McNair: "I was trying to act responsibly."

[TL24x7]

Statements from McNair and Ravens' President Dick Cass HERE (http://www.profootball24x7.com/column_view.php?cid=26&id=1368&view=archive)

[highwater]

Nothing earth-shaking or insightful in those statements, but at least McNair will be back in Baltimore soon, working out with some of the team.

[highwater]

Actually, I do like the part where Dick Cass said that they have "been briefed on the Tennessee law."

Translation -- "He got charged with DUI and he wasn't even driving? What the fuck is up with that?"

[festivus]

I think it's a good statement, highlighting the oddness of the ordinance without sounding disrespectful. Good job, Steve, and good luck.

[BertJonesMyHero]

I'm firmly with Steve on this. Weak ass arrest.

[Losac]

You know, I kind of wonder what would have happened to Steve had he still been with the Titans: maybe a ride home from the officer? Just food for thought.

[GreenWave52]

I'm totally with Steve on this. Just like I'd be on the side of anyone who got popped under this weak ass law.

[highwater]

You know, I kind of wonder what would have happened to Steve had be still been with the Titans: maybe a ride home from the officer? Just food for thought.

That's close to what happened in 2003 when he got busted for DUI and having a gun in his car. More than a year later, the charges were dropped because it was ruled that the officer had no justifable reason to pull him over. I doubt that he would have received such treatment anywhere but in Tennessee.

[festivus]

That's close to what happened in 2003 when he got busted for DUI and having a gun in his car. More than a year later, the charges were dropped because it was ruled that the officer had no justifable reason to pull him over. I doubt that he would have received such treatment anywhere but in Tennessee.

Bad stops are not as frequent as bad judgement, but both happen from time to time. ;) :)

[Sports Steve]

Must have been a hard ass cop. When we went to Tenn. last year they all love Steve down there. Unless Steve got smart with the cop this was a bad arrest.


:jester: :jester:

[camdenyard]

Obey the damn law and the cops won't haul your ass in jail.

That being said, I'm not getting into a twist over this one.

[ravcol]

Hard to believe some of the above comments exhonorating McNair's "actions" or idiotic comment. And if the Ravens front office blows it off as a mere incident, as Charlie Eckman used to say, "you can call me a cab!"

Tony's column mentioned stupidity but I say it goes way beyond that. These guys have been schooled from Day One as to right and wrong. Add McNair's status as a team leader and you gotta wonder if the guy is playing with a full deck. Can't wait for such a fine example to start teaching Mr. Heisman the ropes. Hey Kyle, get ready. They sell alcohol in Baltimore too.

Finally, the Ravens will write this off in the usual fashion. But the public deserves a better comment about right and wrong from both McNair and Dick Cass. If nothing else the kids deserve it. Actions and decisions have consequences. Evidently McNair's attempt to act responsibly was eerily similar to his attempt to beat the Colts.

[festivus]

Ravcol, I'm sure most posters here would agree McNair showed some bad (terrible) judgement and shouldn't have put himself in a position where he was vulnerable to this.

But speaking for myself, I am relieved to see him saying and doing the right things afterward, and as disappointed as I might be in his mistake, I am not going to get nearly as excited over this as I might have if, say, he'd been driving 90 mph in a 45, couldn't stand on two feet and blew a .19. Or he'd arranged a drug sale over the phone, or he'd beaten his wife.

As disappointed as I am, this I can live with.

:2c:

[purplepoe]

Hard to believe some of the above comments exhonorating McNair's "actions" or idiotic comment. And if the Ravens front office blows it off as a mere incident, as Charlie Eckman used to say, "you can call me a cab!"

Tony's column mentioned stupidity but I say it goes way beyond that. These guys have been schooled from Day One as to right and wrong. Add McNair's status as a team leader and you gotta wonder if the guy is playing with a full deck. Can't wait for such a fine example to start teaching Mr. Heisman the ropes. Hey Kyle, get ready. They sell alcohol in Baltimore too.

Finally, the Ravens will write this off in the usual fashion. But the public deserves a better comment about right and wrong from both McNair and Dick Cass. If nothing else the kids deserve it. Actions and decisions have consequences. Evidently McNair's attempt to act responsibly was eerily similar to his attempt to beat the Colts.


O for god sakes.

The guy was in a car when his brother in law got pulled for a DUI. In most states, that's not a crime. And it stands to reason that McNair certainly didn't think it was a crime in Tenn. Sadly it is and now we get the the stuff like....

"McNair isn't playing with a full deck"

Gimme a break.

Look at the circumstances and stop with this ridiculous overreaction. Save it for something that's worth it.

PP

[Dusty728]

Look at the circumstances and stop with this ridiculous overreaction. Save it for something that's worth it.

Don't you know that these boards are full of some of the most self righteous perfect people in the world ? :laugh:

[ClericBlackDave]

he'd been driving 90 mph in a 45, couldn't stand on two feet and blew a .19.

He didn't blow anything because he wouldn't take it. I wonder why?


