PDA

View Full Version : Air McNair Arrested


skinzzfan25
05-10-2007, 03:37 PM
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-mcnair0510,0,2911203.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines


By Jamison Hensley
Sun Reporter
Originally published May 10, 2007, 4:06 PM EDT
Ravens quarterback Steve McNair was arrested late Wednesday in Nashville on a driving under the influence charge for allegedly allowing his vehicle to be operated by a drunken driver, police said this morning.

McNair was a passenger in his silver 2003 Dodge pickup truck, which was being driven by his brother-in-law.

Advertisement
The three-time Pro Bowl quarterback was arrested under a misdemeanor statute called "DUI by consent" that charges the owner if an intoxicated person is allowed to drive a vehicle.

"I was trying to act responsibly," McNair said in a statement released by the team. "I have to go through the court process now, and I understand that. I was planning to be in Baltimore for most of the remainder of this month to work out with my teammates, and anticipate that I will be doing that."

Police didn't perform a blood-alcohol test on McNair, so it's unclear whether he was impaired. But under Tennessee law, it doesn't matter if McNair was drinking, only if the driver was impaired.

Because of the arrest, McNair could be subject to discipline under the NFL's more stringent personal conduct policy, which has become a point of emphasis with commissioner Roger Goodell. Any violation -- whether it's a felony or misdemeanor -- can result in action by the league.

"We will look into it," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.

McNair's vehicle, which was being driven by Jamie Cartwright, was stopped at 11:53 p.m. Wednesday after police clocked it at 45 mph in a 35-mph zone five miles southwest of downtown Nashville. The officer detected an odor of alcohol and saw that Cartwright's eyes were red and glassy, according to police.

Cartwright, 31, told police that he drank at least two beers earlier in the evening. He then took a field sobriety test, which indicated impairment, police said. Cartwright, who refused to take a Breathalyzer test, was arrested for DUI along with McNair.

Nashville police have charged 43 people, including McNair, for violating the "DUI by consent" statute this year.

McNair and Cartwright were both taken downtown, where McNair was later released.

Wearing a brown t-shirt and jeans, McNair did not talk to a television cameraman when leaving the police station. He was accompanied by a friend, nightclub owner Robert 'Big Daddy' Gaddy, who told a local Nashville television station that McNair had done nothing wrong.

This is the second DUI arrest for McNair, who guided the Ravens to a 13-3 record in his first season with the team.

In May 2003, McNair was arrested in Nashville on charges of driving under the influence and illegal gun possession. The charges were dismissed after a judge threw out the evidence, stating police did not have sufficient reason to pull him over.

McNair is also the second Raven to be charged with DUI in the past eight months. In October, return specialist B.J. Sams was arrested Oct. 3 after his car swerved and nearly struck another vehicle. He is scheduled to go to court next week.

Thoughts?

Bengals1690
05-10-2007, 03:39 PM
yay!! please, suspend him goodel, make our week 1 game a lil easier.

Moses
05-10-2007, 03:39 PM
Interesting to say the least. I don't get why he would say "I was trying to act responsibly"?

jkpigskin
05-10-2007, 03:41 PM
haha i love it
charged of DUI, but wasnt the driver..........

SeanTaylorRIP
05-10-2007, 03:42 PM
Just incase you guys don't read it well, he was not arrested for driving under the influence, but he was arrested for allowing someone to drive his car who was under the influence of alcohol, kind dumb if you ask me.

EdReedUnstoppable
05-10-2007, 03:42 PM
SUSPEND HIM FOR LIFE!!!!

Or at least 4 games so Kyle can get out there and lead us!

EdReedUnstoppable
05-10-2007, 03:43 PM
Just incase you guys don't read it well, he was not arrested for driving under the influence, but he was arrested for allowing someone to drive his car who was under the influence of alcohol, kind dumb if you ask me.

Kinda dumb to let a drunk person give you a ride.

Moses
05-10-2007, 03:45 PM
Just incase you guys don't read it well, he was not arrested for driving under the influence, but he was arrested for allowing someone to drive his car who was under the influence of alcohol, kind dumb if you ask me.

