Newswire: McNair arrested in Tenn. [Archive] - Baltimore Ravens Forums and Message Boards

Greg

05-10-2007, 08:58 AM

The laws in Tennessee apply to an owner who knowing let's a drunk drive just as if he were driving himself. It might be the McNair did not know of this rule. That being said, HIRE A DAMN DRIVER! YOU JUST GOT $11 MILLION OF OUR MONEY IN A BONUS!

I think he should be suspended if the blood alcohol level of his brother-in-law is high. I think the .08 and even .10 levels are a bit low but when you get up around .15 the penalties should then be very severe. MADD has gotten the levels reduced such that 3-4 beers with a meal and a bit of time afterward will get you in as much trouble as a case. Most people are still quite capable of driving safely up to .10 and aren't hurt in their skills much more than being a bit tired and completely sober. But when you get around .15 you are a real danger.

Anyway, if McNair had his brother drive to cover his own ass and he was drunk and not just illegal because of a few beers with dinner McNair should get suspended.

festivus

05-10-2007, 09:00 AM

We'll see what happens here, it's also interesting that the whole thing is brought on refusal to take the breath test....aka auto-dui charges. Definitely need more details about the incident.

And about the law. In Maryland a refusal to take the breath test does not create the rebuttable presumption of intoxication but I believe there are states where that is not the case.

And (I can't believe I'm writing this) in defense of Crazy's original post, I think his point was, setting aside all the open questions about law & fact, it is clear enough McNair was doing something he shouldn't have been doing, and as a veteran - and longtime resident of Tennessee - he should have known better.

Hopefully there will be no suspension.

Greg

05-10-2007, 09:06 AM

This is a completely stupid law. Arrest the driver if you must, but McNair was a passenger. Aren't we taking these MADD laws a little too far here?
Per my above take I think MADD has gotten things to go a little too far. That being said, getting somebody else to drive who is as drunk as you just to cover your own ass is just as irresponsible as getting behind the wheel yourself.

I am more interested in how drunk his brother-in-law was. If he was drunk and not just barely affected McNair should be suspended. People get killed by very drunk drivers (few .10 drivers have accidents).

And in McNair's 2003 DUI arrest, the charges were dropped, so I don't know if this even counts as a "second offense" in the eyes of the league.
Maybe not, but I don't think this kind of thing should pass even once. It would appear (Before any real evidence is in, so this could change) that he was drunk so he had his brother-in-law drive to protect his big check. If his brother-in-law was drunk to the point of being dangerous than McNair is responsible for a very dangerous situation to occur.

If neither were really drunk this is a load of crapola.

Mista T

05-10-2007, 09:14 AM

We don't even have all the facts and everyone is talking 4 game suspension .....

Under the new player misconduct rules, is there something short of a 4 game suspension? Whether or not the 1st incident counts in Goodell's meting out the offense 2nd offense rules, I would expect the NFL to want to send a message to McNair and all the other players who drink too much.

the Huggers are salivating at the chance for Boller to prove himself yet again.

While "salivating" is a bit strong, I do think that this incident helps demonstrate the value of having a solid backup. Regardless of what sentence Goodell hands out -- if any -- McNair will now likely be a few drinks away from a major suspension.

Losac

05-10-2007, 09:19 AM

Greg, looks like we won't know if McNair was drunk. From ESPN:

Police didn't perform a blood-alcohol test on McNair. Under the state DUI/Owner statute, the condition of the driver is the issue. The charge is a misdemeanor.

I'm interested to see what the driver blew on the breathalyzer though. I agree that if it's something in the .08-.10 range, then this whole thing is stupid.

deuce

05-10-2007, 09:20 AM

This is rediculous. FIrst off, I am completely against drunk driving. However, from what we know McNair was at a club with his brother in law. Lets say he drank too much to drive. No problem, he is an adult. His brother in law says " I am fine, I will drive." If McNair is drunk how the hell is he suppose to assess if someone he trusts is sober enough to drive or not? He is making a responsible decision already by not driving.

My prediction is no matter what results happen legally he will miss 0 games. And that is how it should be.

ExiledRaven

05-10-2007, 09:24 AM

Greg, looks like we won't know if McNair was drunk. From ESPN: I'm interested to see what the driver blew on the breathalyzer though. I agree that if it's something in the .08-.10 range, then this whole thing is stupid.

For Losac, reading the information below, unless this site is totally wrong (and I doubt it), it doesn't matter if McNair was drinking or not. Simply that he owned the car and "assisted" his cousin in performing a DUI. So it's going to come down to what it means when his cousin refused, if there is a shifting burden, and the like.

Here is the very basic relevant information located in easy to understand FAQ format! All and all, there is a lot of legwork that needs to be done in finding the exact crime charged...and I'm not really in the mood to get into searching westlaw and LEXIS right after finals to take some guesses.

http://www.duinetwork.com/dui/tennessee/content/othercontent/faq_tennessee.html

McNair's offense:
I was arrest for “DUI by Consent.” What does that mean?

In Tennessee, you can be arrested for “DUI by Consent” if you aid someone in the commission of DUI or if you assist or promote the commission of the offense or receive a benefit from the commission of the offense. If charged with “DUI by Consent” you would face the same penalties as if charged with the commission of the underlying offense.

Note: If the driver is not convicted of DUI, you cannot be convicted of “DUI by Consent.”

I was only a passenger, not the owner of the vehicle, can I still be convicted of “DUI by Consent?”

Yes. In Tennessee, ownership of the vehicle is irrelevant. Therefore, depending on the facts of your case, you could be found guilty of “DUI by Consent.” Because you would face the same penalties as the driver, it is important that you consult an attorney who is experienced in DUI defense.

I was the owner of the vehicle, but not present when the driver was arrested for DUI. Could I still be convicted?

Yes, in Tennessee, the law makes no specific requirement that the owner be present in the vehicle to be criminally responsible for the driver’s conduct. Therefore, depending upon the facts of your case, you could be found guilty of “DUI by Consent.” Because you would face the same penalties as the driver, it is important that you consult an attorney who is experienced in DUI defense

re: refusal to take the breath test or other impairment test
Do I have a legal right to refuse a breath or blood test?

Yes, in certain instances. Any person who drives a motor vehicle in Tennessee is deemed, by statute, to have given consent to a chemical test to determine drug or alcohol content of the motorist’s blood. State law also provides that a motorist can refuse to submit to a chemical test. However, as a result of refusal, the motorist could be subject to license suspension, and in some instances, criminal prosecution.

I was also charged with Implied Consent. What is this?

In Tennessee, by law, any person who drives a motor vehicle in the state is found to have given consent to a chemical test to determine the drug or alcohol content of the person’s blood. However, the test must be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer and the officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the motorist was driving under the influence. Although a motorist has a right to refuse to submit to a chemical test, such refusal could result in license suspension (see Penalty Matrix). Please note that under certain circumstances, you could be forced to take a chemical test. If a test was taken against your will, you should consult with an experienced DUI defense attorney.

Am I required to take a field sobriety test?

NO. Tennessee law does not require you to perform field sobriety tests at the request of an officer. The officer, however, is under no obligation to inform you that such tests are voluntary.

RavenFanatic2k6

05-10-2007, 09:30 AM

I don't believe he'll miss any games either.

Under the new player misconduct rules, is there something short of a 4 game suspension? Whether or not the 1st incident counts in Goodell's meting out the offense 2nd offense rules, I would expect the NFL to want to send a message to McNair and all the other players who drink too much.

Goodell isn't just going to look at this as McNair arrested for DUI, he's going to look at the whole thing, that McNair was the passenger not the driver and that he may not have even been drunk. This isn't like Jones or Henry here, I'm guessing in most states he wouldn't have even been arrested. I'll guess he'll get a fine but won't miss any time.

ClericBlackDave

05-10-2007, 09:31 AM

This isn't ridiculous.

If you own a vehicle, letting someone drive it who you know is intoxicated is a problem.

If this were a 1st time type deal or something, fine, but McNair has dui'd before. With 11 million to spare, you think he'd spend a few dollars on a cab.

Once again, I think it shows the value of a good backup, and not thinking a 5th round rookie like Smith would cut it as a backup this year.

I doubt there will be a suspension, but you never know.

festivus

05-10-2007, 09:38 AM

ER, thanks for the excellent info and link.

It suggests a refusal to take the breath test does not lead to a presumption of intoxication. Which means it will be more difficult to prove the brother was, in fact, drunk, and if the prosecution fails *that* proof then apparently Steve McBadJudgement has a complete defense against the peculiar charge filed against him.

I am still annoyed at him, but I'd rather be annoyed without a 4 game suspension, then annoyed with a 4 game suspension.

Khaine

05-10-2007, 09:49 AM

I think this about sums it up.

:ihope:

But I do agree it is an odd law…

Heap86

05-10-2007, 10:22 AM

We don't even know if McNair knew his brother in law was intoxicated(IF he even was)

Unless they swapped spit before he gave him the keys, how would McNair know?

I don't think this thing will fly at all. McNair's DUI charges 5 years ago were dropped, and Mac has been sweeky clean since then.

