It doesnt matter

[jokeboy624]

Sorry, you're wrong. I'm a cop. I work in the narcotics division. It isn't the state's burden to prove you don't have a prescription. Do you know why? It is logically impossible to prove a negative! Can you prove there is no such thing as bigfoot? No! It's impossible to logically prove bigfoot does NOT exist. It's up to people who believe bigfoot does exist to provide evidence he exists.

Now, you're probably thinking, "But you're innocent until proven guilty, so why would Angle have to prove he DOES have a prescription." Simple: that's the way the law is written. Prescription drugs are controlled substances. You have to provide PROOF you are authorized to have it! It's kind of like driving without a license. When you get pulled over, you have to show the cop you are authorized to drive by presenting him with a license. If you don't have it, the cop can still check your name and date of birth to see if you have a license, but left it at home. There is no centralized database like that for prescriptions though. So, if you have a controlled substance, you have to be able to furnish proof you have a prescription for it. In some jurisdictions, even if you have a prescription for a drug, it is illegal for you to carry it around in a container other than the one provided by the Dr. or pharmacy! So, if you carry your pain killers around in a sandwich bag and don't have proof you have a prescription for it with you, that's a violation of the law (some places, not necessarily all places).

Angle had an illegal substance. I have seen no proof anywhere this stuff can legally be possessed in the U.S.. It is up to Angle to provide documentation that he was authorized to possess any controlled substance.

I agree, he can't have a prescription for an illegal substance, but the prosecutor has to check his medical records to prove that he doesn't have a prescription. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the prosecutor except in the case of affirmative defenses such as self defense, only then does the defense have to prove their case. Angle doesn't have to prove anything, as he is the defendant. My sister is a lawyer and we've actually spoken at length about this before.

 

[Nate DaMac]

In a thread full of "facts," let me be the one to give an opinion. I think Kurt has the mental capacity of a 16 year old. He has a drug problem he refuses to seek help for. He has an issue with women apparently, which I find odd since his family life was all fine and dandy until the drugs became an issue. Hint hint. Should TNA suspend him? I believe so. For fucks sake, show even a little bit of concern for the possibility that your top performer has a problem you money grubbing bitch. Remember why Vince put him on his ass? See why?

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Having possession of HGH is a cause of concern and good reason for eyebrows to be raised at TNA's drug-testing procedures. However, Angle claims he has a medical prescription for it. I think that is also more cause for his doctor to come under scrutiny, as well. This is just another Benoit case in the making.

However, the real issue at this point is the charge that he was "stalking Rhaka Khan" and violated a restraining order against her.

All of this is bad publicity and negative attention for TNA. Quite frankly, I am surprised at those people like the Thread Starter, who are so surprised at the negative response from the Internet.

I am not saying Kurt should be fired. However, I do feel that he should have the title taken off of him, and that IF these charges are found to be true, then he should be suspended.

This is also going to result in a hostile work environment between him and Rhaka Kahn, and perhaps other Knockouts.

It's just too many headaches and way too much Drama with Angle. Vince has shown that he knew what he was doing when he got rid of him.

 

[Spaceman Spif]

What this situation is, is FUBAR... completely FUBAR. I love Angle, he's a good guy, who has unfortunately made a lot of bad judgement calls.

I don't know what went down with him and Rhaka in their personal life, but whatever happened, it resulted in one or another Rhaka getting a protection order against Angle. So the fact is that whether or not Angle was stalking her or not, if he saw she was at that Starbucks, he had to leave, he didn't. His dumbass stayed and got himself arrested. It's his own fault. Even if the order proves to be unwarranted and it is dismissed, the fact remains it was in effect when he was arrested.

As far as the HGH goes, he shouldn't of had it, legally or not, that stuff is nasty and just plain bad. Angle is better of without it. If he's juicing legally, then unfortunately there is nothing that can be done about it, but he needs to stop and he needs to get help. He's going down a very bad road right now and it will end in a massive disaster if he doesn't stop now and get the help he needs.

So yeah I think TNA should lay down the law with Angle, fuck how much money and how many ratings he gets. They need to tell him get help or get in some serious trouble, but no what do they do? Let him keep his damn title, fueling the fire that he does not need fueled. It's sad to see once a admirable and respectable guy falling so hard, fast and out of control.

 

[gd]

I wasn't suprised that Angle retained the title, I even predicted it. Look it up. However, I do think that TNA probably should've taken the title off of Angle. This isn't the first time he's been in trouble. It's obvious he has a drug problem that he needs to deal with. What Angle did was ten times worse than what Jarrett did.

Jarrett had a relationship with Angle's ex-wife after they separate, Angle even had a girlfriend. Jarrett didn't do anything wrong. However, Angle was the one who had an altercation with a TNA empoylee, alledgedly stalked her, and was found with illegal drugs. He is obviously the bad guy in this whole thing.

 

[Deus1138]

I agree, he can't have a prescription for an illegal substance, but the prosecutor has to check his medical records to prove that he doesn't have a prescription. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the prosecutor except in the case of affirmative defenses such as self defense, only then does the defense have to prove their case. Angle doesn't have to prove anything, as he is the defendant. My sister is a lawyer and we've actually spoken at length about this before.

You're arguing with someone who does this for a living. How many prescription fraud cases have you made? None?? That's what I thought. I've made more than I can remember. I never lose.

All the state has to say to make their case is, "He did not have a prescription with him and could not provide one when asked for it." Case closed, unless Angle presents proof he did have a prescription at that time.

There is no central location to go to and check for what people have prescriptions for. You would have to call every Doctor in Angle's home town. But then the defense could say, "Well you didn't check with every Doctor in the state." If you check with every Doctor in the state, the defense could say, "You didn't check with every Doctor in the country." Then the state could check with every Doctor in the country. Then the defense could say, "Did you check with every Doctor who has retired in the last year?" Every time the defense says something like that, you have doubt. That is why the system doesn't work like that. It's impossible to prove a negative like you're asking the state to do! It's like proving there is no such thing as bigfoot. Can't logically be done.

If he didn't have a prescription with him with the drugs, the state has everything they need to convict him unless he brings a prescription forward.