Hard to argue against that law. You're basically enabling them to hurt themselves/others.

skinzzfan25
05-10-2007, 03:46 PM
Goodell shouldn't suspend him. Probably just a slap on the wrist at most, maybe a little fine.

And why the heck would you want Boller in... I watch a fair ammount of Ravens games, and I'd take anybody over him lol.

SeanTaylorRIP
05-10-2007, 03:47 PM
Hard to argue against that law. You're basically enabling them to hurt themselves/others.

I know that's what I'm saying if he isn't drunk how dumb could you be to let someone drunk drive.

bored of education
05-10-2007, 03:48 PM
it's a blessing in disguise for BOLLER.

I REMEMBER KYLE BOLLER.

FilthyRich
05-10-2007, 03:49 PM
it makes sense if you really think about it. mcnair was probably wasted and wanted a less drunk person escorting him. still kind of ******** but i see where he's coming from.

Moses
05-10-2007, 03:49 PM
I know that's what I'm saying if he isn't drunk how dumb could you be to let someone drunk drive.

Oh, I misunderstood what you wrote. If he wasn't drunk, a bigger question would be why wasn't he driving? I think it's pretty obvious both were drunk. I never understood why famous people always seem to get DUIs. They are rich. They can afford chaffeurs, taxis, etc. What goes through your mind when you do something like this?

Moses
05-10-2007, 03:50 PM
it makes sense if you really think about it. mcnair was probably wasted and wanted a less drunk person escorting him. still kind of ******** but i see where he's coming from.

Taxi? Chaffeur? DD? Hell, take public transit if you have too. No excuse for DUI, at least in my opinion.

SeanTaylorRIP
05-10-2007, 03:50 PM
Oh, I misunderstood what you wrote. If he wasn't drunk, a bigger question would be why wasn't he driving? I think it's pretty obvious both were drunk. I never understood why famous people always seem to get DUIs. They are rich. They can afford chaffeurs, taxis, etc. What goes through your mind when you do something like this?
When you are drunk you don't think about these things obviously. And I do remember Kyle Boller, he can't keep still in the pocket.

GiantRutgersFan
05-10-2007, 03:51 PM
I know that's what I'm saying if he isn't drunk how dumb could you be to let someone drunk drive.


I didnt know this was illegal.

And dude Mcnair probably got wasted at the bar, and the other guy was only a little drunk, so it was being at least kind of responsible.

Stupid law though. how are you suppose to know whether another guy is feeling drunk or not, unless they are completely trashed.

Moses
05-10-2007, 03:54 PM
I didnt know this was illegal.

And dude Mcnair probably got wasted at the bar, and the other guy was only a little drunk, so it was being at least kind of responsible.

Stupid law though. how are you suppose to know whether another guy is feeling drunk or not, unless they are completely trashed.

You were likely at the bar with the guy. You saw him drinking. It doesn't take a genius to figure out if somebody should be driving or not.

duckseason
05-10-2007, 03:55 PM
Kinda dumb to let a drunk person give you a ride.

It's also kinda dumb to assume that any citizen can discern whether or not somebody is fit to drive. The guy refused a breathalizer anyway, so for all we know, he may have blown a .07

That law is ridiculous. What's next? Are we gonna charge the brewery/distillery? The automobile manufacturer? The guy's mother for having given birth to him? What if the guy had an 8ball of heroin in his pocket? Does McNair get charged for that as well?

duckseason
05-10-2007, 03:57 PM
You were likely at the bar with the guy. You saw him drinking. It doesn't take a genius to figure out if somebody should be driving or not.

That is far too assumptive. How do we know what they did that night? Maybe dude was McNair's designated driver, but he snuck a few drinks. Not saying that happened, but it's certainly a possibility. And if McNair had been drinking, it would be tough to smell it on his buddy.