Greg

05-10-2007, 10:32 AM

If McNair is drunk how the hell is he suppose to assess if someone he trusts is sober enough to drive or not? He is making a responsible decision already by not driving.
Well, if his brother-in-law was drinking with him all night then one could easily assume he is just as intoxicated. Letting him drive is just as bad as driving yourself, that is the intent of this law and it is not odd, it makes sense.

I think the levels that are considered deblitiating are too low, but the idea behind this law is a good one.

Why in hell, with tens of millions of dollars to your name, do you not hire a limo for a night out. At minimum, in my best Charlie Eckman voice, "CALL A CAB."

Unless they swapped spit before he gave him the keys, how would McNair know?
Again, if they were drinking together he should know how drunk his brother-in-law is.

IF IN DOUBT, SPEND A LITTLE OF THAT MONEY ON A DAMN CAB!

TL24x7

05-10-2007, 10:35 AM

Two articles on this topic from 24x7:

McNair Arrested (http://www.profootball24x7.com/column_view.php?cid=33&id=1365&view=archive)

Ravens Season at Risk? (http://www.profootball24x7.com/column_view.php?cid=1&id=1366&view=archive)

ravenmaniac

05-10-2007, 10:56 AM

I cant tell you how many times I was drunk and gave the keys of my car to one of my drunk friends who didn't mind driving. I wonder if he even knew he could be arrested for this.

ClericBlackDave

05-10-2007, 11:04 AM

Again, if they were drinking together he should know how drunk his brother-in-law is.

Yeah i mean come on, seriously. if you've been spending the night together at a bar or club downtown . . . you would know if your brother in law had drank or not. Not rocket science.

Get a cab, or if not, get ready to suffer the legal consequences if you get pulled over.

If McNair wasn't in the car at least he could claim someone was driving it w/o his permission. But instead he was passenger side, so its obvious that he knew he was wasted and instead of getting a cab, decided to let his brother in law drive less-wasted. The lesser of two evils I guess he thought . . .

Bad, bad decision making.

RavenTD

05-10-2007, 11:35 AM

You have got to be kidding me.Steve should know what the law is in that state by now.If,and thats the big if,he let his drunk brother in-law get behind of a wheel,knowing he was drunk,and to cover his rear end.

Plus knowing Sir PG Comissoner coming down hard on all this.

Then my respect for Steve has sunk pretty low.Pretty low for his character,
his decision making,and his intelligence.

You are a starting QB in the NFL. Lead by example man.

Losac

05-10-2007, 12:19 PM

Well, if his brother-in-law was drinking with him all night then one could easily assume he is just as intoxicated. Letting him drive is just as bad as driving yourself, that is the intent of this law and it is not odd, it makes sense.

Give me a break. Alcohol affects people in different ways. One person could have 2 drinks and be stumbling over themselves drunk, while another person could have the same 2 drinks and not even get a buzz.

His brother-in-law could have been in better shape to drive than Steve, in which case he would be doing the responsible thing by having him drive. Laws like this are the product of MADD and are meant to target casual drinkers and ruin their lives: instead of the habitual drunks who are really causing the accidents.

festivus

05-10-2007, 12:59 PM

From the Sun's article (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-mcnair0510,0,2911203.story?coll=bal-home-headlines), updated just a few minutes ago:

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 on DUI charges along with McNair.

So there was a 'field sobriety test.' Just one, apparently. An 'odor of alcohol' and a confession of two beers wouldn't be enough in Maryland for a conviction, it would depend on the field sobriety test. Not an easy case to prove, based on what little we have, and setting aside Losac's & others' arguments about how one person can know someone else is drunk.

If it doesn't get worse from here, I suspect the optimists are right. No conviction, no suspension.

Fanman

05-10-2007, 01:05 PM

The good thing is nobody was hurt. I doubt he will get a suspension, but if he does it could be a blessing for Boller to put together a hi-lite package for his impending departure.

FM

highwater

05-10-2007, 01:18 PM

His brother-in-law could have been in better shape to drive than Steve, in which case he would be doing the responsible thing by having him drive.

You've got to be kidding me. Having the least drunk guy drive is responsible? How about calling a cab? That is what would have been responsible.

I'm guessing he won't get a suspension for this, but you can bet that Goodell will take a close look at it.

RavenTD

05-10-2007, 01:25 PM

Imagine in your work place 10 people have been sacked for drink driving.
What sort of idiot who values his job,and the security that job brings.
Would then pull a stunt like this.

I can understand these wild young bucks falling into these traps.
But Steve at his age. It really is a sad example being set to younger players to.

Losac

05-10-2007, 01:27 PM

You've got to be kidding me. Having the least drunk guy drive is responsible? How about calling a cab? That is what would have been responsible.
Despite all the propaganda from MADD, it is possible to have a couple of drinks and be able to drive home. As I said before, alcohol affects everyone differently, and for some a couple of drinks is not even enough to get a buzz.

I always wonder if some of the Drunk Driving "Call a Cab After 1 Beer" people on these boards are one of the 70,000 drunks driving away from the tailgate lots at M&T.

ClericBlackDave

05-10-2007, 01:27 PM

Give me a break. Alcohol affects people in different ways.

Last time I heard it was pretty widely accepted that any ammount of alcohol doesn't make you a better driver, it makes you more unsafe, less coordinated, and willing to take dangerous risks.

I mean how much do we need to excuse bad behavior here?

in terms of knowing the law, ignorance is not a valid defense. Its your job as a citizen to know the law. And not knowing the law doesn't excuse you from it or the consequences for breaking it.

Also, maybe we'd know the different physical way the booze affected McNair and his brother if they had consented to a breathlizer. oh wait, they didn't. I wonder why?

It was a bad decision. can we stop trying to explain it away and excuse it and wait to see what happens?

Sephy

05-10-2007, 01:35 PM

That is one of the most ridiculous laws I have ever seen.

ClericBlackDave

05-10-2007, 01:49 PM

I always wonder if some of the Drunk Driving "Call a Cab After 1 Beer" people on these boards are one of the 70,000 drunks driving away from the tailgate lots at M&T.

Yeah I could be one of them, if I chose to drive home from the games. i either stay downtown and sober up or keep partying, or take lightrail. or, there is always a cab. Or if you're Steve McNair, you could get a limo.

Additionally, if I did get pulled over for something so stupid, I dont think you'd rush to defend me. And you shouldn't.

The fact that fans defend the double standard for athletes and how the law is applied to them is bullsh1t, plain and simple.

Lets keep it real.

ravenmaniac

05-10-2007, 01:51 PM

ClericBlackDave

05-10-2007, 01:57 PM

I dont think people are defending him because he is famous. I'd defend YOU if you were busted for being in the passenger seat. What if your buddy said he was "fine" and you thought you were doing the responsible thing by giving up the keys? You've never done that?

I hang out with my buddies. If I'm tailgating at M&T and I've had 8 and my buddy has had 4, and he says "give me the keys" i'd say "lets just get a cab"

Who's trying to get a DUI? Or have a friend get a DUI?

There is no way Steve just "ran" into his brother in law at a bar and hopped a ride. They were drinking together and Steve knew that. it was a calculated risk at best.

But the better decision would be to hop a cab, or limo.

So no, I'm not giving the keys to a buddy who's been drinking with me, even if he was drinking less. its called a cab. or lightrail. Subway. Limosine service. I hopped quite a few cab rides this last new years in D.C.

ravenmaniac

05-10-2007, 02:01 PM

I hang out with my buddies. If I'm tailgating at M&T and I've had 8 and my buddy has had 4, and he says "give me the keys" i'd say "lets just get a cab"

Who's trying to get a DUI? Or have a friend get a DUI?

There is no way Steve just "ran" into his brother in law at a bar and hopped a ride. They were drinking together and Steve knew that. it was a calculated risk at best.

But the better decision would be to hop a cab, or limo.

So no, I'm not giving the keys to a buddy who's been drinking with me, even if he was drinking less. its called a cab. or lightrail. Subway. Limosine service. I hopped quite a few cab rides this last new years in D.C.

I'm not debating what a smarter decision would have been. Are you claiming that you've never gotten into a car when someone had been drinking?

ClericBlackDave

05-10-2007, 02:51 PM

I'm not debating what a smarter decision would have been. Are you claiming that you've never gotten into a car when someone had been drinking?

I have never let anyone else drive my car intoxicated, ever a beer or two. And I have never driven with a person who was drinking. Its just a bad decision. I'm a black guy; no need to add myself to a statistic.

I drink with the best of them, but take a car, or if you just scored 11 million before tax, hire a limo

Lets not try to make an excuses here for a bad decision; if i had made it, its a bad decision. If mcnair makes it, its a bad decision.

Shit, to open up that can of worms, i would love to see fans reactions if this was Boller we were talking about.

highwater

05-10-2007, 02:57 PM

I was just reading again, in more detail, the info that ER posted earlier about this law. I originally was perplexed by it, then I thought I realized the reasoning and was okay with it, but now I am leaning again toward thinking it is a little ridiculous.

