KiLoc69 Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Benson's lawyer, Sam Basset, was just on Chicago Tribune Live and said he has spoken to law enforcement officials and people in the DA's office and all of them say Benson looks fine in the video of the field sobriety test. He also says it is confirmed Benson could be heard on the tape saying he wanted to take a blood test and the officer responding "well I'm offering you a breath test". Mr. Basset said the law in Texas allows the driver to take either the breath or the blood test and that the blood test is considered more accurate. This is a far cry from the officer's affidavit saying that he could not balance himself without swaying and that he was severely slurring his speech. If the lawyer's sources are correct, we would be letting Benson go after 2 consecutive incidents in which he may be innocent of the charges and it is questionable if either arrest was even legal. Please don't respond that lawyers are liars, or that we are getting 3rd party information, I know that. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this tape shows exactly what is being claimed. Will everyone's reaction be the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chwtom Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Benson's lawyer, Sam Basset, was just on Chicago Tribune Live and said he has spoken to law enforcement officials and people in the DA's office and all of them say Benson looks fine in the video of the field sobriety test. He also says it is confirmed Benson could be heard on the tape saying he wanted to take a blood test and the officer responding "well I'm offering you a breath test". Mr. Basset said the law in Texas allows the driver to take either the breath or the blood test and that the blood test is considered more accurate. This is a far cry from the officer's affidavit saying that he could not balance himself without swaying and that he was severely slurring his speech. That is exactly what a lawyer is supposed to do for a public figure. Just put some doubt in the public's perception of a player. Personally, I thought Benson was a loser from before he was drafted, so if he's innocent I still think he's a loser anyways, and if he's guilty it just reinforces that feeling. It is entirely possible the Bears wanted to cut Benson in the off-season, but couldn't because he was injured. They may not care whether he's guilty or innocent either, this may just give them an excuse to cut him without getting hit with an injury grievance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiLoc69 Posted June 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 That is exactly what a lawyer is supposed to do for a public figure. Just put some doubt in the public's perception of a player. Personally, I thought Benson was a loser from before he was drafted, so if he's innocent I still think he's a loser anyways, and if he's guilty it just reinforces that feeling. It is entirely possible the Bears wanted to cut Benson in the off-season, but couldn't because he was injured. They may not care whether he's guilty or innocent either, this may just give them an excuse to cut him without getting hit with an injury grievance. Ok, as I stated, I know what the lawyer's job is. I was looking for a reaction assuming what was being claimed was true. I responded this in antoher post and will just copy and paste it: If his version of what happened at Lake Travis is true, he did nothing wrong. The video tape of Saturday's arrest supposedly contradicts the officer's affidavit that he was drunk and staggering and refused a blood test according to some law officials that have seen it (i opened a thread regarding this). Lets assume the above is true for the sake of argument. Ced went out Saturday, had a couple of drinks, and was driving home. All perfectly legal (assuming he was below legal limit). Should he be FORCED to get a driver because of the negative perception that arose from the lake Travis incident even though he looks to be innocent in that case? If his side was true, that's all it was, a negative PERCEPTION, not reality. He did nothing wrong at Lake Travis. If he was driving legally now, again all we have is another negative perception, not reality. So what most people are saying is that because he is rich and knows he's a target, he SHOULD hire a driver just in case. I agree that would have avoided all this mess, but what about his civil and legal rights? If he is abiding by the law, he shouldn't HAVE to take extra steps to be EXTRA legal. Do his rights go out the window because he's rich? How would you feel if this happened to you, innocent both times and you get fired because the incidents gave a negative perception? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bear trap Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Ok, as I stated, I know what the lawyer's job is. I was looking for a reaction assuming what was being claimed was true. I responded this in antoher post and will just copy and paste it: If his version of what happened at Lake Travis is true, he did nothing wrong. The video tape of Saturday's arrest supposedly contradicts the officer's affidavit that he was drunk and staggering and refused a blood test according to some law officials that have seen it (i opened a thread regarding this). Lets assume the above is true for the sake of argument. Ced went out Saturday, had a couple of drinks, and was driving home. All perfectly legal (assuming he was below legal limit). Should he be FORCED to get a driver because of the negative perception that arose from the lake Travis incident even though he looks to be innocent in that case? If his side was true, that's all it was, a negative PERCEPTION, not reality. He did nothing wrong at Lake Travis. If he was driving legally now, again all we have is another negative perception, not reality. So what most people are saying is that because he is rich and knows he's a target, he SHOULD hire a driver just in case. I agree that would have avoided all