Moses
05-10-2007, 03:58 PM
It's also kinda dumb to assume that any citizen can discern whether or not somebody is fit to drive. The guy refused a breathalizer anyway, so for all we know, he may have blown a .07

That law is ridiculous. What's next? Are we gonna charge the brewery/distillery? The automobile manufacturer? The guy's mother for having given birth to him? What if the guy had an 8ball of heroin in his pocket? Does McNair get charged for that as well?

Isn't there a law that gets bars in trouble for letting people DUI?

I only see this law as acceptable because McNair was in the car with the drunk person and enabled him to use his car.

Moses
05-10-2007, 03:59 PM
That is far too assumptive. How do we know what they did that night? Maybe dude was McNair's designated driver, but he snuck a few drinks. Not saying that happened, but it's certainly a possibility. And if McNair had been drinking, it would be tough to smell it on his buddy.

That's a good argument, but I think that would be a very rare circumstance.

duckseason
05-10-2007, 04:01 PM
Isn't there a law that gets bars in trouble for letting people DUI?

I only see this law as acceptable because McNair was in the car with the drunk person and enabled him to use his car.

Yeah, bars can get into big trouble for serving too much alcohol. Another ridiculous law, as it punishes ordinary citizens for the bad choices of others. For that law to work, imo, they would need to require all customers to hand over their keys at the door and install a breathalizer at the bar.

duckseason
05-10-2007, 04:06 PM
That's a good argument, but I think that would be a very rare circumstance.

I agree. Rare indeed. But every situation is different, and I could think of all kinds of other situations that would make it seem ridiculous to charge the passenger. Like, what if McNair had been asleep when dude got in the car?

Moses
05-10-2007, 04:08 PM
I agree. Rare indeed. But every situation is different, and I could think of all kinds of other situations that would make it seem ridiculous to charge the passenger. Like, what if McNair had been asleep when dude got in the car?

Right, there are a lot of situations where that law would be completely ridiculous. I think it's one of those laws that only needs to be used in certain cases and requires a lot of interpretation from a judge.

SeanTaylorRIP
05-10-2007, 04:08 PM
It's Steve McNair this is a crazy one time incident.

CC.SD
05-10-2007, 04:09 PM
It's also kinda dumb to assume that any citizen can discern whether or not somebody is fit to drive. The guy refused a breathalizer anyway, so for all we know, he may have blown a .07

That law is ridiculous. What's next? Are we gonna charge the brewery/distillery? The automobile manufacturer? The guy's mother for having given birth to him? What if the guy had an 8ball of heroin in his pocket? Does McNair get charged for that as well?

Yeah, he probably would.

etk
05-10-2007, 04:09 PM
That is far too assumptive. How do we know what they did that night? Maybe dude was McNair's designated driver, but he snuck a few drinks. Not saying that happened, but it's certainly a possibility. And if McNair had been drinking, it would be tough to smell it on his buddy.

That's why these charges will probably be dropped. There's no way they can get any evidence that's not circumstantial to prove that McNair knew he was intoxicated. Even if McNair did see him drink, how would he know that he was above the legal limit?

GiantRutgersFan
05-10-2007, 04:15 PM
It's Steve McNair this is a crazy one time incident.

he already got 1 DUI

Moses
05-10-2007, 04:17 PM
That's why these charges will probably be dropped. There's no way they can get any evidence that's not circumstantial to prove that McNair knew he was intoxicated. Even if McNair did see him drink, how would he know that he was above the legal limit?

That's a good point. It's going to be nearly impossible for a charge like this to stand up in court, especially with the amount of money McNair has.

duckseason
05-10-2007, 04:18 PM
he already got 1 DUI

Which makes it all the more ridiculous that he would be arrested for making a conscious effort to avoid driving drunk again. He should be applauded, imo.

duckseason
05-10-2007, 04:19 PM
That's a good point. It's going to be nearly impossible for a charge like this to stand up in court, especially with the amount of money McNair has.

I really want to take a look at this statute now. Just for laughs.

Moses
05-10-2007, 04:20 PM
Which makes it all the more ridiculous that he would be arrested for making a conscious effort to avoid driving drunk again. He should be applauded, imo.