This isn't about some fans being hollier than thou, its about being annoyed 1) about the double standards applied for people with money and power and those who don't, and 2) the lack of effort it takes for a millionaire to not call a cab or limo in that type of situation


The Raven's statement doesn't matter to me, as it was totally written in Billick/Newsome/Cass/Raven speak, about "process" and blah blah blah. Nothing I haven't heard.


Whether or not I agree with the Tennessee law (although it makes sense to me) it is a law.


I would say it comes down to this: who would you rather have driving, the guy who had 10 drinks or the guy who had 4, and the answer is NEITHER, take a f'ing cab or limo if you're rich

[Losac]

This isn't about some fans being hollier than thou, its about being annoyed 1) about the double standards applied for people with money and power and those who don't, and 2) the lack of effort it takes for a millionaire to not call a cab or limo in that type of situation

For the 1000th time, it is not about a double standard for McNair because of who he is. This is a stupid law, and I would say it was a stupid law and stupid arrest if it happened to Steve McNair, Boller, my cousin, next door neighbor, or any member of the Steelers.

Why do you keep harping on the cab? Maybe the brother in law was perfectly capable of driving and did not need a cab. There are people out there who can have 4 drinks and not even be close to being impaired. As someone else said, all of us are held to the standards of the lightweights.

[festivus]

For the 1000th time, it is not about a double standard for McNair because of who he is. This is a stupid law, and I would say it was a stupid law and stupid arrest if it happened to Steve McNair, Boller, my cousin, next door neighbor, or any member of the Steelers.
Losac, I was right with you until you said the S word. ;)

You guys who are making this a moral issue, beyond a matter of frustratingly bad judgment, are assuming some *significant* facts not in evidence, as they say in the courtroom.

[ClericBlackDave]

I guess I disagree that it is a stupid law.

What is the point of turning over the keys if you turn it over to someone who is also f*cked up


I think there are some of you who think, no harm, no foul, because no-one died and no-one got hurt this time. But half the point of these laws is preventing an incident, not punishing it.


I also think that some of you wouldn't be saying what you're saying if he wasn't Steve McNair and the QB of the Baltimore Ravens.


And I'll also be more than willing to admit that being that I'm not a big McNair fan, that perhaps I'm willing to blast him on his personal decision making more than your McNair lovers.


In any case, drunk driving is a serious problem, and giving your keys over when drunk to someone else who is also intoxicated is a problem, hence I dont think the law is "stupid"


I also think there is segment of people posting here who probably drive intoxicated and are willing to validate their own unsafe driving under the influence by giving McNair a mulligan just like they'd give themselves. Thats sad. But none of this talking matters when someone actually get injured in a DUI/DWI incident.

[festivus]

Nobody was intoxicated! Nobody was F*cked up! Someone had a beer and drove. Not a big deal

In the off season, Raven Nurse, apparently everything is a big deal. ;)

[ClericBlackDave]

According to the bar owner, they had more than a couple of drinks, and thats enough.

And if I got pulled over after 3 drinks, and the same shit happen, I wouldn't have celebrity status to bail me out of the situation. Thats where the double standard lies.

[purplepoe]

According to the bar owner, they had more than a couple of drinks, and thats enough.

And if I got pulled over after 3 drinks, and the same shit happen, I wouldn't have celebrity status to bail me out of the situation. Thats where the double standard lies.

WTF are you talking about?

Who's getting "bailed" out Dave?

He was charged. What exactly else do you want. You want a trial and conviction within a week?


PP

[Greg]

Nobody was intoxicated! Nobody was F*cked up! Someone had a beer and drove. Not a big deal
Really, so you know how much they had to drink? Did you get the breathalyzer the police couldn't? I guess he was just feeling dizzy and that is why he failed the field sobriety test.

I have no idea how drunk either was and neither do you. If they were drunk enough to effect driving then this was a very poor decision on McNair's part, especially considering his resources. All he had to do was call a cab.

[ClericBlackDave]

I have no idea how drunk either was and neither do you. If they were drunk enough to effect driving then this was a very poor decision on McNair's part, especially considering his resources. All he had to do was call a cab.


I can agree with that. Although its my guess that they were intoxicated. They came from a bar watching a sports event, and the owner said they had some drinks. Who drinks to not get buzzed/tore up?



Who's getting "bailed" out Dave?

He was charged. What exactly else do you want. You want a trial and conviction within a week?

He will get bailed out of it. No way he get convicted, thats the way these things work.

I'm still suprised Paris Hilton will go to jail. Even so, it'll be for like 2 weeks.

If it was me, It'd be like a few years at least.

[purplepoe]

I can agree with that. Although its my guess that they were intoxicated. They came from a bar watching a sports event, and the owner said they had some drinks. Who drinks to not get buzzed/tore up?



He will get bailed out of it. No way he get convicted, thats the way these things work.

I'm still suprised Paris Hilton will go to jail. Even so, it'll be for like 2 weeks.

If it was me, It'd be like a few years at least.

O give me a break.

If it were you you'd be in jail for a few years?

What world do you live in dude?

We've got people walking the streets of this city with 10 plus convictions of violent crimes.

Instead of taking this tunnel vision approach to suit your agenda, you might wanna open your eyes a bit and see what's going on in the real world.

