catcheryea Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 24 minutes ago, Texasmade said: DUI's aren't alcohol specific.....I wonder if there's some other recreational activity, that aside from impaired judgment, makes you kinda sleepy....hmmmmm. He wasn't by any chance in the parking lot of Whataburger was he? Da'Shawn Xan'd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 11 hours ago, IDOG_det said: Typically what precedes being asleep in a vehicle with the keys in the ignition, while drunk, is drunk driving. It's fairly uncommon for someone to get drunk, go to their car, put the keys in the ignition, and then take a nap in the drivers seat. It's considered driving under the influence in many states if you're found sleeping and drunk in the front seat of a car with the keys in the ignition, in the front of the car, or even in the car at all. Those laws are in place because, while that person is not literally at that moment driving drunk, it is very likely that person was "actual" driving drunk just a short time earlier. The problem is that, that person wasn't caught driving drunk and is being charged for it. 'Very likely' shouldn't fly for giving somebody a DUI. I don't know the specifics on Hand's situation, but there have been instances were someone is leaving a bar, walks to their car, gets in, and sleeps it off instead of driving home. They're charged with DUI under this law, but never operated the vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 On 7/29/2017 at 8:05 PM, buno67 said: Nah, Bama will do their own investigation. So it will take some time but I could see them finishing it up and suspend him for the Mercer game lol Nope. Not even that. They're not suspending him at all. Saban is such a gutless turd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 13 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: The problem is that, that person wasn't caught driving drunk and is being charged for it. 'Very likely' shouldn't fly for giving somebody a DUI. I don't know the specifics on Hand's situation, but there have been instances were someone is leaving a bar, walks to their car, gets in, and sleeps it off instead of driving home. They're charged with DUI under this law, but never operated the vehicle. Except it's explicitly stated in the law (i.e. every Department of Motor Vehicles handbook which is the material used for the written test which must be passed by anyone receiving a license) that keys + inside the car + under the influence constitutes DUI. People can't claim ignorance, as part of the contract (yes, that's what the application for a license is, and it's actually in the print) specifically states that by signing you are attesting to your knowledge of and willingness to adhere to the rules, laws, and codes stated in the DMV Handbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 On 8/2/2017 at 3:10 PM, GSUeagles14 said: And you can honestly say you dont see a difference between actual drunk driving and being asleep while drunk in a parked car ina parking lot. Im sure you do see the difference, otherwise itd be almost as embarassing as the beating yall are gonna get week 1. Also the reason why the law is what it is is because you can't have different laws for different types of cars. And thus, as long as there is the potential for cars old enough to not require the car to be on or even the key to be in the ignition for the car to be shifted out of park and into neutral (which a drunk person sleeping it off in their car could very much do without ever even waking up in the right kind of car), they are deemed "capable of operating the vehicle." Regardless, people are expected to know and abide by the law. Thus if it is against the expressed law to be in the car with the key while under the influence, a person is not doing the responsible thing by "trying to sleep it off." They're just not doing the far less responsible thing by trying to drive. The "responsible thing" would be, if they're intent on sleeping it off, opening their car, then going and giving the key to bar tender or manager of the bar to keep stashed away inside for you until they open and you can retrieve it, then you can lock yourself in your car and sleep it off with no legal issue. The even more responsible thing to do would be to swallow your pride and call someone to come pick you up... or a cab. In the age of ride sharing/Uber/Lyft, people really don't have much of an excuse other than laziness for not doing the responsible thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catcheryea Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 Look, I get get that you're a global mod and everything but the rules are still the rules. On 8/2/2017 at 10:45 PM, catcheryea said: EXCUSE ME DON'T BRING LOGIC IN HERE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 1 hour ago, The LBC said: Also the reason why the law is what it is is because you can't have different laws for different types of cars. And thus, as long as there is the potential for cars old enough to not require the car to be on or even the key to be in the ignition for the car to be shifted out of park and into neutral (which a drunk person sleeping it off in their car could very much do without ever even waking up in the right kind of car), they are deemed "capable of operating the vehicle." Regardless, people are expected to know and abide by the law. Thus if it is against the expressed law to be in the car with the key while under the influence, a person is not doing the responsible thing by "trying to sleep it off." They're just not doing the far less responsible thing by trying to drive. The "responsible thing" would be, if they're intent on sleeping it off, opening their car, then going and giving the key to bar tender or manager of the bar to keep stashed away inside for you until they open and you can retrieve it, then you can lock yourself in your car and sleep it off with no legal issue. The even more responsible thing to do would be to swallow your pride and call someone to come pick you up... or a cab. In the age of ride sharing/Uber/Lyft, people really don't have much of an excuse other than laziness for not doing the responsible thing. No ones claiming hes 100% innocent, just that when looking at what we know so far, this isnt really the same as drunk driving. Context is important, maybe not always in the eyes of the law, but certainly when looking at things as hopefully smart human beings. I mean, some auburn guy keeps talking about logic, as it pertains to what, i dont really know. But looking at it logically, he likely wasnt actually driving the car, even if it was his intent to do so when he got in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 1 hour ago, The LBC said: Nope. Not even that. They're not suspending him at all. Saban is such a gutless turd. suspended for what, what did he actually do. Not what he got charged with, physically what did he do. Absolutely ridiculous to not even consider that. As I said from the beginning, not a bama fan but this shouldnt be something you get suspended over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 52 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: suspended for what, what did he actually do. Not what he got charged with, physically what