I don't know about that. A better effort would be to plan ahead and get a taxi, chaffeur, or whatever. That's the main cause of DUIs in my opinion. Lack of planning. I'm all for partying hard, but I'm responsible enough to realize that I need to plan my drives before I go out.

Moses
05-10-2007, 04:24 PM
I really want to take a look at this statute now. Just for laughs.

It would be good for a laugh I'm sure. Unfortunately, it's tough to find laws, statutes, etc. on the net, at least in my experience. I was recently trying to find out what the punishment if for assault (if the perpetrator is a minor) and I still haven't found it.

duckseason
05-10-2007, 04:26 PM
I don't know about that. A better effort would be to plan ahead and get a taxi, chaffeur, or whatever. That's the main cause of DUIs in my opinion. Lack of planning. I'm all for partying hard, but I'm responsible enough to realize that I need to plan my drives before I go out.
Yeah, that would be ideal. You're right. But for the guy to be arrested for this when he obviously was making a conscious effort to keep from driving drunk.....
I dunno. I mean, we don't know the whole story. For all we know, McNair could have known full well that his friend was drunk. He could have been sitting in the car talking about how you're not a real man unless you can drive with 12 drinks in you. I mean, I'm not necessarily on his side, because I wasn't there. But I'm just pointing out how ill-conceived that law is.

Moses
05-10-2007, 04:27 PM
Yeah, that would be ideal. You're right. But for the guy to be arrested for this when he obviously was making a conscious effort to keep from driving drunk.....
I dunno. I mean, we don't know the whole story. For all we know, McNair could have known full well that his friend was drunk. He could have been sitting in the car talking about how you're not a real man unless you can drive with 12 drinks in you. I mean, I'm not necessarily on his side, because I wasn't there. But I'm just pointing out how ill-conceived that law is.

Right, I agree with you. Laws like that are more often than not more trouble than they're worth. From a philosophical standpoint, it doesn't make sense.

duckseason
05-10-2007, 04:32 PM
It would be good for a laugh I'm sure. Unfortunately, it's tough to find laws, statutes, etc. on the net, at least in my experience. I was recently trying to find out what the punishment if for assault (if the perpetrator is a minor) and I still haven't found it.

Which brings up another point. They've pretty much got a law for every little thing today. But how many citizens know about more than an obvious handful of them? Shouldn't that be a given? Shouldn't all laws be common knowledge, and easily understood by the people which they govern? Seems each state/province would at least have an up to date database on the internet somewhere. Hell, for all I know I might be breaking the law by sitting here in my boxers with the window open.

Moses
05-10-2007, 04:35 PM
Which brings up another point. They've pretty much got a law for every little thing today. But how many citizens know about more than an obvious handful of them? Shouldn't that be a given? Shouldn't all laws be common knowledge, and easily understood by the people which they govern? Seems each state/province would at least have an up to date database on the internet somewhere. Hell, for all I know I might be breaking the law by sitting here in my boxers with the window open.

I agree completely. It is completely impossible for the average person to even begin to understand the basics of laws.

neko4
05-10-2007, 04:46 PM
Ive never thought of McNair as a dumb guy. This maybe just a 1-time thing

SeanTaylorRIP
05-10-2007, 04:52 PM
Well if he was drunk than he probably didn't realize his brother who was driving was drunk too. I won't get mad at him for being drunk but if his brother was supposed to be the designated driver then you got issues there.

The Unseen
05-10-2007, 05:05 PM
Kinda off topic, but it's time like these when I like the Jaguars being obscure from the national media. We've had nearly as many arrests as the Bengals, yet no body gives a wink at it.

kalbears13
05-10-2007, 05:08 PM
What I want to know is why does he drive a 2003 Dodge pickup when he's got millions of dollars?

duckseason
05-10-2007, 05:14 PM
What I want to know is why does he drive a 2003 Dodge pickup when he's got millions of dollars?

Not everybody feels the need to be flashy. Plus, he's a country boy at heart. At least that's the impression I get.

Moses
05-10-2007, 05:19 PM
What I want to know is why does he drive a 2003 Dodge pickup when he's got millions of dollars?