PP

[ClericBlackDave]

I live in the real world, PP. Don't get salty because I strongly disagree with your worldview.


Drinking and driving is a problem, and usually a reocurring problem for those who do it. McNair and BJ Sams are examples that come to mind.

[purplepoe]

I live in the real world, PP. Don't get salty because I strongly disagree with your worldview.


Drinking and driving is a problem, and usually a reocurring problem for those who do it. McNair and BJ Sams are examples that come to mind.

Where did I say that drinking a driving isn't a problem Dave?

Why don't you stick to repsonding to what I write.

It's not my "worldview". I stated facts.

PP

[crazyraven]

I can agree with that. Although its my guess that they were intoxicated. They came from a bar watching a sports event, and the owner said they had some drinks. Who drinks to not get buzzed/tore up?
Exactly. Have to agree with CBD, people drink to get drunk. The idea of drinking a few and being alright to drive also drives me up the wall. I've seen test where they show motorist drive their vehicles on a test tracks before drinking a few and after drinking a few. The results were staggering. Mother f kers who had a few were hitting cones, missing stop and yield signs. But when they were sober they didn't have these issues. Knowing these facts I could never hand my keys over to someone who was drunk to drive me home, especially if i was just drinking with that person. If it was a 60 year law I'm sure I would be aware of it especially if I had already be pulled over already. You think that FAQ DUI was only read by us, just a few days ago? Don't you think someone who had been already charged with that would know of the obscure law? I seem to think so.

[ClericBlackDave]

Where did I say that drinking a driving isn't a problem Dave?

Why don't you stick to repsonding to what I write.

It's not my "worldview". I stated facts.

PP


You stated McNair wasn't DUI. I disagree. At the very least, by Tennessee law, he was "Owner DUI"

I also disagree with you and others that its a silly law.

Lets just say it this way: people need to learn how to grab a cab, have a designated driver who is SOBER as opposed to "the-least-drunk"


Once again, our worldviews differ obviously. Maybe you're the type to drink a few at M&T and then drive home, and think thats OK. Good luck to you then.

[purplepoe]

Once again, our worldviews differ obviously. Maybe you're the type to drink a few at M&T and then drive home, and think thats OK. Good luck to you then.

Once again, you just throw shit out there.

Really, this story's legs were cut out awhile ago except on this board.

You've already stated that your dislike for McNair has affected your views on this topic.

We're not getting anywhere once again.

I do have one question for you Dave. Deep down do you wish McNair was driving so that his penalty would most likely be some sort of suspension?

I've been wondering that since we started discussing this topic.

PP

[ClericBlackDave]

I dont think there will be suspension, nor do I wish it upon him.

I do hope that he's treated equally within the Tennessee legal system and within Goodell's new player conduct policy.

I have the feeling that the problem with Goodell's policy will end up being that its not equally applied. We'll see what happens with Vick's situation for a good reading of whether there will be equal treatment. For McNair, while he was acquitted of the 1st offense, it shouldn't matter in the new conduct policy.



This is where Pac-Man will argue his case; that he's being made an example by Goodell and that the new policy won't be / isn't evenly applied.



Vis a Vis desiring for something to happen, i wasn't wishing "man i hope steve gets DUI so Boller or Smith can start". I was working my 9-5 and also donig my grading when the news came.


All I said was that, unlike some people who hope for McNair to get off basically because he is the QB of the Baltimore Ravens, I dont have that problem. I'm looknig at this as a problem with the legal system and a potential problem with Goodell's conduct policy.


And, I believe that there is a problem with drunk driving and a problem with people handing their keys over to another drunk person.


but like I said, if you're the type who thinks a couple drinks and then go driving is ok, good luck with that.

[ClericBlackDave]

My understanding is that when they finally got to the police office he agreed to blow and blew a .06

If that is true, that sounds like they knew McNair's brother knew he was dui, refused a breathalizer until he felt more sober, at which point he blew a .06, just sober enough.


Once again, I think its a legit DUI stop here. And the question will be do you agree with Tennessee's law. On principle, I dont see why its a bad thing.

[Greg]

And it stands to reason that McNair certainly didn't think it was a crime in Tenn.
I don't care whether he thought it was a crime or not, I am only concerned that he let somebody drive who shouldn't have been.


My understanding is that when they finally got to the police office he agreed to blow and blew a .06 which was legal and just below the legal limit.
Link? If he blew a .06 shortly after the arrest then fine. If he blew it hours after then it would be completely different. If you are .11 in 3 hours you will blow a .06 according to this website: http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm


Do you know when you have had to much to drink and should not drive home or do you go have a beer with dinner and call a cab....I think I know what the answer is... stop throwing stones
Actually, I went out Friday night and had 2 beers with dinner. I also drank water and had at least 30 minutes between the last beer and leaving. I was less than .04 immediately after consuming the 2 beers and about .02 when I drove home. If I had any more my wife would have driven. She often does. I stop drinking at football games by the end of the first quarter if I am driving, about 4 hours before I leave. Even then, usually my wife still drives home. I have driven when I shouldn't have, that's for sure. But if I gave the keys to my car to somebody who was also drunk and we killed somebody would I be innocent? Does me being smart enough to dupe another into driving absolve me of responsibility? Or in this case, does McNair being too important to be at risk of arrest absolve him of letting somebody else drive while impaired?