this mess, but what about his civil and legal rights? If he is abiding by the law, he shouldn't HAVE to take extra steps to be EXTRA legal. Do his rights go out the window because he's rich? How would you feel if this happened to you, innocent both times and you get fired because the incidents gave a negative perception? No, because like many have said he may or may not have been guilty with the boating ordeal, however he was on a zero tolerance policy with it. 5 weeks later whether or not drunk a player on zero tolerance shouldn't be having 2-3 drinks then getting in their car and driving home at 3-4 in the morning. I don't care if he's acquited of both he still showed that he didn't give darn about what he , lovie, and JA talked to him about. If I was in his shoes you can guarantee it that I would make sure my butt's at home when consuming any alcohol and I surely wouldn't be running red lights at 3-4 in the morning after pulling his nascar stunt in the express way a few weeks ago. Just not a bright individual! Not to mention he said he was out to eat dinner with his girlfriend and had a few drinks so a man with an IQ over 1 asks her to bring him home and he could pick his car up in the morning, because he had too much held over his head with the previous bwi not even gone to court yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiLoc69 Posted June 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 No, because like many have said he may or may not have been guilty with the boating ordeal, however he was on a zero tolerance policy with it. 5 weeks later whether or not drunk a player on zero tolerance shouldn't be having 2-3 drinks then getting in their car and driving home at 3-4 in the morning. I don't care if he's acquited of both he still showed that he didn't give darn about what he , lovie, and JA talked to him about. If I was in his shoes you can guarantee it that I would make sure my butt's at home when consuming any alcohol and I surely wouldn't be running red lights at 3-4 in the morning after pulling his nascar stunt in the express way a few weeks ago. Just not a bright individual! Not to mention he said he was out to eat dinner with his girlfriend and had a few drinks so a man with an IQ over 1 asks her to bring him home and he could pick his car up in the morning, because he had too much held over his head with the previous bwi not even gone to court yet. You bring up a good point that even if he's innocent in the first incident, it hasn't been resolved in court. As far as running the red light, we don't know if that's true yet. If the cop was lying about how drunk Benson appeared, who knows if he's being honest about any of it. Even if the cop IS being honest, unless that part was taped too, running a red light can be pretty subjective. Even with replay, some NFL officials can't tell if someone was inbounds on some plays. As far as the "nascar stunt", c'mon bro, the guy was speeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bear trap Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 You bring up a good point that even if he's innocent in the first incident, it hasn't been resolved in court. As far as running the red light, we don't know if that's true yet. If the cop was lying about how drunk Benson appeared, who knows if he's being honest about any of it. Even if the cop IS being honest, unless that part was taped too, running a red light can be pretty subjective. Even with replay, some NFL officials can't tell if someone was inbounds on some plays. As far as the "nascar stunt", c'mon bro, the guy was speeding. What was he doing 74 or 77 in a const. zone which is typically 45, that's not speeding that's an additional 10 over wreckless operation of a motorized vehicle. Sure he may or may not of ran the light, however he did admit to having 2-3 drinks and obviously drove while way past team curfew when on a 0 tolerance policy I'd still say his release was justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 No, because like many have said he may or may not have been guilty with the boating ordeal, however he was on a zero tolerance policy with it. 5 weeks later whether or not drunk a player on zero tolerance shouldn't be having 2-3 drinks then getting in their car and driving home at 3-4 in the morning. I don't care if he's acquited of both he still showed that he didn't give darn about what he , lovie, and JA talked to him about. If I was in his shoes you can guarantee it that I would make sure my butt's at home when consuming any alcohol and I surely wouldn't be running red lights at 3-4 in the morning after pulling his nascar stunt in the express way a few weeks ago. Just not a bright individual! Not to mention he said he was out to eat dinner with his girlfriend and had a few drinks so a man with an IQ over 1 asks her to bring him home and he could pick his car up in the morning, because he had too much held over his head with the previous bwi not even gone to court yet. Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself. This was all about a matter of judgement as I have said before. BTW - Ced's lawyer also said that he wished the Bears had given them more time to view the tape as this has implications on Ced's career going forward. I say, Ced should have thought of that when he got into his car at 3 in the morning after having 2 to 3 drinks. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 What was he doing 74 or 77 in a const. zone which is typically 45, that's not speeding that's an additional 10 over wreckless operation of a motorized vehicle. Sure he may or may not of ran the light, however he did admit to having 2-3 drinks and obviously drove while way past team curfew when on a 0 tolerance policy I'd still say his release was justified. I believe it was 74 in a 45. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bear trap Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself. This was all about a matter of judgement as I have said before. BTW - Ced's lawyer also said that he wished the Bears had given them more time to view the tape as this has implications on Ced's career going forward. I say, Ced should have thought of that when he got into his car at 3 in the morning after having 2 to 3 drinks. Amen to that. Why do people not see what we are talking about. I don't care if he's acquited of both, he still did the wrong thing at the wrong place at the wrong time. If I was going to fight a speeding ticket in court I sure as heck wouldn't be speeding before it's settled!!! He should have taken that approach to his drinking and getting behind the wheel. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 It's easy for the lawyer to say that when nobody can see the video. I'm a skeptic. If I hear someone is out at 3:00-4:00 in the morning, if they're not doing something work related or there is an emergency, I think they're probably drunk, stoned, or up to no good. I'd think that if it was Urlacher, Lovie, or JA. That's probably not fair, but that's just how I view things. Either way, I'm sure Angelo told Cedric, if you're going to be out late, you'd better be invisible or we'll dump you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 You want to know what I think? I think that Benson should have never put himself into these situations in the first place and everything would have been fine but it is what it is and he's now gone because of it. I was a Benson supporter and at one point I thought he could have become a star like he did in Texas but I lost nearly all hope for him midway through last season. Its very unfortunate for him, and now he's got people saying that he could be the biggest bust of all time for the Bears. I guess if you think about it, they're probably right.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 who gives a shit the guy is a joke. He is seriously living in another dimension, i mean he has never shown any hint of football ability, his teammates hate his guts, most fans cant stand the guy, has been injured in every season he has played and has been arrested twice in a month for boozin'. He walks around like he is the equivilent of Tomlinson on the field and has Irvin's attitude off the field. A great coment on CHicagosports.com was posted by a guy reading.. "a position which was once domianted for years by sweetness is now a complete joke"... a guy like TJ is rotting in New Jersey and we now force a rookie (all be it one i think is awesome and worthy of 1st round) into the starting role on a punchless offense all due to this assclown.. i hope he never steps foot on a football field again.... good riddens ass... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Benson's lawyer, Sam Basset, was just on Chicago Tribune Live and said he has spoken to law enforcement officials and people in the DA's office and all of them say Benson looks fine in the video of the field sobriety test. He also says it is confirmed Benson could be heard on the tape saying he wanted to take a blood test and the officer responding "well I'm offering you a breath test". Mr. Basset said the law in Texas allows the driver to take either the breath or the blood test and that the blood test is considered more accurate. This is a far cry from the officer's affidavit saying that he could not balance himself without swaying and that he was severely slurring his speech. If the lawyer's sources are correct, we would be letting Benson go after 2 consecutive incidents in which he may be innocent of the charges and it is questionable if either arrest was even legal. Please don't respond that lawyers are liars, or that we are getting 3rd party information, I know that. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this tape shows exactly what is being claimed. Will everyone's reaction be the same? I'll eat crow if incontrovertible evidence is presented in Benson's defense. Otherwise, I think it's safer to presume, based upon his history of poor decisions, that the law officers are telling the truth and Benson (and lawyer) are full of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBearSox Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 If you are a professional sports player you have the money to take a taxi.... If you are a professional sports player and have had a few drinks....you should take a taxi plain and simple especially after what had happened five weeks ago....it shows horrible judgment and lack of respect for the team....just like his attitude on the field.. get the hell out of here and let the door hit you on the way out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 who gives a shit the guy is a joke. He is seriously living in another dimension, i mean he has never shown any hint of football ability, his teammates hate his guts, most fans cant stand the guy, has been injured in every season he has played and has been arrested twice in a month for boozin'. He walks around like he is the equivilent of Tomlinson on the field and has Irvin's attitude off the field. good riddens ass... Terra, I usually hate it when you say "Good riddance" to a guy who's been cut. I can't say that this time. You pretty much nailed it on the head this time. Heck, if he just would have quit saying stupid things about his teammates picking on him, or how good he'd be if he just got the chance, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Other then the fact he loves his mother (or at least loves boozing with her) I struggle to find any redeeming quality in him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBearSox Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I really wish I could have been at the OTA today and seen the whole lovie sending him home thing go down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I really wish I could have been at the OTA today and seen the whole lovie sending him home thing go down... I thought the same thing. I wonder if all the players were laughing their butts off. Seriously, who gets SENT HOME from OTA's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBearSox Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I