americans, in fact almost every adult male is required to own one by law. Gun crime is almost non-existent in Switzerland. Americans are simply more violent than the rest of the civilized world, it has little to nothing to do with guns.

47
by lawfirm_ellis (not verified) :: Thu, 12/04/2008 - 1:34am

This is easily the stupidest post I've ever read at Football Outsiders, and that includes raiderjoe's musings. I own guns myself and am certainly not a hardcore gun-control advocate, but any law enforcement officer can tell you than an untrained individual with a concealed weapon increases the potential dangerousness of a stick-up, not the other way around. For example, in any exchange of gunfire, Plax could just have easily hit innocent bystanders- these things happen when adrenaline and bullets are flowing.
The back-and-forth discussion about whether or not Plax should have been carrying a concealed weapon ignores the easiest step he could have taken to protect himself- go out in public with bodyguards, and leave the protection business with the professionals. Traveling with a few huge, completely sober, armed individuals watching your back vastly increases your safety, and makes robbers think otherwise. This is also an option economically feasible only to an extremely small percentage of Americans- why wouldn't you avail yourself of it?
The idea that the only option Plaxico Burress has to defend himself is to walk around with an illegal gun, which he's apparently so ignorant about that he literally shot himself while trying to do the simplest of tasks, is absurd. He's not a gunfighter in the Wild West- he's a member of the absolute upper echelon of the income strata, and has a vast array of options for self-protection that most of us don't have. Also, muggings take place at a much higher rate in some parts of America because of the vast income disparity (the UN recently compared our urban income disparity to Third World Africa) and easy access to deadly weapons- not because Americans in general treat it with 'complacency'. That remark alone is easily worthy of some kind of award for sheer ignorance.

48
by Joe T. (not verified) :: Thu, 12/04/2008 - 8:58am

Gee thanks. You miss the point entirely, like so many others. And you ignore the fact that I wrote "A knowledgeable, trained and responsible individual equipped with a firearm IS safer in threatening situations," and never alluded once that Burress met those requirements. But your missing that very not-so-subtle remark is understandable, since you probably skimmed the post so that you could get to writing your derogatory one-up. I have a suggestion for what you can do with your UN statistics, and while your at it, see if you can find room for the imaginary fiddle that I'm using to serenade your income-disparate friends.

12
by coachhunker :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 12:25am

It all depends on what state you live in.

Or where you go to party in this case.

Plax is getting a lot of attention because the Giants won the Super Bowl last year, the Giants are doing fantastic this year, and Mr. Burress has not been on the field producing much for them.

We will see what the criminal justice system in NYC brings Mr. Burress. He could still get probation, if convicted, if the judge finds it appropriate.

Thanks for putting up the item about Steve Smith. I have not heard this mentioned at all here in NYC. I wish pro players would realize that the money they make brings out a lot of envious people. There has got to be a better way to relax and enjoy yourself without subjecting yourself to that .1% of the general public who want to take away what you have.

My biggest concern is what happens to Pierce, and what the hell was Ahmad Bradshaw thinking about? He's already got 2 strikes on him.

18
by John Doe (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 1:44am

Bradshaw was thinking:

"I'm going to go out to a club with a few of my good friends and enjoy a night of boozing and chasing women."

It's not his fault his idiot friend shot himself in the leg.

37
by coachhunker :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 4:19pm

Well, with that thinking, once a knucklehead, always a knucklehead.

Bradshaw is still on probation for an offense that affected his draft status and altered his college career.

He is a good player, who can get a decent second contract in the league. Don't you think behavior like that would dramatically affect those chances?

46
by John Doe (not verified) :: Thu, 12/04/2008 - 12:43am

Behavior like what? Attending a bar with a couple of teammates? Assisting one of them when he injures himself? Not shooting/stabbing/stealing anyone or anything. Hanging out in a club.

Your question was 'what was bradshaw thinking' as if he knew Plaxico was going to shoot himself. There is nothing inherently wrong or dangerous about going to a club with a few friends. Bradshaw was on probation for stealing a Playstation, not getting drunk and dancing.

So in conclusion, no I don't think an NFL team is going to pay him less or pass on him because he went to a club. Leonard Little killed a women with his car while he was drunk, Jeremy Stevens raped a girl in college, Marvin Harrison was involved in an attempted murder, and then you have Pacman Jones. They are all currently employed, and they actually did something wrong.