-- If you are a passenger in a car driven by someone intoxicated, you get charged whether you own the car or not.

-- If you are not even a passenger in a car driven by someone intoxicated, you get charged if you own the car.

I have a problem with this, particularly the second point. If I live in TN and I loan my car to a nun who lives across the street as a favor, and she gets hammered and arrested, then I GET ARRESTED TOO?!?

That's a bit silly -- keeping someone who has had too much to drink from driving is one thing, but how can you be held responsible if you aren't even there?

Losac

05-10-2007, 03:03 PM

I have never let anyone else drive my car intoxicated, ever a beer or two. And I have never driven with a person who was drinking. Its just a bad decision. I'm a black guy; no need to add myself to a statistic.

I drink with the best of them, but take a car, or if you just scored 11 million before tax, hire a limo

Lets not try to make an excuses here for a bad decision; if i had made it, its a bad decision. If mcnair makes it, its a bad decision.

Shit, to open up that can of worms, i would love to see fans reactions if this was Boller we were talking about.

That's fine, it's your decision. But don't sit here and tell me that after drinking one beer, I am unfit to drive and should call a cab. Everyone handles their alcohol differently. And for the 1000th time, having a drink or two and "being drunk" can be mutually exclusive.

I would think this was a BS law if anyone was arrested for it (even Boller), so no, I am not just excusing McNair because of who he is.

crazyraven

05-10-2007, 03:11 PM

-- If you are not even a passenger in a car driven by someone intoxicated, you get charged if you own the car.

I think if you read the entire FAQ from ER you would have to take into consideration the "Facts of the case". I think they are talking about knowingly giving the keys of the car to a drunk, not loaning the car to someone who during a course of a day or night goes out and gets drunk with your car without you having knowledge of their intent.

Therefore, depending upon the facts of your case, you could be found guilty of “DUI by Consent.” Because you would face the same penalties as the driver, it is important that you consult an attorney who is experienced in DUI defense

GreenWave52

05-10-2007, 03:38 PM

I dont think people are defending him because he is famous. I'd defend YOU if you were busted for being in the passenger seat. What if your buddy said he was "fine" and you thought you were doing the responsible thing by giving up the keys? You've never done that?

Exactly. I've done that a couple of times. Although usually I drive because I know how much I can or can't drink so it is rarely an issue. Living in a New Orleans for 5 years will do that to you. The only way to get around that city (I'm talking Uptown- not downtown/the quarter where the tourists are) is by car. It's like the drunk driving training ground of America.

For the record I am very much opposed to DRUNK drivers. But there is a big difference between having a couple of beers (or whatever your tolerance is) over the course of a night and still responsibly operating a motor vehicle and drunk driving.

As far as this Tennessee law that McNair got popped under goes, I think it sucks. If the driver was too drunk to drive then he shouldn't have volunteered. That should be on the driver and not the passenger/owner. What if you just lend your car to a friend. You can't be responsible for their actions all the time.

purplepoe

05-10-2007, 05:15 PM

I love how some people are blaming McNair for something his brother in law did.

His brother in law chose to drive a vehicle. He was the one drinking and driving. Not McNair.

And if it were Kyle Boller, Elvis Grbac, or Joey Porter, I'd say the same thing.

It's a bad decision in the sense that he chose to risk an accident caused by his brother in law.

The Governor just signed over 100 bills into law. Everyone here know what all of them state? Didn't think so.

Has McNair broken a law in the state of Tennessee? Yup, he sure has.

And you can bet that the commissioner and the Ravens will look at exactly what happened.

Everyone loves to jump to conclusions. "O, Steve HAD to know his brother in law was drunk" etc....

Really? Some of you act like you were there and saw the two get into the car.

It's not about making excuses for McNair. It's about looking at the facts as we know them right now. He was in a car that was being driven by someone who was "legally" drunk. Anyone ever been around someone who's barely over the limit? It's almost impossible to tell.

It's hilarious that people are saying that him not knowing the law isn't valid. You're goddamn right it's valid. I live in the real world and know that every citizen doesn't know every law. It's ridiculous to think so. McNair was in the passsenger seat because in his mind he had too many drinks.

Now, he'll face the court system and the NFL and we'll see what happens.

But let's stop making this into something it's not.

And after all of that, I'm with everyone as to why athletes don't have a driver or call a cab/limo.

PP

highwater

05-10-2007, 05:28 PM

It's hilarious that people are saying that him not knowing the law isn't valid.

Not only that, how do we know that he didn't know about the law? Why assume that? Given the amount of time he's spent in that state, it's not a given that he didn't know.

Either way, it was a poor decision. I hope the Commish is too distracted by Mike Vick's dog-fighting operation to spend a lot of time on this.

crazyraven

05-10-2007, 09:08 PM

Greg

05-10-2007, 09:41 PM

Give me a break. Alcohol affects people in different ways. One person could have 2 drinks and be stumbling over themselves drunk, while another person could have the same 2 drinks and not even get a buzz.
Look, I agree that MADD has lobbied to get the levels too low, but the thing is they were drinking together and the law is what it is. And yes, drinks do affect people differently, so who is to say that McNair may have been the more sober. I would love to know how drunk he was but since he refused the breathalyzer I guess we will never know. You are assuming he was barely drunk if it all. I don't know what to think but I damn well wish we had the breathalyzer results.

purplepoe

05-10-2007, 10:19 PM

I'm glad a law like this is in place. lets face it Mcnair probably never drives because of the problems that he would have if he got into an accident or what not. To me Mcnair did the most hideous thing, he set someone else up to take a fall for him. He went out drinking with his bro in law and then he gives him the keys and in case something happens mcnair has a fall guy or front man to hide behind. Its clever and probably the exact reason why this law has been created in the first place.

Boy, you're just making assumptions all over the place aren't you?

You have no clue how often McNair drives.

You think he set up his brother in law? Gimme a fuckin break. How do you know that that car wasn't a car that McNair never drives and that is always driven by his brother in law?

You assume that McNair said "Hey, Im drunk and so is my BIL, so let him drive."

How the hell do you know how his brother in law was acting? If the guy says he's OK to drive,

It doesn't surprise me that you just make assumptions and act like they are fact.

Again, he broke the law. It's FAR from him getting behind the wheel drunk. I don't care how you want to spin it. It's not the same as him driving drunk and if McNair didn't know that was the law then this whole character assassination you're doing makes you look foolish.

PP

crazyraven

05-11-2007, 06:40 AM

I'm not trying to assassinate his character. He doing fine job of that by driving around drunk for the last few years and getting caught all by himself.

He said he was trying to do the right thing. the right thing? The right thing is not letting someone who is drunk drive you around.

Sorry until it is proven otherwise, steve probrably did this because of the new commish in the nfl or concerns about past incidents, then when he was too drunk to drive decided to have his Brother in law drive because he doesnt have as much to lose as he does. Its just that simple

Plus the numskull of a bother inlaw said he was trying to keep Mcnair out of trouble.

From todays Baltimore sun

According to the police report, Cartwright said he drank at least two beers earlier in the evening. He then took a field sobriety test, which indicated impairment. Cartwright, whom police said refused to take a Breathalyzer test because he wanted to help McNair stay out of trouble, was arrested on DUI charges along with McNair.

ravenmaniac

05-11-2007, 08:50 AM

I'm not trying to assassinate his character. He doing fine job of that by driving around drunk for the last few years and getting caught all by himself.

He said he was trying to do the right thing. the right thing? The right thing is not letting someone who is drunk drive you around.

Sorry until it is proven otherwise, steve probrably did this because of the new commish in the nfl or concerns about past incidents, then when he was too drunk to drive decided to have his Brother in law drive because he doesnt have as much to lose as he does. Its just that simple

Plus the numskull of a bother inlaw said he was trying to keep Mcnair out of trouble.

From todays Baltimore sun

Driving around drunk for the last few years? The first case was dismissed so we don't know if he was drunk or not. It was never taken to trial. This isn't Russia. There is a presumption of innocence you are presuming he is guilty, not just of the last case but of the "last few years". As for the "you dont let someone who is drunk drive you around", I'll say it again, NO ONE HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF DRIVING DRUNK. Being arrested for something does not = being GUILTY of something.

Mobtown Matt

05-11-2007, 08:52 AM

This law is about as stupid as fining a parent because their kid borrowed the car & didn't buckle up. Seriously. For those convicting McNair of bad judgement & actually defending this asinine law, let's follow the logic to it's natural conclusions:

1. Passengers in a car from which the driver has thrown litter should be fined for littering as well.

2. Passengers in a car in which the driver is not wearing his seat belt should be fined for the same offense, whether they were buckled up or not.

3. If someone borrows your car & hits a pedestrian, you should be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

4. If someone borrows your car & purchases drugs, you should also be charged with solicitation & possession.

None of those make sense, do they? The argument against this is that the driver's impairment is a pre-existing condition - but how is McNair supposed to know? There is no law stating that he must screen all drivers of his vehicle. There is no law that McNair must be sober to lend his vehicle to anyone. There is no law against McNair being drunk & a passenger in his own car. This law punishes McNair for not being sober & for not being able to medically assess his brother-in-law's impairment - no matter what information his BIL gave him. And that, my friends, is the very definition of an unreasonable expectation.