It's his DUI car. Something inexpensive that he can write-off. Plus, it'll hold up well in an accident. ;)

Mr. Stiller
05-10-2007, 06:46 PM
What I want to know is why does he drive a 2003 Dodge pickup when he's got millions of dollars?

Troy Polamalu drives a 2004 Kia Spectra.

not everyone gets pulled into the "We need a $15 Million dollar home and $4,000,000 car."

Troy Bought a house in Ligonier, PA for like $320k..

He's my favorite player because he's a star and he's not a complete ass, I met him at camp and he's an awesome guy.

BUSTKUNTLAWL
05-10-2007, 07:32 PM
I like how some people here think a DUI isn't a big deal.

Drunk drivers = scum bags.

BUSTKUNTLAWL
05-10-2007, 07:33 PM
It's his DUI car. Something inexpensive that he can write-off. Plus, it'll hold up well in an accident. ;)

Try harder.. That wasn't funny.

kalbears13
05-10-2007, 07:34 PM
Troy Polamalu drives a 2004 Kia Spectra.

not everyone gets pulled into the "We need a $15 Million dollar home and $4,000,000 car."

Troy Bought a house in Ligonier, PA for like $320k..

He's my favorite player because he's a star and he's not a complete ass, I met him at camp and he's an awesome guy.

He probably thinks he's still at USC...

duckseason
05-10-2007, 07:38 PM
I like how some people here think a DUI isn't a big deal. He should get suspended.

Drunk drivers = scum bags. I lost a a lot of respect for McNair over this.

I like how some people here fail to explore the facts before posting. McNair was not driving drunk. And whoever said that DUI was no big deal?

EdReedUnstoppable
05-10-2007, 07:39 PM
I like how some people here think a DUI isn't a big deal.

Drunk drivers = scum bags.

Couldn't agree more!

EdReedUnstoppable
05-10-2007, 07:40 PM
I like how some people here fail to explore the facts before posting. McNair was not driving drunk. And whoever said that DUI was no big deal?

But he allowed a friend to drive drunk and got in the car with a drunk driver, he is an idiot!

bored of education
05-10-2007, 07:41 PM
Kyle Boller wouldn't let friends drive drunk.

EdReedUnstoppable
05-10-2007, 07:44 PM
Kyle Boller wouldn't let friends drive drunk.

This is true, Kyle Boller is smart and realizes he is an NFL player and he takes a cab or gets a limo.

skinzzfan25
05-10-2007, 07:46 PM
Kyle Boller wouldn't let friends drive drunk.

Kyle Boller doesn't have friends. Except for that piece of armcandy he bought.

duckseason
05-10-2007, 07:49 PM
But he allowed a friend to drive drunk and got in the car with a drunk driver, he is an idiot!

Perhaps. But how do we really know how all that went down? How do you know that he "let" his brother in law drive drunk? How do you even know that his brother in law WAS drunk. And if McNair was drunk, then why would we expect him to be fully capable of policing his brother? Don't you think it's ridiculous to just assume that everything went down the way you imagine it in your head?

bored of education
05-10-2007, 07:51 PM
Kyle Boller is the Ambassador of Hope for the NFL. and Talent.

EdReedUnstoppable
05-10-2007, 07:52 PM
Perhaps. But how do we really know how all that went down? How do you know that he "let" his brother in law drive drunk? How do you even know that his brother in law WAS drunk. And if McNair was drunk, then why would we expect him to be fully capable of policing his brother? Don't you think it's ridiculous to just assume that everything went down the way you imagine it in your head?


Well his brother got a DUI so he was drunk, its very easy to police friends who are tryin to drive drunk. No I dont think that is ridiculous at all.

Ravens1991
05-10-2007, 07:53 PM
Kyle Boller is the Ambassador of Hope for the NFL. and Talent.

More like th ambassador of fumbling atleast 1 snap a game and tripping over his feet once a game also.

duckseason
05-10-2007, 07:59 PM
Well his brother got a DUI so he was drunk, its very easy to police friends who are tryin to drive drunk. No I dont I think that is ridiculous at all.