21
by dmb :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 5:08am

Thanks for putting up the item about Steve Smith. I have not heard this mentioned at all here in NYC. I wish pro players would realize that the money they make brings out a lot of envious people.

That's the thing -- I think Burress did realize it, he just did a remarkably poor job of acting on it. Rather than getting a security guard or familiarizing himself with gun ownership (and New York laws), he simply decided to start carrying a gun again, and then got stupid with it.

The comparisons to Pacman (unfortunately, I have seen a couple) are ironic because Burress is sort of the anti-Pacman: Pacman got in trouble the most when he was trying to flaunt his fortune in the most ostentatious way possible, and was oblivious to the consequences of exposing his wealth in that kind of manner. Burress, on the other hand, was aware of the kind of negative attention he might attract, and got in trouble because he was stupid while trying to prevent any attention from creating negative consequences.

You're welcome for the link! I posted it because I don't see why more outlets aren't connecting the two stories. It's possible that they're completely unrelated ... but the "Burress became more worried about security after hearing about Smith, and started carrying a gun without being smart enough to get a permit (and handle it carefully)" scenario just seems soooooooooo likely!

25
by DGL :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 10:57am

In a Ron Cook column in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Hines Ward (former teammate of Plax in PGH) said, "If you feel like you need to take a gun into a club to feel safe, maybe you ought not to be going to that club in the first place."

30
by Aloysius Mephistopheles (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 1:15pm

Or maybe ebay the sparklies, and you won't feel like you need the gun. Someone needs to explain to me why it's necessary for grown men need to endanger themselves by wearing $50,000 necklaces. Why don't you just wear a flashing neon "jump me" sign? I think these a lot of these athletes get off on the danger of the ostentation as much as the ostentation itself.

31
by Disco Stu (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 1:24pm

This sounds a lot like the "short skirt" argument. Let's blame the victim here- he was asking for it cuz he dressed like that.

36
by Aloysius Mephistopheles (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 3:57pm

If you wear eight pounds of gold and diamonds around your neck then yes, I would say that constitutes "asking for it." I think that's fairly noncontroversial. Would you feel safe walking around with that kind of hardware? I wouldn't.

38
by Wanker79 :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 4:34pm

That analogy is probably fairly accurate. If a girl dresses all trampy and then goes out somewhere that a resonable woman wouldn't feel safe being dressed like that, she's an idiot and her scumbag attacker deserves whatever punishment he gets. The only thing that makes the "short skirt" arguement unethical is when it's used to try to lessen the role of the attacker. Being stupid and being held responsible for what happens to you are two completely different things.

Nobody is saying that if an athlete gets mugged that the mugger shouldn't suffer any consequences. But if Burress was wearing enough jewelery that he didn't feel safe in the club without a gun, he's an idiot for wearing that much jewelery in that club.

42
by Aloysius Mephistopheles (not verified) :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 6:05pm

I don't think the analogy is accurate. Does a short skirt really put you at a significantly greater risk of being assaulted? I guess it's possible, but I doubt it. Most sexual assaults are committed by acquaintances, not by strangers who happened to notice what kind of outfit the victim was wearing. As you suggest, the "short skirt" argument is basically just a crass way to deflect blame from an attacker. But nobody can reasonably argue that you're not at greater risk of being robbed if the robber knows he can walk away with thousands of dollars for a few seconds' work. Of course that doesn't diminish the robber's guilt in any way.

49
by Wanker79 :: Thu, 12/04/2008 - 10:34am

But nobody can reasonably argue that you're not at greater risk of being robbed if the robber knows he can walk away with thousands of dollars for a few seconds' work.

Which means you're an idiot for wearing that much jewelery in the first place. I'd love to say that we live in a world where that kind of thinking wasn't necessary, but we don't. And if go out anyway knowing that you don't feel safe because you feel compelled to flaunt your wealth, you're a moron. If you decide to carry an illegal weapon that apparently either doesn't have a safety or you keep the safety off, tucked into your sweatpants when you go out to a nightclub for a night of drinking and partying, you're an even bigger moron.

I'm not saying he's a bad guy, or a thug or anything like that. I don't know enough about him to start making any assertions like that. But I do know that he's about as sharp as a sack of ball peen hammers, and I have absolutely no sympathy for stupid people.

33
by Wanker79 :: Wed, 12/03/2008 - 1:43pm

edit: Now I realize why I couldn't find my post. This is the wrong damn thread to be talking about StarCaps. *facepalm*

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.