http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=5601080 According to this article he blew 0.16 (twice the legal limit) so there is no room for arguing that point whether you believe it to be valid or not. BAC is already affected by size (it is basically a PERCENTAGE of alcohol present in your blood). It take a LOT more alcohol to get V. Wilfork up to 0.08 than some 140lb guy, but once they are both at 0.08 the level to which they are impaired is the same.
I really wish you and others would stop quoting that clown. He always gets it wrong. Criticizing the worth and appropriateness of some drug/alcohol program has nothing to do and does not amount to acting "like drunk driving is some minor crime." Nothing to do with that. THat is called a red herring, typical of junc's style of argument, which in brief sucks ass.
blowing .085 does not mean youre "a little drunk", it means that you are past the legal limit set for everyone alcohol affects individuals differently ... .08 may have some 5'4, 100 lb chick lit but im 6'3, 190 and i am no where near drunk when i blow .08 into my breathalyzer not to mention that those devices are far from 100% accurate
You let me know how much affects Braylon. I guess we should tkae it on a case by case basis, we'll have them take the test then determine if they seem drunk enough to arrest. That should work out well. at .08 someone might not be drunk yet but they probably have a buzz which could impair them. There is a simple solution for any person to not get arrested for DUI- Don't have any drinks then drive. It's very simple, you won't fail a test, you won't get arrested, you won't put yourself and others in jeopardy b/c you are driving impaired.
You embarrass yourself w/ everyone one of your mindless posts. You don't know a thing about football and it appears you don't know a thing about life either. It's people like you that give football fans and people in general a bad name. How gutless does a person have to be to put someone on ignore on a message board b/c they are afraid to debate them?
thats the point, i dont know how it affected him and neither do you ... to say someone should be in jail without knowing the particulars is absurd
I can guarantee you it affected him, I don't know how much but if you lose a split second of reaction time and kill someone that's enough.
That is the point... everyone gets affected slightly differently by the same BACs. No one can make a 100% fair judgement on this kind of effect, and obviously the law can't rely on people's anecdotal explanations of how alcohol affects them. The best that the law can do is to pick one number that it deems reasonable to encompass EVERYONE. Someone picked 0.08 as that number. Once again, weight does not enter into this equation at all, idk why you keep bringing it up. Gender to some extent does. When you say that you are fine at 0.08 I say BS. How many drunk drivers who have ended up crashing their cars and killing people do you think would have said "no, I'm not OK to drive right now" prior to getting behind the wheel? Everyone wants to think that they are the exception to the rule.
Weight most definitely does factor into the BAC equation. Give a 6'5 320 pound man a six pack and then give a 4'2 95 lb midget the same six pack and compare BAC's.
Exactly. Quantity and weight affect BAC. The SAME BAC across different weights has the same affect. If your 320 lb man has a BAC of 0.08, and your 95 lb midget has a BAC of 0.08, their level of impairment is roughly the same BECAUSE the 320 lb guy drank a lot more to get there. I'm NOT saying that a small person and big person can drink the same amount (volume) and be affected the same. I AM saying that BAC is essentially a COMPARISON of volume to weight, so that it is basically standardized across all sizes of people.
I see, I misunderstood what you were saying. BAC is a good baseline but it's not perfect. A seasoned drinker may look/feel fine at .08 while a teenage girl who is drinking for the first time will probably be hammered.
No, it's not perfect. But like I said, there has to be some law that is set in stone, and I don't think 0.08 is unreasonable. USUALLY, if you give a cop a reason to pull you over AND a reason to suspect intoxication you don't really deserve much in terms of wiggle room. You might give Braylon the benefit of the doubt since he was pulled over for window tints and the time of night alone could have been enough reason for suspicion... but then again 0.16 isn't that close.
Please put me on your ignore list. That way you won't have the urge to respond to anything I say. I don't always agree with Nyjunc, especially with his choice of colleges, but "ignoring" him or anyone is a pussy move. Come to think of it, I may ignore you so I'm not forced to see any of the butterfaces you claim are hot chicks in case that thread ever returns.
SPECULATION: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/25/braylon-edwards-could-face-jail-time-for-violating-probation/ Braylon Edwards could face jail time for violating probation Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on July 25, 2011, 4:50 PM EDT Jets wide receiver Braylon Edwards surprisingly pleaded guilty to a DWI on Friday, saying he wanted to put any negativity behind him with free agency on the way. It’s possible, however, Edwards may have to put jail time behind him for violating his probation in Cleveland. Jenny Vrentas of the Newark Star-Ledger reports Edwards is due in Cleveland court Wednesday. Edwards received a conditional 180-day jail sentence in 2009. Edwards didn’t have to serve it if he completed his probation without incident. “It’s possible Edwards may not have to serve jail time, instead being assigned a lesser penalty, such as a fine,” a court spokesperson told Vrentas. So Edwards may have to serve jail time at the very worst time in his career. We’ll find out Wednesday if that’s the case, and the answer will interest plenty of teams out there. Personally, I'd be really surprised if he took that plea without having a deal in place already in Cleveland. But who knows.