I'd say the same thing if this was Joe Schmoe off the street. It's a stupid law. The punishment doesn't fit the crime because there is no crime committed by the owner. The law states that you are criminally responsible for the driver whether or not you're there, whether or not you know what they're doing. It does not state that it's illegal to loan your car to anyone for any reason.

festivus

05-11-2007, 09:10 AM

For those convicting McNair of bad judgement & actually defending this asinine law,

Two different things. It's an odd law, but that's no excuse for the bad judgement shown in breaking it. You might sit at a stop light hating the unnecessary "No right on red" sign, but if making that right on red will mean you might get suspended for four games, you'd best sit there until the light turns green.

:2c:

purplepoe

05-11-2007, 09:30 AM

I'm not trying to assassinate his character. He doing fine job of that by driving around drunk for the last few years and getting caught all by himself.

You're a joke.

PP

crazyraven

05-11-2007, 09:43 AM

ravenmaniac

05-11-2007, 09:49 AM

No your the joke. you are on the wrong side of this argument. Your too busy sticking your head up mcnairs ass you cant see right from wrong. Stop being an imbecile about this. If this was Boller you'd be all of him, and we'd be on the same side with this one. But because its mcnair you make excuses. Bad ones at that.

He was pulled over for a DUI in 2003 and now he is stopped for handing the keys over to his brother in law who admittedly didn't want to get Mcnair in trouble. I told you last night i was right about the bro in law being the fall guy or the front man.

He was pulled over for speeding not for DUI. He was arrested for DUI and the case was dismissed. The case ran its course and the judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to even pull him over to begin with. Sorry but these are FACTS. Claiming he has been driving around drunk for years is ridiculous and does make you a joke. What you said wasn't factual.

purplepoe

05-11-2007, 09:52 AM

No your the joke. you are on the wrong side of this argument. Your too busy sticking your head up mcnairs ass you cant see right from wrong. Stop being an imbecile about this. If this was Boller you'd be all of him, and we'd be on the same side with this one. But because its mcnair you make excuses. Bad ones at that.

He was pulled over for a DUI in 2003 and now he is stopped for handing the keys over to his brother in law who admittedly didn't want to get Mcnair in trouble. I told you last night i was right about the bro in law being the fall guy or the front man.

All you do is make assumptions and accusations.

It suits you. Don't wait for everything to come out, just make your decision right away.

If McNair does this in MD, it's nothing.

So pardon me if Im not gonna strike the man down because he happened to be in a different state where even attorney's who are being interviewed about this are saying most people have no idea it's a law on the books.

I don't care if it was Joey Porter who was arrested for this. I'd say the same thing. And before you go ahead and say I wouldn't, save it. Your pathetic posts on this board are a joke as it is.

I said it earlier. He broke the law in the Tenn. Im not arguing that.

And don't ever assume I'd be on the same side of any argument with you.

PP

crazyraven

05-11-2007, 09:53 AM

ClericBlackDave

05-11-2007, 09:55 AM

PP, I'm sorry but you're really on McNair's jock in this case. Case in point:

I love how some people are blaming McNair for something his brother in law did.

Both of them were drinking and shouldn't be driving, but instead of taking a cab McNair has his brother drive so that he wouldn't get in trouble IF CAUGHT

That indicates that

1) McNair wasn't worried that drunk driving endangers people, he was just worried about getting caught doing it. What a great guy

2) McNair knew driving after drinking was wrong, and a risk. He can't feign ignorance here or that he was trying to do the right thing. He was trying to cover his ass by having someone else who was intoxicated drive.

Its so obvious that this was a bad situation, a bad choice, and not just a case of "crazy cops".

its as bad as Chris Henry being passenger side wasted with Thurman or whoever it was on the Bengals as the less-fucked-up designated driver. And in that case I know I laughed and hated on those Bengals who were involved as much as I'll laugh and hate on Steve McNair's decision in this case.

Only difference is that Henry wasn't breaking the law by being that stupid in Cincinatti. Steve was breaking the law in Tennessee. Both situations, however, are equally stupid.

ravenmaniac

05-11-2007, 09:57 AM

Look He was pulled over in 2003 by and officer of the law determined he was drinking and Issued a DUI. Mcnair got off on a technicality. Have you been reading the papers?

Get your head out of mcnairs ass.

You know back in communist Russia, you could be stopped and held forever and your family would never know what happened to you. But thank God, here, in America an officer of the law can not indiscriminantly stop everyone for anything and hope he stumbles upon a crime. Apparently, this "officer of the law" did not have sufficient evidence to stop him and therefor could not charge him with DUI, case dismissed. Call it a technicality but I call it a judge protecting the rest of Americans against over reaching cops. Obviously, if he'd had a real reason to pull him over, said technicality wouldn't have worked. You said "he has been driving drunk for yrs". Back it up.

ClericBlackDave

05-11-2007, 10:02 AM

You know back in communist Russia, you could be stopped and held forever and your family would never know what happened to you.

Oh god, now people who agree that DUI is a problem are communists.

Really, you need to step into the year 2007. Now people who disagree with you should be called "Terrorists", not "Communists". Thats the new dis. Get with the culture. :grbac:

Khaine

05-11-2007, 10:03 AM

In this little place I like to call the real world a person can have a couple beers with dinner and be far from drunk.
So to say “The right thing is not letting someone who is drunk drive you around.” Is a far cry from reality.

Seeing these posts and you other posts in the past are yopu sure you aren’t a Stealers fan dyed purple?

I would even say it is an asinine law if it were Moss or Porter…. It is straight up a dumb law…

purplepoe

05-11-2007, 10:05 AM

PP, I'm sorry but you're really on McNair's jock in this case. Case in point:

Both of them were drinking and shouldn't be driving, but instead of taking a cab McNair has his brother drive so that he wouldn't get in trouble IF CAUGHT

That indicates that

1) McNair wasn't worried that drunk driving endangers people, he was just worried about getting caught doing it. What a great guy

2) McNair knew driving after drinking was wrong, and a risk. He can't feign ignorance here or that he was trying to do the right thing. He was trying to cover his ass by having someone else who was intoxicated drive.

Its so obvious that this was a bad situation, a bad choice, and not just a case of "crazy cops".

its as bad as Chris Henry being passenger side wasted with Thurman or whoever it was on the Bengals as the less-fucked-up designated driver. And in that case I know I laughed and hated on those Bengals who were involved as much as I'll laugh and hate on Steve McNair's decision in this case.

Only difference is that Henry wasn't breaking the law by being that stupid in Cincinatti. Steve was breaking the law in Tennessee. Both situations, however, are equally stupid.

Hey Dave, why don't you stfu about being anyone's jock.

It's not about who it is even though in your little head you want it to be.

Of course you'll "hate on" McNair. It's all you do.

I don't care who the hell it was, Im gonna say what've I've been saying from the get go.

You wanna voice a different opinion? Fine. But stop with this shit about being on anyone's jock or assuming my opinion is based on who it is.

Same goes for CR although maybe you can actually understand.

PP

crazyraven

05-11-2007, 10:06 AM

All you do is make assumptions and accusations.

It suits you. Don't wait for everything to come out, just make your decision right away.

If McNair does this in MD, it's nothing.
Then you are stupid just like i thought. If it was learned that Mcnair was in a car with someone who was drunk you dont think that this wouldnt be news accross this state. Since your bringing up hypothicals, suppose hes in the car and his Brother in law hits someone...i guess that is nothing to you too. Go play Qb for the ravens RAH RAH! GO Mcnair.

So pardon me if Im not gonna strike the man down because he happened to be in a different state where even attorney's who are being interviewed about this are saying most people have no idea it's a law on the books.

Its where he lives besides ignorance of the law is not an defence. Just because you dont about a law doesnt make ok if you break it. Holy moly with this dumb shit argument.

I don't care if it was Joey Porter who was arrested for this. I'd say the same thing. And before you go ahead and say I wouldn't, save it. Your pathetic posts on this board are a joke as it is.
OH BULLSHIT. You are such a liar. You would be all over Porter or Boller who ever isnt a Your favorite raven or nfl player. Your a typical Baltimore homer no it all.

ravenmaniac

05-11-2007, 10:09 AM

Oh god, now people who agree that DUI is a problem are communists.

Really, you need to step into the year 2007. Now people who disagree with you should be called "Terrorists", not "Communists". Thats the new dis. Get with the culture. :grbac:

I'm going to explain this to you because you are REALLY slow. I was using communist russia as a metaphor. This analogy was made to explain that a judge throwing out a case for not having sufficient evidence to stop someone is a good thing. People are pulled over for "driving while black" daily. One would hope that a judge can recognize this and make sure that folks get due process. If you don't understand, I can't help you. My point was, claiming that "mcnair has been driving drunk for years" is ridiculous and has no merit. He made the point that his case was dismissed on a technicality.

purplepoe

05-11-2007, 10:16 AM

Then you are stupid just like i thought. If it was learned that Mcnair was in a car with someone who was drunk you dont think that this wouldnt be news accross this state. Since your bringing up hypothicals, suppose hes in the car and his Brother in law hits someone...i guess that is nothing to you too. Go play Qb for the ravens RAH RAH! GO Mcnair.