It's erroneous to state as fact that just because he got a DUI, that he was actually above the legal limit. He refused the breathalyzer, so that's where the DUI charge comes in. Is it likely that he was actually above the legal limit? Yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that. But it is not fact. And no, it is not necessarily easy to police people who are attempting to drive drunk. There is no reason for us to assume that McNair was even aware of his brothers intoxication level. Also, it is unreasonable to expect a person who is drunk themselves, to police the actions of others who are in the same state of mind. Sounds to me as though McNair had been drinking himself. If it is illegal to drive drunk because the level of impairment negatively affects judgment and reaction time, then why would we expect a person who is drunk to be able to police others?

TitleTown088
05-10-2007, 08:11 PM
Did you guys know sleddogs are huskies?

awfullyquiet
05-10-2007, 08:12 PM
There is no reason for us to assume that McNair was even aware of his brothers intoxication level.

i don't know about everyone else, but i've seen people do really good impressions of acting sober.


and title... nice change from favre and mcnair being homeboys. sorry. i might be the only one who thought your original post was rather funny

duckseason
05-10-2007, 08:16 PM
i don't know about everyone else, but i've seen people do really good impressions of acting sober.


and title... nice change from favre and mcnair being homeboys. sorry. i might be the only one who thought your original post was rather funny

Exactly. I've known plenty of people who are functioning alcoholics that do a great job of hiding it. That's just one of many reasons why McNair should not be punished for another man's actions.

OzTitan
05-10-2007, 10:05 PM
I can see where the law is coming from - if you knowingly allow someone who you know is intoxicated to drive your car, you should be punished. It is a little vague and open to debate, but I think it's one of those "prove you didn't know" rather than "prove that he did know" kind of laws, because if you were out together drinking, the law shouldn't have to prove you looked over, saw him drink, and then handed him the keys knowingly, that would be impossible.

I'm not sure it should be treated as a DUI though. Anyway I doubt he gets in much trouble, from the law or the NFL.

PalmerToCJ
05-10-2007, 10:07 PM
ERU... I'm pulling for you and Boller Mania haha

duckseason
05-10-2007, 10:09 PM
I can see where the law is coming from - if you knowingly allow someone who you know is intoxicated to drive your car, you should be punished. It is a little vague and open to debate, but I think it's one of those "prove you didn't know" rather than "prove that he did know" kind of laws, because if you were out together drinking, the law shouldn't have to prove you looked over, saw him drink, and then handed him the keys knowingly, that would be impossible.

I'm not sure it should be treated as a DUI though. Anyway I doubt he gets in much trouble, from the law or the NFL.

So you subscribe to the whole guilty until proven innocent school of thought huh? The onus of proof should ALWAYS be on the prosecution. No matter the charge.

Stash
05-10-2007, 10:23 PM
As far as the law goes, I think it is more of a deterrent than anything. I guess the lawmakers there felt the whole 'friends don't let friends drive drunk' campaign wasn't effective enough. I'm guessing it is there just to hassle the guy that lets someone else drive drunk so that next time the individual is in a situation where they need a driver, they will be more likely to think about the consequences. I actually like it assuming that McNair dosn't get into much trouble, he should get community service at most.

duckseason
05-10-2007, 10:26 PM
As far as the law goes, I think it is more of a deterrent than anything. I guess the lawmakers there felt the whole 'friends don't let friends drive drunk' campaign wasn't effective enough. I'm guessing it is there just to hassle the guy that lets someone else drive drunk so that next time the individual is in a situation where they need a driver, they will be more likely to think about the consequences. I actually like it assuming that McNair dosn't actually get into much trouble, he should get community service at most.
Yeah, I'm all for anything that will get drunk drivers off the road. Within reason. I think they're taking it too far with this though. I'd rather see them require automobile manufacturers to install a breathalizer-ignition device. That wouldn't be perfect, but at least we wouldn't be punishing innocent people.

kalbears13
05-10-2007, 10:30 PM
Yeah, I'm all for anything that will get drunk drivers off the road. Within reason. I think they're taking it too far with this though. I'd rather see them require automobile manufacturers to install a breathalizer-ignition device. That wouldn't be perfect, but at least we wouldn't be punishing innocent people.