[Greg]

Driving under the influence is exactly that you have a beer or 2 depending on size, ...
Not true, at 180 pounds consuming 2 beers in an hour you will be at .02. Not illegal at all. Even at 100 pounds you would be .04, again not illegal.

[purplepoe]

Vis a Vis desiring for something to happen, i wasn't wishing "man i hope steve gets DUI so Boller or Smith can start". I was working my 9-5 and also donig my grading when the news came.


All I said was that, unlike some people who hope for McNair to get off basically because he is the QB of the Baltimore Ravens, I dont have that problem. I'm looknig at this as a problem with the legal system and a potential problem with Goodell's conduct policy.


but like I said, if you're the type who thinks a couple drinks and then go driving is ok, good luck with that.

1. My question wasn't whether you were hoping for McNair to get popped for DUI out of the blue. My question is this. After the story broke and we found out what happened, did you hope at any point that McNair would be suspended. Im just curious.

2. Im not hoping McNair "gets off" for anything. That's never been my point. Ive stated that repeatedly. And please, for the love of sanity, stop trying to say that if he gets off it's because he's a football player. The amount of people who are nobody in the public eye that "get off" is so large that it's not even worth debating. Just go look at the Sun paper on any given day and you can find twice convicted murderers walking the street free.

3 Again with this thing about me going to the game and driving home after drinks. If you're the type who likes to cast a net and see if he can find something, you might wanna try another body of water.

PP

[ClericBlackDave]

As well all know, drinking affects people different ways.

The effects will defend on the person's size, their tollerance, the drinks, how fast they drank them, did the mix types of alcohol, etc

Likewise, with how fast they sober up, tahts going to depend on their metabolism usually.

overall, we'll never know how wasted they were or weren't.

But judging by this photo:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-mcnair-photo,0,6863177.photo?coll=bal-sports-football

I would say McNair definitely wasn't sober. Who knows about his brother in law, but assuming a similar level of consumption, I would say he was pretty "nice" also.

[ClericBlackDave]

1. My question wasn't whether you were hoping for McNair to get popped for DUI out of the blue. My question is this. After the story broke and we found out what happened, did you hope at any point that McNair would be suspended. Im just curious.

2. Im not hoping McNair "gets off" for anything. That's never been my point. Ive stated that repeatedly. And please, for the love of sanity, stop trying to say that if he gets off it's because he's a football player. The amount of people who are nobody in the public eye that "get off" is so large that it's not even worth debating. Just go look at the Sun paper on any given day and you can find twice convicted murderers walking the street free.

3 Again with this thing about me going to the game and driving home after drinks. If you're the type who likes to cast a net and see if he can find something, you might wanna try another body of water.

PP

I already said I'm not hoping for him to get anything, before or after the news. I hope he gets treated equally, or else Pac-Man and the like would be correct about the new conduct policy. It would also be another example of power and privilege winning in the legal system consistently.


As for casting a net, I'm not casting anything. I just have my own suspiscions about people on this board validating their own drunk driving. And i'm never unwilling to say whats on my mind.

[Greg]

I don't think the picture is particularly damning, it isn't like Nick Nolte's or Mel Gibson's mug shots.

[purplepoe]

I already said I'm not hoping for him to get anything, before or after the news. I hope he gets treated equally, or else Pac-Man and the like would be correct about the new conduct policy. It would also be another example of power and privilege winning in the legal system consistently.


As for casting a net, I'm not casting anything. I just have my own suspiscions about people on this board validating their own drunk driving. And i'm never unwilling to say whats on my mind.

You have got to be kidding me.

Are you honestly sitting here and telling us that Pac Man Jones will have some sort of legit argument if McNair doesn't get a stiff penalty from the league office? Roger Goodell will not (nor should he) base his punishment for McNair by worrying about how it'll look compared to Jones. You know why? Because any comparison is ridiculous. That's why cases need to be looked at case by case. Suspensions, fines and the like should be based on the offense and most definitely not based on what another player gets.

Please tell me you aren't tossing McNair into the same league with Jones.

As far as your subtle jabs, you can stop with it. You got alot of balls voicing your "suspicisions" about people you've only met through a message board.

PP

[crazyraven]

I don't think the picture is particularly damning, it isn't like Nick Nolte's or Mel Gibson's mug shots.

WTF? Steve looks bombed. His eyes are bloodshot and glassy and he is smirking while being booked. I can smell the alcohol all over that picture.

I know he's just sleepy.

[ClericBlackDave]

You have got to be kidding me.


No, i'm not. how many times was Pac Man convicted of anything? How many times was McNair?


Thats all I'm going to say.


Pac-Man's entire argument is that look at the # of players arrested (and often not convicted) in the last 10 years that aren't punished. Vick or McNair getting treated carefully with gloves on while Pac Man gets the book just would validate what he's saying.


But I dont need you to agree with me PP, so don't feel obligated to agree/disagree and say I'm crazy, because again, I'm comign from a totally different place than you, including not being on McNair's jock.