Its where he lives besides ignorance of the law is not an defence. Just because you dont about a law doesnt make ok if you break it. Holy moly with this dumb shit argument.

OH BULLSHIT. You are such a liar. You would be all over Porter or Boller who ever isnt a Your favorite raven or nfl player. Your a typical Baltimore homer no it all.

Hey you pompous fucking moron.

Keep supposing and hurling accusations at me. You keep proving how fucking dumb you are.

I never said it was OK to break the law. He did. So he'll face the court. Once again you make your fucking arrogant assumptions. Im am, however, allowed to question the law and think it's bullshit.

Please read this closely. I do not care who the hell it was that was charged with this BS. I would say the same thing. I know it's hard for you to comprehend but try it.

You're got a real problem with making accusations with nothing to back it up.

PP

ClericBlackDave

05-11-2007, 10:17 AM

Hey Dave, why don't you stfu about being anyone's jock

Then explain to me how this is different than the Chris Henry / Odell Thurman DUI stop in Cincinnatti.

its not, its the same situation and equally stupid, except Tenessee has a law against it and Cincinnatti doesn't.

If you can explain a reason why you think this is A OK other than its Steve McNair, then I'll say you're not on his Jock. But if you replace Steve McNair in this story with "Chris Henry" regardless of the shit you're saying I know you wouldn't defend the behavior.

Explain to me how this is different than Chris Henry, or how this pattern is totally unrelated to McNair's last dui stop with an illegal firearm.

ravenmaniac

05-11-2007, 10:20 AM

Has ANYONE called this A okay?

crazyraven

05-11-2007, 10:21 AM

My point was, claiming that "mcnair has been driving drunk for years" is ridiculous and has no merit. He made the point that his case was dismissed on a technicality.

You're got a real problem with making accusations with nothing to back it up.

On two occassions he was caught in a DUI sitiuation over a period of a few years. The sun and arron wilson bring up this point in their articles. He was stopped for something else. However I fully recognize that a judge dissmissed the charges. the charges were dropped because the cop never had the right to pull him over in the first place. but when the cop did pull him over he/she discovered that he was DUI. We hear about technicallities all the time. The technicallity doesnt dismiss that he was found drunk in a car. You can ignore it if want I choose not too.

Sorry if that upsets people.

purplepoe

05-11-2007, 10:28 AM

double post

purplepoe

05-11-2007, 10:29 AM

Then explain to me how this is different than the Chris Henry / Odell Thurman DUI stop in Cincinnatti.

its not, its the same situation and equally stupid, except Tenessee has a law against it and Cincinnatti doesn't.

If you can explain a reason why you think this is A OK other than its Steve McNair, then I'll say you're not on his Jock. But if you replace Steve McNair in this story with "Chris Henry" regardless of the shit you're saying I know you wouldn't defend the behavior.

Explain to me how this is different than Chris Henry, or how this pattern is totally unrelated to McNair's last dui stop with an illegal firearm.

1. The firearm was LEGAL. But don't let the facts get in your way.

2. Henry did the same thing as McNair and wasn't charged because he didn't break a law. And IIRC, Henry was sticking his head out the window puking his guts out. I didn't say word one about that incident in relation to Henry.

I don't think anyone should be charged with what McNair was charged with. I think the law is ridiculous. But it's the law so he has to now deal with it.

Im just not gonna go crazy about it and blow it up into something it's not. He got into a car and the person driving the car was charged with DUI. The incident happened to be in a state where this law exists. It's as simple as that. Sorry if Im not gonna make it into something it's not.

PP

purplepoe

05-11-2007, 10:32 AM

On two occassions he was caught in a DUI sitiuation over a period of a few years. The sun and arron wilson bring up this point in their articles. He was stopped for something else. However I fully recognize that a judge dissmissed the charges. the charges were dropped because the cop never had the right to pull him over in the first place. but when the cop did pull him over he/she discovered that he was DUI. We hear about technicallities all the time. The technicallity doesnt dismiss that he was found drunk in a car. You can ignore it if want I choose not too.

Sorry if that upsets people.

Im talking about your assumptions about me and how you just know how I'd react if it were someone else.

You don't yet you think you do.

PP

purplepoe

05-11-2007, 10:33 AM

Has ANYONE called this A okay?

Exactly.

You see, when you argue with some people, they read what you say and then assume a bunch of different things that aren't close to being true.

PP

Khaine

05-11-2007, 10:33 AM

Both of them were drinking and shouldn't be driving, but instead of taking a cab McNair has his brother drive so that he wouldn't get in trouble IF CAUGHT

That indicates that

1) McNair wasn't worried that drunk driving endangers people, he was just worried about getting caught doing it. What a great guy
Or he felt his bother in law was not drunk enough to be impaired – thus not an inordinate risk to anyone…
I’m not sure if you have ever had a drink, but a majority of people I know can have a couple beers and not be impaired. And if we are going down the ‘Don’t break any laws’ road – how fast do ya’ll drive? I’m willing to bet it is over the speed limit on a daily basis…
There are a number of laws that go widely ignored on a daily basis… so to string him up for something like this is just plain silly.

2) McNair knew driving after drinking was wrong, and a risk. He can't feign ignorance here or that he was trying to do the right thing. He was trying to cover his ass by having someone else who was intoxicated drive.
We don’t know how much – if at all the driver was intoxicated. And if he was then he should suffer consequences. But the whole idea of other people being held accountable for someone else’s actions is a bad idea.

its as bad as Chris Henry being passenger side wasted with Thurman or whoever it was on the Bengals as the less-fucked-up designated driver. And in that case I know I laughed and hated on those Bengals who were involved as much as I'll laugh and hate on Steve McNair's decision in this case.
Which would be silly… Myself I may have wished the Henry was driving so he would get into trouble but I would still think it is a dumb law if it were him and not Steve.

ClericBlackDave

05-11-2007, 10:58 AM

1. The firearm was LEGAL. But don't let the facts get in your way.

IIRC, it was a legal firearm but it is illegal to carry a firearm in your car or concealed in any manner or form unless registered to do so, which Steve was not.

We don’t know how much – if at all the driver was intoxicated. And if he was then he should suffer consequences. But the whole idea of other people being held accountable for someone else’s actions is a bad idea.

1) He failed a field sobriety test. We know that he was drinking that night. The only thing missing is a breathalizer test, because he wouldn't take it. We know he was intoxicated enough to fail the test and to be DUI.

2) You're not being held accountable for someone else's actions in the law. Its your car, and your decision to let another individual drive your car is something you should be held accountable for. This idea that you don't know how intoxicated your friend is . . . silly. He was there drinking with him. Of coruse you don't know EXACTLY how affected he is, but then its your decision to take a calculated risk.

ravenmaniac

05-11-2007, 11:31 AM

IIRC, it was a legal firearm but it is illegal to carry a firearm in your car or concealed in any manner or form unless registered to do so, which Steve was not.

1) He failed a field sobriety test. We know that he was drinking that night. The only thing missing is a breathalizer test, because he wouldn't take it. We know he was intoxicated enough to fail the test and to be DUI.

2) You're not being held accountable for someone else's actions in the law. Its your car, and your decision to let another individual drive your car is something you should be held accountable for. This idea that you don't know how intoxicated your friend is . . . silly. He was there drinking with him. Of coruse you don't know EXACTLY how affected he is, but then its your decision to take a calculated risk.

I've already given a case where my brother failed a field sobriety test and blew a .06 at the station only to be arrested and found NOT guilty in court. Failing a field sobriety does not equal that you were DUI.

ClericBlackDave

05-11-2007, 11:52 AM

and blew a .06 at the station

Thats a big detail there, and another reason McNair's brother will be guilty. If he had consented to a breathalizer and blew .06 this'd all be a moot point.

Obviously he wasn't confident in blowing that low.

In most states it is not a crime to refuse breathlizer, but will result in, at the very least, a loss of license. By driving a car registered in that state with that license, you're affirming you know the laws (like this owner DUI law) and that you will consent to breathalizer if requested by an officer.

So, we'll see what happens.

if I had to place odds, i'd say 60-40 they get off because its Steve McNair.

if it was a normal person in Tennessee, I would make the odd 35-65 that they get off. The evidence seems pretty damning to me, considering the bar owner confirmed they were drinking.

festivus

05-11-2007, 12:01 PM

CBD, did you notice the comment in the Sun article, claiming this charge is normally pled severely down or dismissed?

It looks like a difficult charge to prove under these circumstances. The prosecutor will have to prove:
a. Cartwright was drunk
b. McNair *knew* that he was drunk - not that he was drinking, but that he was *drunk*
c. McNair knowingly gave him control over the car.

I do not envy the prosecutor. Each of those three steps is loaded with pitfalls and probably explains why the local lawyer said that charge is often pled way down or dismissed.