I don't think that the brethalizer-ignition device would do anything because someone could just blow it for them (pun intended) and innocent people would get mad if it didn't work and they had to breath into some thing every time they get in a vehicle. It could be unsanitary for them if multiple people use a car and it could take a while (I don't know how long it takes for a breathalizer to process the air but I'm sure it takes longer than just putting a key in the ignition or now pushing a button.)

duckseason
05-10-2007, 10:32 PM
I don't think that the brethalizer-ignition device would do anything because someone could just blow it for them (pun intended) and innocent people would get mad if it didn't work and they had to breath into some thing every time they get in a vehicle. It could be unsanitary for them if multiple people use a car and it could take a while (I don't know how long it takes for a breathalizer to process the air but I'm sure it takes longer than just putting a key in the ignition or now pushing a button.)

Yeah, I agree with a lot of that. Although there are ways around some of your concerns. I was just saying that I would be much more in favor of something as extreme as that, before I would advocate arresting an innocent man.

BigDawg819
05-10-2007, 10:39 PM
Has it been forgotten my support of Kyle Boller? Do I need to bump up the Kyle Boller Coalition thread in the team thread so peeps know?

cunningham06
05-10-2007, 10:45 PM
Has it been forgotten my support of Kyle Boller? Do I need to bump up the Kyle Boller Coalition thread in the team thread so peeps know?

No one cares, the Coalition is so ***.

jag
05-10-2007, 10:46 PM
Kyle Boller is my homeboy.

wogitalia
05-10-2007, 10:50 PM
It is a little vague and open to debate, but I think it's one of those "prove you didn't know" rather than "prove that he did know" kind of laws, because if you were out together drinking, the law shouldn't have to prove you looked over, saw him drink, and then handed him the keys knowingly, that would be impossible.

You assume that he handed him the keys after they the drinking, rather than before they went out in the first place. I know that when I get voted into being designated driver I like to use my mates good car over my heap of junk and he is normally cool with that. I get the keys at the start of the night, if I were to drink during the night, I would still have the keys, he wouldn't be giving them to me knowing I was drunk.

Personally, the whole law is stupid, imo. You cant punish a guy for someone else choosing to DUI, I mean McNair(I assume he was drunk) made the decision not to drink drive, I dont see how you can punish a guy for that just because he owns the car.

Lets assume that someone is driving their mum or dads car and they are drink driving, are the parents punishable because they let their kid drive their car even though the parents arent even there and didnt know that their kid was going to DUI in the car? How far does this law stretch? Should it still be used if a person is 3 times the limit lets a guy that is 2 times the limit drive instead. It is infact a responsible action, but still allowing a drunk driver to use your car.

Stupid law in short.

portermvp84
05-11-2007, 09:29 AM
Kinda suprising, I didn't think he was much of a drinker.

EdReedUnstoppable
05-11-2007, 12:43 PM
ERU... I'm pulling for you and Boller Mania haha

You shouldn't be pulling for Bollermania because Bollermania is the nail in the coffin of every AFC North team other than the Ravens!!!

EdReedUnstoppable
05-11-2007, 12:44 PM
i'm stoked to see you're still pulling for boller. i was basically alone in defending him while you were gone.

Well Im certainly not gonna turn on Kyle for some rent-a-titan in McNair.

someone447
05-11-2007, 01:29 PM
I like how some people here think a DUI isn't a big deal.

Drunk drivers = scum bags.

You are still in high school, arent you? You will be surprised at the huge number of people that drive drunk. I would say 95% of people that drink have driven drunk, or driven with someone that was drunk.

Moses
05-11-2007, 02:13 PM
You are still in high school, arent you? You will be surprised at the huge number of people that drive drunk. I would say 95% of people that drink have driven drunk, or driven with someone that was drunk.

Way to just make up statistics. That is ridiculous.