[purplepoe]

No, i'm not. how many times was Pac Man convicted of anything? How many times was McNair?


Thats all I'm going to say.


Pac-Man's entire argument is that look at the # of players arrested (and often not convicted) in the last 10 years that aren't punished. Vick or McNair getting treated carefully with gloves on while Pac Man gets the book just would validate what he's saying.


But I dont need you to agree with me PP, so don't feel obligated to agree/disagree and say I'm crazy, because again, I'm comign from a totally different place than you, including not being on McNair's jock.

The fact that you cannot differeniate between McNair and Jones says a whole lot. That's your problem Dave. You can't look at each case and see the differences. You are actually gonna agree with Pacman Jones' contentions? That's all you're gonna say because there's nothing else you can say to back up such a flawed argument.

Back to the "on McNair's jock" thing again huh?

How many times do I have to say that it could've been anyone and I'd be saying the same thing. But that won't matter.

You just choose to ignore that because it squashes one of your many assumptions.

But then again, that really seems to be the only thing you do. Assume.


PP

[ClericBlackDave]

I'm not assuming anything, PP.

I'm giving you my honest opinions, which seem to get under your skin. I try not to mince words on my opinions.

I never said there wasn't a difference between Jones and McNair.

What I said was that Jones' arguments is that many other athletes, like McNair, have been arrested mutiple times and not convicted. Some are punished and some aren't.


McNair's current "offense" it not likely to get punished according to league sources, but if he broke the law, he broke the law, whether you agree with the law or not. By the new conduct law, you'd think a punishment were coming, but there probalby won't be, making how the NFL decides to enforce its conduct policy questionable.


The same goes for this current Mike Vick incident.

[crazyraven]

By the new conduct law, you'd think a punishment were coming, but there probalby won't be, making how the NFL decides to enforce its conduct policy questionable.

CBD you are hitting hr after hr. Good work buddy.

[ClericBlackDave]

WTF? Steve looks bombed. His eyes are bloodshot and glassy and he is smirking while being booked. I can smell the alcohol all over that picture.


Thats what I see. Pretty obvious to me that he's in a "good" place in that photo. Definitely bloodshot, and looking like he had a few. I guess to some people, to look intoxicated in a photo, you have to be vomiting on oneself.

[purplepoe]

I'm not assuming anything, PP.

I'm giving you my honest opinions, which seem to get under your skin. I try not to mince words on my opinions.

I never said there wasn't a difference between Jones and McNair.

What I said was that Jones' arguments is that many other athletes, like McNair, have been arrested mutiple times and not convicted. Some are punished and some aren't.


McNair's current "offense" it not likely to get punished according to league sources, but if he broke the law, he broke the law, whether you agree with the law or not. By the new conduct law, you'd think a punishment were coming, but there probalby won't be, making how the NFL decides to enforce its conduct policy questionable.


The same goes for this current Mike Vick incident.


You're not assuming anything? Ummm, OK.

Again, I realize he broke the law and have never said he shouldn't of been charged.

Why will Goodell's ruling make the conduct policy punishment's questionable? Every case is different and therefore won't be subject to the same punishment.

I see nothing wrong with that at all.

J-walking is breaking the law. So is beating your wife. Should the punishments be the same?

PP

[festivus]

McNair's current "offense" it not likely to get punished according to league sources, but if he broke the law, he broke the law, whether you agree with the law or not. By the new conduct law, you'd think a punishment were coming, but there probalby won't be, making how the NFL decides to enforce its conduct policy questionable.

CBD -

It is possible the commissioner's office would draw a distinction between offenses based on how morally reprehensible they are, and how frequently they occur.

Certainly if *I* was the Commissioner I would not feel a compunction to punish player A if he was arrested once every four years for drunk driving, or aiding a drunk driver, just because I punished player B severely for arrests in a string of assaults occurring in the same calendar year. And if one or two people called me a hypocrite or complained about uneven enforcement of the rules, I would think those people are so absorbed in the concept of consistency that they have forgotten to think.

[ClericBlackDave]

It
is possible the commissioner's office would draw a distinction between offenses based on how morally reprehensible they are, and how frequently they occur.

Certainly if *I* was the Commissioner I would not feel a compunction to punish player A if he was arrested once every four years for drunk driving, or aiding a drunk driver, just because I punished player B severely for arrests in a string of assaults occurring in the same calendar year. And if one or two people called me a hypocrite or complained about uneven enforcement of the rules, I would think those people are so absorbed in the concept of consistency that they have forgotten to think.


And its just this grey area of judgement that could kill the new conduct policy.


I'm just saying that in the event McNair is found guilty of Owner DUI, there should be some hypothetical punishment by the league. If there isn't, Jones definitely has a case to say the new conduct policy / system is BS


And then even if McNair isn't found guilty, this is time #2 that he's been associated with DUI in some sort of form. Its presents a grety area for the conduct policy.


Thats what I'm saying in terms of how this relates to the conduct policy.


As for Steve's potential guilt and the law in question, I think i've already made my view point clear.