Concerning ravenmaniac's description of what happened with his brother, I've seen that many times. Proving intoxication from a field sobriety test is no easy task, particularly given the current judicial disfavor for the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.

On a side note, given the vitriol in this thread I'm surprised it hasn't been locked.

ClericBlackDave

05-11-2007, 12:09 PM

What is Tennessee law on refusing a breathalizer? Thats the real question, because in a lot of states thats a kiss of death right there.

festivus

05-11-2007, 12:23 PM

ER's link & FAQ suggested to me that it does *not* create a presumption of intoxication, which would be consistent with Maryland law. It creates a separate host of problems for the driver, but that's beside the point.

edit - clipped from ER's contribution on p. 2:
I was also charged with Implied Consent. What is this?

In Tennessee, by law, any person who drives a motor vehicle in the state is found to have given consent to a chemical test to determine the drug or alcohol content of the person’s blood. However, the test must be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer and the officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the motorist was driving under the influence. Although a motorist has a right to refuse to submit to a chemical test, such refusal could result in license suspension (see Penalty Matrix). Please note that under certain circumstances, you could be forced to take a chemical test. If a test was taken against your will, you should consult with an experienced DUI defense attorney.

ExiledRaven

05-11-2007, 12:55 PM

Yeah, I guess the facts are

1) got pulled over for speeding by a specialized DUI patrol cop
2) smelled alcohol, decided to administer a field sobriety test (note that, at best, these tests are only about 60% accurrate)
3) said ok, you failed the test (whichever one) and then the guy refused to take the breath test
4) refusal to take the breath test is going to get you booked
5) something along the lines of admitting he had two beers that night (the driver)

So really, if it's even close at all, you've got to show that McNair would know the guy was legal under the influence and blah blah blah...

Festivus is right, it's a really nasty case for a prosecutor to prove, ESPECIALLY with no breath test data. Even if they did have it and the guy blows .09 or .08 then you're going to have to show that McNair knew he was over? that's pretty rough...I wouldn't like to have to argue that one.

We'll see how it shakes out legally, but it's a real loser of a legal case given the facts that we've seen around.

....and this is why I will never be a prosecutor for any government...

festivus

05-11-2007, 01:10 PM

....and this is why I will never be a prosecutor for any government...

The problem would not be being a prosecutor. The problem would be, being a prosecutor without discretion.

crazyraven

05-11-2007, 01:17 PM

I wonder if the NFL schools the Players in situations like this. You know, whatever you do under any circumstanse do not take a breath test if you get pulled over. I said this before, if a cop pulled me over and asked me to take the test I would do it being confident that I wasnt drunk this way id get the speeding ticket and go home. Again sorry if this is an assumption but given the fact that a Breath test was refused I have to wonder if this was done just to make it harder on the prosecutors and the police so that this doesnt become a bigger mess than it already is. I agree with everyone that this is gonna be a bitch to prove.

festivus

05-11-2007, 01:21 PM

Crazy, I believe that training is done at the team level, and I would also guess it's done by each and every team in the NFL. The investment in these players is too high not to afford them the relatively small amount of training that could keep them out of some serious trouble with the Man.

Gwaihir

05-11-2007, 01:25 PM

Khaine

05-11-2007, 01:41 PM

And somehow I severely doubt anyone with the build of an NFL player is going to feel – or be impaired after having 2-3 beers…

Gwaihir

05-11-2007, 01:50 PM

And somehow I severely doubt anyone with the build of an NFL player is going to feel – or be impaired after having 2-3 beers…

Being impared or feeling it has nothing to do with a DUI! I'm 6', 225 and 2-3 beers puts me over the limit despite the fact that I feel fine!

Mista T

05-11-2007, 03:08 PM

We'll see how it shakes out legally, but it's a real loser of a legal case given the facts that we've seen around.

Interesting -- but I don't think it's too meaningful to the McNair incident. i.e. - unlike Tags, Goodell is not going to pass judgement on McNair based solely or even primarily on how the legal system resolves the matter. If Goodell wants to show the players that there is a new sheriff in town, he would have enough from two McNair strikes (that are publicly known) to be able to mete out punishment for conduct detrimental to the league. Goodell has already shown that he will make decisions based on what the NFL investigators ascertain -- and he's not waiting for jury decisions, or plea bargains, as Tags would have done.

I think that there will be some punishment -- in order to amplify the message to the players. More than a wrist slap, but way short of a long suspension.

Mista T

05-11-2007, 03:46 PM

so you think that McNair did something wrong. His Bro in law refused a breath test which he could not control, eventually the Bro in law blows normal. So basically McNair was driving with a Sober person due to the fact he had a few beers himself. Sounds responsible to me. Wheres McNairs problem? Johnny Cochran would get him off. I forsee no punishment from the NFL

Was that comment aimed at me, Nurse? If so: McNair is guilty of stupidity, but I don't see it as "wrong" -- based on what we've seen. Wrong place, wrong time, perhaps. Definitely wrong law (IMHO).

As to Johnny Cochrane: I'm sure he has better things to do than challenge an over-reaching DUI law in Tennessee. Regardless, as I stated above, I believe that Goodell will mete out some punishment based on the his own interpretation of how McNair's 2nd DUI run-in with Tennessee lawmen affects the league's image. It should be relatively mild, but it will likely be more than your "no punishment from the NFL".

purplepoe

05-11-2007, 03:51 PM

Was that comment aimed at me, Nurse? If so: McNair is guilty of stupidity, but I don't see it as "wrong" -- based on what we've seen. Wrong place, wrong time, perhaps. Definitely wrong law (IMHO).

As to Johnny Cochrane: I'm sure he has better things to do than challenge an over-reaching DUI law in Tennessee. Regardless, as I stated above, I believe that Goodell will mete out some punishment based on the his own interpretation of how McNair's 2nd DUI run-in with Tennessee lawmen affects the league's image. It should be relatively mild, but it will likely be more than your "no punishment from the NFL".

Hmmm, I know Cochrane got alot of people off, but if he get McNair off on this one, it would be more impressive than OJ.

Then again, he'd have to do it from a pine box that's six feet under.

PP

Mista T

05-11-2007, 04:11 PM

Hmmm, I know Cochrane got alot of people off, but if he get McNair off on this one, it would be more impressive than OJ.

Then again, he'd have to do it from a pine box that's six feet under.

PP

Good one, Poe!

I han't realized that Cochrane died. He will surely be missed.

RavenTD

05-11-2007, 04:31 PM

Nothing like a QB debate to bring a forum back to life.

"Any law enforcement matter that involves any of our people, we look into it to determine whether there is ultimately any violation of our policies," Aiello said.

You know,if it didn't happen,then none of this crud would be going down.
And we would just be getting excited about training camp.

MikeinGlennDale

05-11-2007, 09:28 PM

Mobtown Matt has this balls on. This law doesn't make sense. It sends the wrong message as well. Think a little more close to home about this rather than simply considering that "Well, this is a multi million dollar athlete, he should know better"...that is much like the cluck...cluck...clucking that you hear around the no loads at the office.

No to be overdramatic, but I'd hate to see the opinions of those people talking about the horrible deeds of a guy trying to make a responsible decision...

Just because Steve McNair makes a bunch of money, it seems to me that he keeps true to a workmanlike mentality...think about it...did you pay attention to the vehicle they were riding in?

Was is a Bentley with rims...maybe an escalade...nope...It was a damn American made 2003 pickup truck....

Put this in perspective...this is a ridiculous state law.

Having said all that...if it was Boller...the treatment would be as if he was the type of quarterback that stumbles over his own feet...fumbles the snap from center on the regular...blah...blah...blah.

No harm...no foul. There will be no administrative action.

This law is about as stupid as fining a parent because their kid borrowed the car & didn't buckle up. Seriously. For those convicting McNair of bad judgement & actually defending this asinine law, let's follow the logic to it's natural conclusions:

1. Passengers in a car from which the driver has thrown litter should be fined for littering as well.

2. Passengers in a car in which the driver is not wearing his seat belt should be fined for the same offense, whether they were buckled up or not.

3. If someone borrows your car & hits a pedestrian, you should be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

4. If someone borrows your car & purchases drugs, you should also be charged with solicitation & possession.

None of those make sense, do they? The argument against this is that the driver's impairment is a pre-existing condition - but how is McNair supposed to know? There is no law stating that he must screen all drivers of his vehicle. There is no law that McNair must be sober to lend his vehicle to anyone. There is no law against McNair being drunk & a passenger in his own car. This law punishes McNair for not being sober & for not being able to medically assess his brother-in-law's impairment - no matter what information his BIL gave him. And that, my friends, is the very definition of an unreasonable expectation.

I'd say the same thing if this was Joe Schmoe off the street. It's a stupid law. The punishment doesn't fit the crime because there is no crime committed by the owner. The law states that you are criminally responsible for the driver whether or not you're there, whether or not you know what they're doing. It does not state that it's illegal to loan your car to anyone for any reason.

ravcol

05-12-2007, 11:31 AM

Why would anyone, especially Steve McNair, hand over keys to a guy who has been drinking? Idiot personified....

duffybr

05-12-2007, 05:08 PM

BAL chart
http://alcoholprev.colostate.edu/bachart.shtml

This chart will some actual facts about blood levels into this discussion.

