Should the Jets bench Braylon for his Alleged DUI?

I don't think that true. We usually here about the horrible accidents where the drunken idiot survives and kills a family of 5. We hear about those stories because they sell the most newspapers or get the highest t.v. ratings.

If just the drunk driver dies or everyone dies the story isn't as talked about because when there is no villain in a story it isn't really newsworthy.

 

It's actually standard practice now to check cell records after injury and fatal crashes. According to a cop I talked to last night, those numbers include people on Bluetooth devices.

Absolutely. I actually wish the fines for talking and texting while driving were higher in California. God knows our state budget could use it.

 

Please tell me you're not serious with this. It's wishful thinking for people who want to keep driving under the influence, not backed up by any kind of reasoning.

 

Why do you perpetuate disinformation? I understand you take this personally. BUt that is no reason to spread untruths.

Even if what that guy said is incomplete, it should be obvious that merely because someone has alcohol in his blood does not mean any and every ensuing accident was caused by alcohol.

If I am at a stop light, the light is red, and have .08 alcohol, and someone runs into me, NHTSA will say alcohol caused the accident.

Do you know what the leading cause of accidents is that is not related to alcohol? Being tired. So, every time someone has alcohol in their blood it doesn't matter how tired they are. It's the alcohol.

Your position is in accord with a nanny state neo prohibitionism I cannot stand. We can't just keep raising the penalties on everything and legislate our way to the perfect society. There are diminishing returns.

What is the cost to society when people convicted of blowing .08 who didn't break any other laws, didn't hit anybody, didn't hurt anyone, go to jail and their families lose a breadwinner and go broke? WHat is the cost to the justice system? Is the overall benefit really there?

Moral absolutism is a dangerous thing, and my friend you are being a moral absolutist.

 

Better you should get your state budget in order. The criminal justice system is a very inefficient one for raising revenue. Unless you want to shortcircuit constitutional protections. Which you sound like you would not be averse to.

 

*According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), "A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-related if at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term 'alcohol-related' does not indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol."

 

So instead of acknowledging that the numbers you gave are broad, and are essentially a loaded statement, which do not
accurately reflect the point you are trying to make...you decide to counter with " your statement is ridiculous".

That's not to say alcohol isn't a large
Factor in fatalities. But if you're going to use stats, make sure they are definitive and account for other variables instead of merely being veiled in a way to make your argument appear stronger

 

Thank you sir.

 

Something about the media response to this situation has really started to piss me off. When did journalists become judges? All I've seen is a constant barrage of negative press toward the way the Jets have decided to handle the situation. Basically, the Jets have said that they will not suspend Braylon because it would violate the CBA, and how much he plays Sunday will be up to Rex Ryan. Now every instant legal expert journalist is bashing the Jets for how they are choosing to handle this. I'm sorry, but in the world of journalists, does two wrongs make a right? If the Jets were to go against the union, as one journalist suggested, and suspend Edwards, they would essentially be breeching a contract, which is illegal. I'm sorry if by following the rules the Jets position doesn't perfectly align with your moral compass, but tough shit. Braylon Edwards broke the law and will be tried and, if found guilty, punished...BY THE COURT.

Also, what if Braylon Ewards wasn't a football player? What if he was a well-known CEO of a major corporation? Or, better yet, what if he were a friend or family member? Would people be clamoring for his employer to take some negative action against him in those circumstances? I highly doubt it. Journalists wouldn't be defending his actions, but they certainly wouldn't be trying to manipulate his employer the way they are trying to manipulate the Jets.

 

Judging from the convo I heard about this on Boomer & Carton I think they might make an example out of him.. They are saying 4 games and I def dont think it will be that much but i think at least one.. video.msg.com/Home/Peter-Schwartz-WFAN-s-Boomer-and-Carton-on-MSG-9-21

 

A Closer Look at DUI Fatality Statistics
Posted by Lawrence Taylor on October 23rd, 2004

For years now the "DUI crackdown", along with the accompanying loss of constitutional rights, has been justified by the numbers of deaths on the highways caused by drunk drivers. As the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Sitz said, for example, DUI "sobriety checkpoints" appear to violate our Fourth Amendment right to be free of suspicionless stops by the police — but this illegal intrusion on our privacy is "outweighed" by the "carnage" on our highways of 25,000 deaths caused each year by alcohol.