[crazyraven]

J-walking is breaking the law. So is beating your wife. Should the punishments be the same

how can you even compare j walking to beating your wife. Sorry that doesn't add up.


Every case is different and therefore won't be subject to the same punishment.

It shouldn't be different. to me my image of mac has been destroyed over this. In the NFL's eye that's not a good thing. We've debated this before but this is the second go around for him with this, regardless of whether he got off the hook or not he should have known this law. He should have called a cab. I'd be interested what MADD think about his actions.

[purplepoe]

I'm just saying that in the event McNair is found guilty of Owner DUI, there should be some hypothetical punishment by the league. If there isn't, Jones definitely has a case to say the new conduct policy / system is BS


What's the case? Please show me some parallels between the two players that would be grounds for a legitimate case.

Im all ears.

PP

[purplepoe]

how can you even compare j walking to beating your wife. Sorry that doesn't add up.



It shouldn't be different. to me my image of mac has been destroyed over this. In the NFL's eye that's not a good thing. We've debated this before but this is the second go around for him with this, regardless of whether he got off the hook or not he should have known this law. He should have called a cab. I'd be interested what MADD think about his actions.

That's my whole point CR.

They don't compare at all and neither should the punishments.

Are you really saying that punishments shouldn't be different based on the indiscretion?

Maybe Im misunderstanding your post.

Your image of McNair is "destroyed"?

Sorry to hear that.

PP

[ClericBlackDave]

What's the case? Please show me some parallels between the two players that would be grounds for a legitimate case.

Im all ears.

PP

1) its a new policy, so how Goodell deals with these 1st cases will shape whether the new policy is just an empty shell, or whether its a means to punish less popular players who have run ins with the law, while allowing more marquee players like McNair to get away with indiscretions


2) If he has broken such a law with criminal implications, the new MO is to have some sort of suspension. For instance, I will be very suprised if BJ Sams doesn't get some sort of suspension. But lets say McNair doesn't, now you see the double standard forming for marquee multimillionaire players versus guys on the bubble who have run ins with the law.

[purplepoe]

1) its a new policy, so how Goodell deals with these 1st cases will shape whether the new policy is just an empty shell, or whether its a means to punish less popular players who have run ins with the law, while allowing more marquee players like McNair to get away with indiscretions


2) If he has broken such a law with criminal implications, the new MO is to have some sort of suspension. For instance, I will be very suprised if BJ Sams doesn't get some sort of suspension. But lets say McNair doesn't, now you see the double standard forming for marquee multimillionaire players versus guys on the bubble who have run ins with the law.

You have completely ignored the facts that every case is different.

How are you still ignoring the differences between McNair and Jones? Do I really need to list it out?

And sorry but Pac Man Jones was the #6 overall pick and a HUGE part of the Titans. He's not some "on the bubble" guy with run ins with the law. He's a marquee guy with an ABSURD amount of run ins with the law. Add to that that some of those run ins are incredibly serious and you have a year long suspension. We're talking shootings here Dave.

You're assertion of a double standard completely ignores the fact that every case is different. And those differences can be extreme. Therefore, the punishments should and will be different.

PP

[crazyraven]

They don't compare at all and neither should the punishments.
thats why i'd love to see how MADD had weigh in on this law in similar case in the past. Seems to me they wouldnt be equated this to jay walking. However thats JMHO.


Your image of McNair is "destroyed"?

Sorry to hear that.
Yea and not that Im in favor of it but I can see why The NFL would want to make sure he is punished in some way. He really F'd up

[purplepoe]

Yea and not that Im in favor of it but I can see why The NFL would want to make sure he is punished in some way. He really F'd up

Why aren't you in favor of a stiff punishment if he "really f'd up"?

I mean, for all the heated words you've used during this whole thing, I would think you'd want McNair to get punished and punished severely.

PP

[ClericBlackDave]

You have completely ignored the facts that every case is different.

How are you still ignoring the differences between McNair and Jones? Do I really need to list it out?

And sorry but Pac Man Jones was the #6 overall pick and a HUGE part of the Titans. He's not some "on the bubble" guy with run ins with the law


I'm not ignoring the differences. I'm saying how does the policy navigate this when McNair is guilty of a Tennessee law? If the league just says, ooooh that an obscure law, then there will probalby be issues with the policy. Disagreeing with the law doesn't make breaking it OK.


Perhaps the best analogy is the BJ Sams situation. No way he doesn't get a suspension. But does McNair? We'll see.


But honestly PP, I think you're way too worreid about McNair being QB for the Baltimore Ravens to really be giving anythign I'm saying consideration. So like I said, at this point I dont' expect anythign less than disagreement from you. We're probably pretty past the point of a "dialogue"

[purplepoe]

I'm not ignoring the differences. I'm saying how does the policy navigate this when McNair is guilty of a Tennessee law? If the league just says, ooooh that an obscure law, then there will probalby be issues with the policy. Disagreeing with the law doesn't make breaking it OK.


Perhaps the best analogy is the BJ Sams situation. No way he doesn't get a suspension. But does McNair? We'll see.