Alot of you sound like people trying to justify your own drinking and driving.
after working as a counselor doing groups for dui offfenders for 20 years, i found a question that puts it in perspective.
how many drinks do you want someone who is driving your child (spouse, mother etc.) to have prior to driving?

madd has changed things, but attend a maddd meeting where people who have lost someone or someone in a wheelchair talks--- then give your opinion.

losing the right to drink a couple of more beers is nothing compared to losing the ability to walk.

you can handle it?
not one person started their evening by saying i'm getting a dui tonite or i'm having a wreck tonite.

alot of you guys say the same justifications as people in my groups do every week.

be careful

purplepoe

05-12-2007, 06:12 PM

Greg

05-13-2007, 08:37 PM

Just because Steve McNair makes a bunch of money, it seems to me that he keeps true to a workmanlike mentality...think about it...did you pay attention to the vehicle they were riding in?
It has absolutely nothing to do with how much money he makes, or his mentality.

I guess you never had a beer or a glass of wine at a restaurant huh. Pot meet kettle....idiot, hardly...he was not driving and the bro in law blew legal....Please invite me over to see your glass house....it must be nice
There is a lot of assuming going on here. How do we know they weren't drunk? His brother-in-law did fail a field sobriety test.

Yes, he broke a law in Tenn.
That same law exists in many states, including this one. And in many, including Tennessee, it is much older than MADD.

But he didn't get behind the wheel and drive drunk.
Handing the keys to somebody who has been drinking? Isn't that irresponsible.

I am trying to get how people are dismissing this. If you are out drinking and elect not to drive and instead hand the keys over to somebody else who has been drinking negates the positive decision to elect not to drive.

The act of driving drunk IS NOT THE PROBLEM. IT IS THE ACT OF PUTTING OTHERS IN DANGER! It doesn't matter who drove the vehicle, it is electing to put a vehicle into the hands of somebody who is drunk.

Now maybe neither was drunk, but we won't ever know that. We do know the guy behind the wheel failed a field sobriety test and handing that guy the keys was just as irresponsible, AND ILLEGAL, as getting behind the wheel yourself.

purplepoe

05-13-2007, 09:50 PM

It has absolutely nothing to do with how much money he makes, or his mentality.

There is a lot of assuming going on here. How do we know they weren't drunk? His brother-in-law did fail a field sobriety test.

That same law exists in many states, including this one. And in many, including Tennessee, it is much older than MADD.

Handing the keys to somebody who has been drinking? Isn't that irresponsible.

I am trying to get how people are dismissing this. If you are out drinking and elect not to drive and instead hand the keys over to somebody else who has been drinking negates the positive decision to elect not to drive.

The act of driving drunk IS NOT THE PROBLEM. IT IS THE ACT OF PUTTING OTHERS IN DANGER! It doesn't matter who drove the vehicle, it is electing to put a vehicle into the hands of somebody who is drunk.

Now maybe neither was drunk, but we won't ever know that. We do know the guy behind the wheel failed a field sobriety test and handing that guy the keys was just as irresponsible, AND ILLEGAL, as getting behind the wheel yourself.

Yes, it's irresponsible.

Sorry if I look at it a bit differently than actually driving. It's as if some people think his BIL is some naive invalid who didn't know what he was doing. He's a grown man who made the decision.

He could have easily said no and not driven the car. But he didn't.

I don't know if this has been brought up but did it ever occur to anyone else that this car could quite possibly be used almost exclusively by the BIL?

Everyone is so quick to say that McNair "tossed" this guy the keys and he drove when it's very possible that this guy drove them to the bar as well as tried to drive them home.

And Greg, Im not dismissing it. He broke the law. If he gets suspended, that's a result of his actions.

But the guy didn't drive the car drunk. Someone else did. And that act of driving was a decision made by the BIL, not Steve McNair.

PP

Greg

05-14-2007, 10:25 AM

Sorry if I look at it a bit differently than actually driving. It's as if some people think his BIL is some naive invalid who didn't know what he was doing. He's a grown man who made the decision.
They BOTH made the decision to let a person who failed a field sobriety test drive. BOTH. Being the person physically behind the wheel is immaterial. That is, unless his BIL told him he had nothing to drink and was fine. Somehow I doubt that, I would guess they were near enough to each other during the evening to know what each other consumed.

He could have easily said no and not driven the car. But he didn't.
And McNair could have said "No" as well, knowing that his BIL had been drinking. He handed a person intoxicated enough to fail a field sobriety test the keys to his vehicle. It's just as bad as driving the car yourself, that is the point of this law.

I don't know if this has been brought up but did it ever occur to anyone else that this car could quite possibly be used almost exclusively by the BIL?

Everyone is so quick to say that McNair "tossed" this guy the keys and he drove when it's very possible that this guy drove them to the bar as well as tried to drive them home.
McNair's ownership is also immaterial, IT IS THE FACT THAT HE LET A GUY DRIVE WHO HAD CONSUMED ENOUGH ALCOHOL TO FAIL A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST. Who owned the car doesn't matter. Now if the BIL got in and McNair said "No, we should take a cab" and his BIL took off without him I would applaud McNair. And if he got arrested in that case just because it was his car I would call Bullshit on the arrest. But he didn't. He got into the car and gave his consent to his BIL driving under those conditions.

purplepoe

05-14-2007, 11:44 AM

They BOTH made the decision to let a person who failed a field sobriety test drive. BOTH. Being the person physically behind the wheel is immaterial. That is, unless his BIL told him he had nothing to drink and was fine. Somehow I doubt that, I would guess they were near enough to each other during the evening to know what each other consumed.

And McNair could have said "No" as well, knowing that his BIL had been drinking. He handed a person intoxicated enough to fail a field sobriety test the keys to his vehicle. It's just as bad as driving the car yourself, that is the point of this law.

McNair's ownership is also immaterial, IT IS THE FACT THAT HE LET A GUY DRIVE WHO HAD CONSUMED ENOUGH ALCOHOL TO FAIL A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST. Who owned the car doesn't matter. Now if the BIL got in and McNair said "No, we should take a cab" and his BIL took off without him I would applaud McNair. And if he got arrested in that case just because it was his car I would call Bullshit on the arrest. But he didn't. He got into the car and gave his consent to his BIL driving under those conditions.

What is it with this "he let his BIL do it" stuff?

What if McNair wanted to stay later and "let" his BIL drive home alone. Is he still responsible? You say the ownership is immaterial? Yet from what I've read, that's why he was charged.

For all we know there wasn't even an exchange about driving. They could've just decided to leave and gotten into the car.

Again, he broke the law and he was charged. I've got no issue with that.

If you say the ownership is immaterial then what do you say in a scenario like this.

I go to a bar Friday night with my buddies. We have a good time. The guy who drove says let's go and we get in the car and drive home. Am I responsible for his decision to drive?

PP

Greg

05-14-2007, 12:22 PM

What if McNair wanted to stay later and "let" his BIL drive home alone. Is he still responsible? You say the ownership is immaterial? Yet from what I've read, that's why he was charged.
If he does nothing to stop a person who is drunk from driving when he at minimum could say "You shouldn't be driving, call a cab" he is to some degree responsible. The ownership of the car is material legally, in that he had the capacity to stop him by asserting ownership and taking the keys. My point were about his moral responsibility, not his legal one. He may or may not be legally responsible, but his actions were careless by letting somebody (apparently) should not have been driving to drive, even endorsing the action by getting into the vehicle with him.

For all we know there wasn't even an exchange about driving. They could've just decided to leave and gotten into the car.
There probably wasn't. I am trying to figure out your point? He knew his BIL had been drinking, enough to fail a field sobriety test, but since they didn't talk about it McNair has no responsibility in letting him drive? Frankly, I think that hurts your view, had McNair asks him if he is okay to drive that would be better.

I go to a bar Friday night with my buddies. We have a good time. The guy who drove says let's go and we get in the car and drive home. Am I responsible for his decision to drive?
Is he drunk? If so, you are responsible to some degree. As a friend you should challenge him driving and certainly shouldn't give tacit approval by getting into the car with him. He is putting innocent people in danger as well as himself. As a friend you should try and stop him from such a foolish act.

purplepoe

05-14-2007, 12:31 PM

If he does nothing to stop a person who is drunk from driving when he at minimum could say "You shouldn't be driving, call a cab" he is to some degree responsible. The ownership of the car is material legally, in that he had the capacity to stop him by asserting ownership and taking the keys. My point were about his moral responsibility, not his legal one. He may or may not be legally responsible, but his actions were careless by letting somebody (apparently) should not have been driving to drive, even endorsing the action by getting into the vehicle with him.

There probably wasn't. I am trying to figure out your point? He knew his BIL had been drinking, enough to fail a field sobriety test, but since they didn't talk about it McNair has no responsibility in letting him drive? Frankly, I think that hurts your view, had McNair asks him if he is okay to drive that would be better.