thought the same thing. I wonder if all the players were laughing their butts off. Seriously, who gets SENT HOME from OTA's. I mean some of the players had to be laughing....from all that we herd its not like anyone had a good relationship with him.... AP had to be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownman Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Having a brother who is a lawyer and now a judge, he advised me a long time ago that if you have been drinking, take a urine test and if you have not been drinking, take a blood test. With the breath test, even taking cough syrup (Vicks 44, Robitussin, etc) can easily have you test at above the legal limit for alcohol after taking it. The breath test is the very worst field test available for possible DUI. With that being said, Ced continues to make too many bad decisions and his lack of heart and desire on the field has proven far to easily that it is time for him to move on. I personally do not see Ced getting on anywhere else and it looks like we had another Curtis Ennis and Rashan Salaam on our hands. Hope that Matt Forte is better than what we have been dealing with lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adibear Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 i dont care what the lawyer says....Benson was crap on the field anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I really wish I could have been at the OTA today and seen the whole lovie sending him home thing go down... One of the papers reported that Lovie ordered the players not to talk about it, and if they had to say anything, to just talk about themselvs. I don't remember him giving that order with Tank. Of course most of the players were in his corner. None of his teammates would have said, "We're so glad the jackass is gone." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selection7 Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 If both DUIs were trumped up, then I can't see why that in and of itself makes him deserve to be cut. Not having a respect for your law troubles, trumped up or not, isn't cool, but this guy isn't exactly Pacman Jones and finding out the other charges were trumped up would only really leave the 74 in a 45 construction zone thing. Since he's already been cut without waiting to see if Benson really was victimized on the lake and denied a blood alcahol test, I'd guess his being cut has to do with an understanding the team had with him after the last incident (that was somehow violated) and/or a bit of a desire to get rid of him anyway (David Haugh suggests it definitely was some of the latter). I thought it was interesting how one of the recent news articles mentioned an old Bears coach who knew they were in trouble with Haynes when he was more interested in picking out his furniture than playing football. Maybe Ced is in the same boat (no pun intended). I think if you sign a bigtime contract and you have integrity, you'll do your best to play up to it...in theory, but it's hard for me to really say for sure what I'd do if I was in their shoes (in terms of giving 100%). You sign a rookie contract and before you've even stepped on the field you're monetarily set for life. If you get demoted and bust out, maybe you won't be a cripple at age 60, or worse, dead, like apparently so many linemen. It's a problem and now talent scouts are looking for drive and a goal driven quality in players as much as talent, intelligence, and character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 One of the papers reported that Lovie ordered the players not to talk about it, and if they had to say anything, to just talk about themselvs. I don't remember him giving that order with Tank. Of course most of the players were in his corner. None of his teammates would have said, "We're so glad the jackass is gone." From all accounts, Tank was a good teammate, whereas Benson was not. He completely alienated himself from the team with his actions and comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 As far as the Bears are concerned, they did the right thing. As far as Benson is concerned, if he is indeed innocent, he should fight it with all the money the Bears gave him over the years. Bottom line, he was pulled over, admitted to drinking something...was out late...all of which shows poor judgement given his earlier incidenct, went agasint curfews I believe (correct me is I'm wrong), and probably broke promises to management (I'm assuming they told him to please lay low...and don't embarass the organization again). If Austin is a hot-bed for police abuse, this should be looked into by the Feds. Until then, citizens should take warning and take appropriate precautions. Benson's lawyer, Sam Basset, was just on Chicago Tribune Live and said he has spoken to law enforcement officials and people in the DA's office and all of them say Benson looks fine in the video of the field sobriety test. He also says it is confirmed Benson could be heard on the tape saying he wanted to take a blood test and the officer responding "well I'm offering you a breath test". Mr. Basset said the law in Texas allows the driver to take either the breath or the blood test and that the blood test is considered more accurate. This is a far cry from the officer's affidavit saying that he could not balance himself without swaying and that he was severely slurring his speech. If the lawyer's sources are correct, we would be letting Benson go after 2 consecutive incidents in which he may be innocent of the charges and it is questionable if either arrest was even legal. Please don't respond that lawyers are liars, or that we are getting 3rd party information, I know that. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this tape shows exactly what is being claimed. Will everyone's reaction be the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I'm in agreement with you guys as well... I think the Bears acted appropriately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.