did he do. Absolutely ridiculous to not even consider that. As I said from the beginning, not a bama fan but this shouldnt be something you get suspended over. Who said I'm not considering it? I'd need to double-check the specifics of the traffic law in Alabama, but if he broke the law then it flatly doesn't matter whether he was driving or not (because the law doesn't require him to be driving). Just checking now, the law states "shall not drive or be in physical control of a vehicle." Now @jrry32 can correct me if I'm wrong, but if the precedent for interpretation within the state/county of "physical control" is constituted by being in possession of the key while in the cab/driver's seat of the vehicle, then Hand isn't going to have a defense in this, he would have still broken the law. And flatly, it's stupid and irresponsible of a football program to pass absolutely no punishment at all on a player for breaking the law if they did so. You set a precedent for equivocation of the law ("it might be against the rules for normal people, but you're football players so as long as you have some kind of plausible excuse, the rules/laws don't really apply to you") that sends the message to other and future players that it's OK to break the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 4 minutes ago, The LBC said: Who said I'm not considering it? I'd need to double-check the specifics of the traffic law in Alabama, but if he broke the law then it flatly doesn't matter whether he was driving or not (because the law doesn't require him to be driving). Just checking now, the law states "shall not drive or be in physical control of a vehicle." Now @jrry32 can correct me if I'm wrong, but if the precedent for interpretation within the state/county of "physical control" is constituted by being in possession of the key while in the cab/driver's seat of the vehicle, then Hand isn't going to have a defense in this, he would have still broken the law. And flatly, it's stupid and irresponsible of a football program to pass absolutely no punishment at all on a player for breaking the law if they did so. You set a precedent for equivocation of the law ("it might be against the rules for normal people, but you're football players so as long as you have some kind of plausible excuse, the rules/laws don't really apply to you") that sends the message to other and future players that it's OK to break the law. That sort of law is usually interpreted pretty liberally. Regardless, it won't really matter. Odds are that Hand will end up in some sort of diversion program considering his age and lack of record (assuming he has no record prior to this). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 23 minutes ago, The LBC said: Who said I'm not considering it? I'd need to double-check the specifics of the traffic law in Alabama, but if he broke the law then it flatly doesn't matter whether he was driving or not (because the law doesn't require him to be driving). Just checking now, the law states "shall not drive or be in physical control of a vehicle." Now @jrry32 can correct me if I'm wrong, but if the precedent for interpretation within the state/county of "physical control" is constituted by being in possession of the key while in the cab/driver's seat of the vehicle, then Hand isn't going to have a defense in this, he would have still broken the law. And flatly, it's stupid and irresponsible of a football program to pass absolutely no punishment at all on a player for breaking the law if they did so. You set a precedent for equivocation of the law ("it might be against the rules for normal people, but you're football players so as long as you have some kind of plausible excuse, the rules/laws don't really apply to you") that sends the message to other and future players that it's OK to break the law. I dont really care about the law of the state, that will play itself out. Im talking about what people are sayng Bama should do vs what the kid really did. No where have I said he shouldnt be punished, just tht a suspension isnt warranted. And again, I hope Saban and other higher ups are able to look at context instead of just "welp, you got the dui". And just to be clear, you do see difference correct. Cause you havent actually answered that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 8 hours ago, The LBC said: Except it's explicitly stated in the law (i.e. every Department of Motor Vehicles handbook which is the material used for the written test which must be passed by anyone receiving a license) that keys + inside the car + under the influence constitutes DUI. People can't claim ignorance, as part of the contract (yes, that's what the application for a license is, and it's actually in the print) specifically states that by signing you are attesting to your knowledge of and willingness to adhere to the rules, laws, and codes stated in the DMV Handbook. I don't think anything is arguing that Hand didn't break the letter of the law. However, there are instances similar to Hand's where someone did not break the spirit of the law, which is don't operate a car when you're impaired because it's dangerous, but were still charged. If that's true for Hand's specific situation, regardless of whether he broke the law or not, Saban isn't bound by DMV catch-all language as to when Hand was actually operating the car, and there's nothing wrong with having the opinion that Saban should take into account that Hand may not have done anything dangerous or immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catcheryea Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 8 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said: I mean, some auburn guy keeps talking about logic, as it pertains to what, i dont really know. But looking at it logically, he likely wasnt actually driving the car, even if it was his intent to do so when he got in. You have no idea whether or not he drove the car. It's not more likely that he didn't drive. Nor is it more likely that he did. But obviously by putting the keys in the ignition, he either did or was going to. Can we all agree that either way that's bad decision making? That's why he should be suspended. He shouldn't get off just because he passed out before he could actually drive the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 22 minutes ago, catcheryea said: You have no idea whether or not he drove the car. It's not more likely that he didn't drive. Nor is it more likely that he did. But obviously by putting the keys in the ignition, he either did or was going to. Can we all agree that either way that's bad decision making? That's why he should be suspended. He shouldn't get off just because he passed out before he could actually drive the car. l think this is a far more convincing argument than the one @The LBC is making with the legal definition of when you're "operating" a vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonebillsfan Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 I mean if we're arguing that severity of offense warrants suspension then why does anybody ever get clapped 3-4 games for weed? hmmmemoji.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.d2c265202a2f8ec3a797f89384c29ff0.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.