But honestly PP, I think you're way too worreid about McNair being QB for the Baltimore Ravens to really be giving anythign I'm saying consideration. So like I said, at this point I dont' expect anythign less than disagreement from you. We're probably pretty past the point of a "dialogue"

Why do you keep saying stuff like "disagreeing with the law doesn't mean breaking it is OK?

Are you talking to yourself? Nobody said it was OK to break any law.

The breaking of certain laws are viewed as more aggregious than the breaking of other laws. That's why there are different punishments for breaking the speed limit and robbing a bank.

BJ Sams was arrested twice within a year for DUI. You know, actually driving. So again, although you don't want to admit it, it's different.

Im not too worried about McNair being our QB this season. This whole debate/argument is moot because in all likelihood he's not getting suspended. And to you, that's because he's Steve McNair. And that chaps you, obviously. In reality, you're the one concentrating on the fact it's McNair. You seem to want McNair to be punished more severely because he's more of a marquee name than others. You even said your view is skewed because you don't like him. Hell, at least you're honest.

You simply ignore me when I say that I don't care who it is. Could've been Matt Katula and I'd be saying the same exact thing.

And you're right. Not a chance in hell we'll agree.

PP

[festivus]

The idea of consistency is to treat like cases alike.

There is nothing 'alike' about the cases of Adam Jones and Steve McNair, so it's not a problem for Goodell or the new rules.

[crazyraven]

Why aren't you in favor of a stiff punishment if he "really f'd up"?

I mean, for all the heated words you've used during this whole thing, I would think you'd want McNair to get punished and punished severely.

Did I want to see Jamal get punished? I didnt like what he did either but as a fan of the ravens I still wanted him to play while he was sitting. I am just as mad and just as disgusted with mcnair.

I'm mad that Mcnair didnt think about this before hand. I'm mad that he put the fans in this position. DUI is a hideous act and by letting himself get involved with something like this when every coach,player and fan of the baltimore ravens is counting on him, makes me want to puke. The mentality of the fans and owners in relation to what the player does off the field is coming to end. Goodell is not having it.

[Mista T]

The idea of consistency is to treat like cases alike.

There is nothing 'alike' about the cases of Adam Jones and Steve McNair, so it's not a problem for Goodell or the new rules.

Disagree. I believe that Goodell's idea of consistency is to step up the level of punishment for all player misconduct. He's not waiting on the judicial system to decide on guilt.

Whereas Pacman - with no convictions but many incidents - may have gotten off with a fine under Tags, he gets a major suspension under Goodell. Whereas McNair - with no convictions but two DUI incidents - may have received a letter in his personnel file under Tags, he may receive a large fine or even a small suspension under Goodell.

[purplepoe]

Disagree. I believe that Goodell's idea of consistency is to step up the level of punishment for all player misconduct. He's not waiting on the judicial system to decide on guilt.

Whereas Pacman - with no convictions but many incidents - may have gotten off with a fine under Tags, he gets a major suspension under Goodell. Whereas McNair - with no convictions but two DUI incidents - may have received a letter in his personnel file under Tags, he may receive a large fine or even a small suspension under Goodell.

There's a chance that Goodell suspends McNair. A slim one IMO but still a chance.

My point is that McNair's situation isn't even close to Pacman's and therefore the punishment won't be close.

PP

[Gwaihir]

I don't think anyone's mentioned it, but I wouldn't be surprised if service to the community/giving back to the city isn't also considered in Goodell's judgement of penalty. If you have someone who is constantly giving his time off the field to help needy kids or families, or supplying musical instruments to the schools, or anything where you are giving up a lot of your time to help others, he might be more lenient to that individual, especially in the case of isolated incidents.

I could be wrong as I don't know for sure, but I haven't heard of Pacman Jones doing any of this. His image is of an out of control wildman who only cares about himself. I would think that if he does give his time freely, his lawyer would be making that a major issue to defend his character. Throw in 10 or whatever arrests in a year and it doesn't really matter if he's found guilty in a court of law or not as money can usually buy your way out of anything. Hence the pre-emptive strike and 1 year suspension. Same for Chris Henry, has anyone heard of any charitable work he's done voluntarily?

I think Goodell may be looking at the overall character of the individual compared with the seriousness of the crime, moreso than, this is Steve McNair, this is Michael Vick, this is Pacman Jones, etc. I also would expect him to come down harder on Parol/Probation violations than anything else as this would show an unwillingnes to change. This is why I think Sams is gone for at least 4 games, maybe 8, as he violated his probation with his second offense!

All in all, I'm curious to see how he handles the various situations, but would be surprised if suspends McNair for this incident, due to his off-field persona and character. A fine seems more suitable to me.

[festivus]

Mista T, I respectfully disagree.

While drunken driving is a scourge, in Maryland it is a scourge punishable as a misdemeanor only and, for a first time offender, a period of one year incarceration. And Steve is charged as an accessory to DWI under an odd statute that will present severe proof problems for a prosecutor, not the least of which is the problem of proving the actual driver was actually drunk.

Jones and the other poster children for the new conduct policy tend instead to get arrested *repeatedly* for things like assault 2d (10 years), and then there are also those like Sams who get arrested repeatedly for DWI (enhanced penalties for repeat offenders as the # of convictions grows). I have no sympathy for them, they can all go work at McDonalds as far as I care.