From where did these statistics come? Years ago, the statistics kept on traffic fatalities included a category for "alcohol-caused" deaths. To justify such things as sobriety checkpoints, lowered blood alcohol levels and automatic at-the-scene DUI license suspensions, however, these statistics were subtly changed to "alcohol-related". Not "caused", but related.

This meant that a perfectly sober driver who hit and killed an intoxicated pedestrian, for example, would be involved in an "alcohol-related" incident. Similarly, a sober driver who is struck by another sober driver carrying an intoxicated passenger chalked up another "alcohol-related" death. Further, if the officer believes the driver to be intoxicated but chemical tests show he is not, the death is nevertheless reported as "alcohol-related". In fact, if the tests indicate the presence of any alcohol at all, say .02%, the fatality will be chalked up as "alcohol-related".

In 1999, the federal General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed these figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — and issued a report stating that they "raised methodological concerns calling their conclusions into question ". The statistics, the GAO report said, "fall short of providing conclusive evidence that .08% BAC laws were, by themselves, responsible for reductions in alcohol related fatalities." In other words, the statistics weren’t even valid when applied to alcohol-related fatalities, much less alcohol-caused deaths.

So what are the real numbers? The Los Angeles Times also decided to investigate the validity of these statistics. In 2002, NHTSA’s figures claimed 18,000 deaths on the nation’s highways attributable to drunk driving. The Times found that only about 5,000 of these involved a drunk driver causing the death of a sober driver, passenger or pedestrian. (Research by other groups, such as "Responsibility in DUI Laws, Inc.", indicate the figure is actually under 3,000.) 5,000. A fraction of the number being used by the government and political pressure groups like MADD.

Despite this irritating little truth, MADD, law enforcement and federal and state governments continue to use the same false statistics to justify the passage of unfair and unconstitutional DUI laws.

http://www.duiblog.com/2004/10/23/a-closer-look-at-dui-fatality-statistics/

 

What untruths? I posted factual information, unlike that bullshit that you posted as gospel yesterday 5 or 6 times. This is hilarious.

No, which is why there is a difference of approximately 2500 between those which are deemed alcohol-related and alcohol-caused. Of course the numbers are imperfect in making that distinction. Unlike you, however, I fail to believe that the numbers of fatal accidents caused by alcohol impairment are off by 12,498 per year, and that really only 500 were caused by alcohol impairment. I get that ShadeTree lives in a fairy tale world anyway, but you do too?

I'd be happy to make a phone call and ask about that, but I'd imagine that falls under one of the 2500 alcohol-related accidents if a sober driver is deemed at fault.

LOL. This is now beyond hilarious.

Right. How dare people try to protect other drivers on the road. It MUST be a nanny state. It couldn't possibly be a response to people failing to act responsibly in situations in which it affects others. Do you actually think about what you type?

I'll forgive this one, since you obviously missed my earlier post in which I said I oppose jail time for DUI convictions in which there isn't property or personal damage involved. Heavy fines and community service are much more practical deterrents.

So, which circumstances are you arguing make drinking and driving perfectly justifiable?

 

Alright, now that we have hopefully put the MADD propangandists in the boxes they belong in, we can get to the media nonsense. Thanks for htis point.

My guess is for most people here, if they got a DUI early Saturday morning, their employer would never even know about it. Let alone take action against that person.

I have been saying for years we Jet fans have to have thick skins when it comes to the media. The Jets are not media darlings, never have been, unlike the Pats, Giants and Cowboys. Even in Namath's day he rubbed the old sportswriters used to YA Tittle and the like the wrong way. It has always been such.

It still is. Get used to it if you haven't already.

 

Yes, which is why there are two separate categories for alcohol-related and alcohol-caused. The difference in numbers is roughly 2500, which I alluded to in my previous post. There's nothing new in this post that I didn't already acknowledge.