As for driving under the influence, easily one of the dumbest things you could do.

someone447
05-11-2007, 02:32 PM
Way to just make up statistics. That is ridiculous.

As for driving under the influence, easily one of the dumbest things you could do.

I don't deny it is stupid, but you would be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't driven drunk or driven with someone who was drunk. Do I mean regularly? Of course not. Do I mean completely shitfaced? No, just above the legal limit. So, if you split a bottle of wine with dinner, it is possible you are at the legal limit. .08 isn't very much alcohol. I don't know a single person that hasn't ever driven drunk, or been with someone who is driving drunk. Not only people my age, but my parents friends, bosses, EVERYONE!!! I will stick with my estimate of 95% of people have driven drunk or been with someone who was drunk.

duckseason
05-11-2007, 02:36 PM
If .08 is "drunk" then it might be hard to disagree with that. I'm not sure I know very many people who haven't done that either. I guess I'd make a similar estimate, but not quite that high. There are tons of people who drink that have never even driven before. But I definitely see your point.

someone447
05-11-2007, 02:38 PM
If .08 is "drunk" then it might be hard to disagree with that. I'm not sure I know very many people who haven't done that either. I guess I'd make a similar estimate, but not quite that high. There are tons of people who drink that have never even driven before. But I definitely see your point.

Legally, it is drunk. No one knows what the driver would have blown. Fine I should rephrase, I would estimate that 95% of people have or will drive drunk or ride with someone who is drunk.

duckseason
05-11-2007, 02:41 PM
Legally, it is drunk. No one knows what the driver would have blown. Fine I should rephrase, I would estimate that 95% of people have or will drive drunk or ride with someone who is drunk.
Yeah, I see your point for sure. It would be tough for me to argue against that, and I might just agree. Hell, based off my own personal experience, it's pretty damn accurate.

Stash
05-11-2007, 10:36 PM
Especially college kids. Nobody wants to be a DD, somebody who's had a few drinks usually ends up driving home.

OzTitan
05-12-2007, 06:38 AM
So you subscribe to the whole guilty until proven innocent school of thought huh? The onus of proof should ALWAYS be on the prosecution. No matter the charge.

Well, proof either way is likely impossible, but if you've been drinking with a guy and then hand him the keys because he's less drunk than you (a decision you made whilst over the limit yourself), I don't think they should have to prove he did so knowing the other guy had been drinking, it's just common sense. If he's pulled over in his car with a drunk driver and they were together drinking at the same venue, then that's really all the proof they need by the requirements of this law. It's up to him to then present a case why he may not have known.

Addict
05-12-2007, 06:56 AM
Well Im certainly not gonna turn on Kyle for some rent-a-titan in McNair.

Wow, imagine the commercials for that company...


"short on players? want to overpay one to do the job? Feel like you could get crappy value for a lot of money? Rent-A-Titan can help you, we've got plenty of veterans on the verge of going downhill for you to overpay!"

Rent-A-Titan® because value is overrated.

duckseason
05-12-2007, 02:11 PM
Well, proof either way is likely impossible, but if you've been drinking with a guy and then hand him the keys because he's less drunk than you (a decision you made whilst over the limit yourself), I don't think they should have to prove he did so knowing the other guy had been drinking, it's just common sense. If he's pulled over in his car with a drunk driver and they were together drinking at the same venue, then that's really all the proof they need by the requirements of this law. It's up to him to then present a case why he may not have known.
What? You don't punish people based solely off imaginative assumption. EVER. Like I said, no matter the crime, the burden of proof always rests with the prosecution. Sadly, this most integral element of the justice system is often forgotten or completely disregarded.

someone447
05-12-2007, 02:31 PM
Well, proof either way is likely impossible, but if you've been drinking with a guy and then hand him the keys because he's less drunk than you (a decision you made whilst over the limit yourself), I don't think they should have to prove he did so knowing the other guy had been drinking, it's just common sense. If he's pulled over in his car with a drunk driver and they were together drinking at the same venue, then that's really all the proof they need by the requirements of this law. It's up to him to then present a case why he may not have known.

Then there is no case and it needs to be dismissed.