Steve shouldn't have been in that awkward situation and showed as I've said bad judgement not having a hired driver for a night on the town. But for anyone - us, the Commissioner, the legal system - to assume there is even a reasonably proveable case, that is, for us to assume the unknown facts even support the charge - is premature. Not based on some pretty notion of "innocent until proven guilty," just based on a fair and careful review of what we actually think we know, and the elements of the charge.

I don't think there will be a suspension. I think the charges will be dropped without trial, barring some bombshell of a revelation about the facts.

:2c:

[Mista T]

I don't think there will be a suspension.

If you are saying that a fine is more likely than a small suspension, I agree - based on the reports of the two incidents to date. If you are saying that Goodell will give Mcnair a free pass - I disagree, under the new get tough policy. Fair or not: Goodell has to appear to be even handed, former MVP, good guy etc. notwithstanding.



I think the charges will be dropped without trial, barring some bombshell of a revelation about the facts. :2c:

Dropped? :229031_confused2:

Why would the prosecutor drop the charges after the police report documented a violation of Tennessee law? There has been nothing reported since the the prosecutor filed charges after the incident that would impact the prosecutor's case.

National media has been poking fun at Tennessee's exaggerated penalty for turning over car keys to a drunk - but that is really aimed at Tennessee lawmakers, not the prosecutor. The prosecutor is bound to apply the laws to lawbreakers, regardless of what he may think of the particular law.

There may be some bad PR for the Tennessee legal system in this incident, but the Nashville prosecutor would face other bad PR if charges were dismissed, after the dismissal of charges in the first McNair DUI incident. I would assume that Tennessee voters would rather see a former hometown NFL player prosecuted than to see laxity in the enforcement of their tough DUI standards.

[festivus]

Mista T, I've already laid out my analysis of the legal problems with the proof but I'll do it one more time on account of you being a Super Moderator, plus that picture you posted in the Sam Adams thread is awesome. :thumbup:

As we've read from analysis pulled by ER, the prosecution must prove:
1. The driver was actually drunk
2. McNair knowingly . . .
3. . . . gave control of the car . . .
4. . . . to someone he actually knew was drunk.

Contrary to what some posters here are assuming, I personally believe there will be significant pitfalls at *each* of those four steps with the prosecution's case. I am doubtful, again, based on what I've read, they will even have an easy time with Step 1! One FST does not a drunkard make.

So I don't think he'll get a 'free pass', because contrary to what other posters here seem to be assuming, I don't think an actual finder of fact - the Commissioner, or a judge if it gets that far - will have enough evidence in front of him to support a finding of wrongdoing.

I will say in all likelihood he had a few drinks, judging by the unflattering picture, and his brother in law had a couple. And his brother in law drove the car. That's it. And contrary to what some are posting, that by itself is not enough to convict under this statute as I read it, and I also don't believe it's enough to rise to the minimal level of morally contemptible behavior that would trigger even the newer, harsher policy.

[Mista T]

As we've read from analysis pulled by ER, the prosecution must prove:
1. The driver was actually drunk
2. McNair knowingly . . .
3. . . . gave control of the car . . .
4. . . . to someone he actually knew was drunk.

Contrary to what some posters here are assuming, I personally believe there will be significant pitfalls at *each* of those four steps with the prosecution's case. I am doubtful, again, based on what I've read, they will even have an easy time with Step 1!


Not trying to be argumentative here -- but just trying to understand your position. There's nothing in what you've stated above which appears to be any different than was known on the date that the prosecutor announced that he would be filing charges -- correct? If so, are you merely stating that the charges should have never been filed in the first place, i.e. weak case, your interpretation of Tennessee law, whatever? Or is there something I'm missing -- new evidence?

After the Duke lacrosse team prosecutorial misconduct fiasco in the adjacent state, I would guess that the Nashville prosecutor thought long & hard about whether or not to prosecute a high profile sports figure under a nebulous law, and reached the conclusion that the case was winnable.

No disrespect intended regarding your grasp of the Tennesse legal system, Festivus!



I don't think an actual finder of fact - the Commissioner, or a judge if it gets that far - will have enough evidence in front of him to support a finding of wrongdoing.

While that statement may wind up being correct, the Commissioner doesn't have to have enough evidence to support a finding of wrongdoing, as a judge may require. He may conclude that McNair showed bad judgment, set a bad example, conduct unbecoming, etc. that won't fly under the new "get tough" policy. Additional concern for McNair is that this is the 2nd DUI incident.

[festivus]

Hmm. I missed the part where the actual prosecutor said charges would be filed. Reminds me of the saying that shit rolls downhill. Somebody on high says, we're charging this case, then some poor civil servant in the trenches gets stuck carrying the proverbial briefcase into the courtroom.

Everything I wrote is my :2c: based on my reading of what we know of the law and the facts.

And I understand the Commissioner has a lower standard then a judge would, I just think the case - facts & law combined - is that weak.

As with all my posts, just my 2c & I invite others to disagree.