Is he drunk? If so, you are responsible to some degree. As a friend you should challenge him driving and certainly shouldn't give tacit approval by getting into the car with him. He is putting innocent people in danger as well as himself. As a friend you should try and stop him from such a foolish act.

No, he didn't know his BIL had been drinking enough to fail a sobriety test. Who's to say he wouldn't of stopped him from driving if he knew? That's my point. This whole thing could've been so innocent in nature in the sense that McNair could've easily thought there was no way his BIL was drunk enough to fail the test.

I guess Im viewing this from a personal repsonsibility point of view more than anything. IMO, when it comes down to it, it's the responsibility of the driver.

You can say what people "should" do alot when it comes to your moral stance. My story was a hypothetical. I've stopped friends many times from drinking and driving. I've also been at bars and seen people walk out the door and get into a car. Is it my responsibility to make an attempt to stop that person from driving drunk? Again, IMO, that's on the person who is choosing to drive.

PP

highwater

05-14-2007, 12:41 PM

Just a few comments about this . . .

-- First of all, the press has been inconsistent in their reporting of this law and what we have learned in the FAQ that ER posted earlier and other sources. From what I have read, ownership is not really an issue -- under these circumstances, McNair could have been charged even if it wasn't his truck.

-- This is not a new law, as some of us assumed. It has been on the books in Tennessee for about fifty years.

-- It not not a common law, however, as it exists in only a handful of states (I don't remember the actual number, but I think it was about five or six).

-- We are speculating endlessly about how intoxicated McNair and his BIL were, but since the BIL refused a breath test on the scene, and since McNair didn't have to take one and wasn't asked, we will never know. If, as reported earlier, the BIL blew a .06 at the station later on (and I still don't know if that's true), then that likely means he was a few points higher than that at the time of arrest, which is not much more than the legal limit. Still illegal, but not falling asleep at the wheel drunk.

-- We will likely not ever get all the relevant facts.

Greg

05-14-2007, 12:52 PM

There are a lot of assumptions here, such as that they were not drunk and McNair didn't know his BIL had been drinking or whatever.

No, he didn't know his BIL had been drinking enough to fail a sobriety test.
How do we know this? His BIL failed a field sobriety test, he apparently was at least THAT drunk. Maybe the wind was blowing or it was a particularly difficult test easily failed even after 2 beers, I don't know. All I do know is the guy looked and acted drunk enough to get arrested.

I wish he had taken a test at the scene, if he blew a .07 I would be calling bullshit as well. But he didn't. I might have elected to not use a breathalyzer as well. By electing to not take the test and possibly incriminate himself he also took away the chance to exonerate himself. Tough call, because the level I would give a pass to would still get him arrested.

My position is based on his failing the field sobriety test. He did poorly enough to get arrested. His driving was probably compromised, driving under those circumstances was a poor choice. Letting him drive also was.

ClericBlackDave

05-14-2007, 01:54 PM

But the guy didn't drive the car drunk. Someone else did. And that act of driving was a decision made by the BIL, not Steve McNair.

And its exactly this mentality that the Tennessee law is meant to combat.

It doesn't matter if Steve didn't drive the car and wasn't the driver. Its his car, PLUS he was passenger side, plus he was drinking and let another person who was drinking drive the vehicle.

As Greg so aptly put it, the issue is putting people in danger. Driver or not driver, 3 or 8 beers, .10 or .12 BAC, the issue is people in danger on the roads, not knowing someone is intoxicated and ready to kill them by accident.

the law is the law in Tennessee, and he broke it.

And personally, I dont think the law is that far off on how to handle this. Accodring to the sun:

The "DUI by consent" law sustained an early challenge before the state's Supreme Court in 1962. A man claimed he had been too intoxicated to know that he was turning his car over to an intoxicated friend, who subsequently killed a child. The court ruled that the man who turned over his car was criminally negligent.

The law can be applied to the owner of a vehicle whether the owner is in the vehicle or not during the DUI stop. It also can be applied to a passenger who does not own the car.

the law makes perfect sense in light of cases like that.

festivus

05-14-2007, 02:16 PM

As I recall the trigger for the car stop was driving 45 in a 30, or something like that.

There was the 'failing' of a single field sobriety test, which can mean anything.

There was the admission of having two drinks.

There was the refusal to take the breath test.

Those of you who induce from these factors an actual state of intoxication are making a big leap to get from these factors to that conclusion.

I stand by my assertion this is an odd law, and I don't think it's a coincidence it predates more contemporary notions about how to combat drunken driving. I also stand by my assertion that McNair showed some baaad judgement, not arranging another form of transportation.

But you guys who look at these factors and deduce a level of significant intoxication are reaching, in my humble opinion.

Sad stories about drunken driving accidents are unpersuasive; there are many recent sad stories about cell phone accidents. . . Let's not get too carried away crossing the wires of (a) what we know happened, (b) what might have happened, (c) what's moral, and (d) what's legal.

ClericBlackDave

05-14-2007, 02:23 PM

Sad stories about drunken driving accidents are unpersuasive; there are many recent sad stories about cell phone accidents. . . Let's not get too carried away crossing the wires of (a) what we know happened, (b) what might have happened, (c) what's moral, and (d) what's legal.

This is why many states are making the move to make talking while driving w/o a headset illegal, and to make texting while driving illegal.

There are also moves to figure out how to punish drivers for driving sleep deprived.

All these are efforts to keep the road safe.

No-one is getting carried away.

Driving is a privelege, not a right. And the state should be able to take the appropriate steps to regulate driving and make it safe. If Tennessee has decided the DUI Owner law is such a step, so be it. I actually agree with the sentiment.

festivus

05-14-2007, 02:54 PM

CBD, I'm all in favor of safe roads, and I am sad about bad things happening to good people, and I'll wave my pom poms right next to you when the legislature does something to get people to hang up and drive.

My point was, there is a lot of racing to judgement here when we don't know, in my humble opinion, enough to start throwing stones. How drunk was the brother? Does the brother often, or even always, drive this car? Has the brother been trained, as McNair may have been, always to refuse the breath tests?

> No-one is getting carried away.
I disagree. You and others have inserted a moral dimension that's premature, and is exactly what I mean when I use the expression "carried away."

/begin rant/
Also I find the publication of the unflattering picture of Steve irritating, because it's not like his own level of intoxication even matters. So why even publish it, except to make him look bad, even it it's not as bad as Nick Nolte or Robert Downey, Jr.?
/end rant/

Feel free to ignore the rant.

highwater

05-14-2007, 05:35 PM

As I recall the trigger for the car stop was driving 45 in a 30, or something like that.

There was the 'failing' of a single field sobriety test, which can mean anything.

There was the admission of having two drinks.

There was the refusal to take the breath test.

Those of you who induce from these factors an actual state of intoxication are making a big leap to get from these factors to that conclusion.

I don't think it's that big a leap, festy. Failing a field sobriety test is not something to be taken lightly -- they aren't too difficult for a sober person to pass.

I think we can throw the admission of two drinks out the window -- that seems to be the standard that everyone pulls out. My mother told me years ago that in the early days of my parents' marriage, if my father came home after spending an evening with his Navy buddies and was staggering a little bit, he would always say "I just had two drinks." In actuality, two drinks are not enough to put a normal sized adult over the legal limit. If you had more than two drinks, would you actually admit that to a cop that has just pulled you over?

I'm not saying the BIL was drunker than Cooter Brown, just saying that based on what we do know, we really don't know and probably never will.

festivus

05-14-2007, 05:57 PM

I'm not saying the BIL was drunker than Cooter Brown, just saying that based on what we do know, we really don't know and probably never will.

:iagree:

ClericBlackDave

05-14-2007, 10:34 PM

Also I find the publication of the unflattering picture of Steve irritating, because it's not like his own level of intoxication even matters

Problem is, it does matter.

He's already been pulled over for DUI before, and now is being accused of Owner DUI (and passenger DUI for that matter) in a state where he's lived for some time and SHOULD know the laws. This goes towards the fact that this is bad for his, and the league's, image.

The entire point of this new conduct policy is to clean up the league image. Why should the media or anyone give him any breaks? Because he's Steve McNair?

As for the intoxication level of Steve or his BIL, I stand by my opinion that they were both probably pretty toasty, or in a good place, if you know what I mean.

thats just my opinion. Everyone else in the state of Maryland can say that to them, they'll never know, or that 2 beers isn't enough. But based on the supposed BAC the BIL blew later, the fact that they were watching sports at a bar before hand, and a field sobriety test was failed, and the breathalizer was initally refused, and the McNair photo looks wasted to me, getting stopped in the 1st place by a specialized DUI officer, and well EVERYTHING . . . I think they were wasted.

In any case, a bad decision to not just take a cab.

and AGAIN, to reiterate my position, public opinion / appearance / image does matter, because that is basically the subject of this entire new conduct policy. And if not applied evenly, and bigger name players like Vick or McNair just slide . . . it will invalidate the entire idea.