Brimley

October 29th, 2020 at 9:31 AM ^

Blood alcohol of .172.  Yowsa.  Nothing good ever happens after midnight when you've been drinking all day and decide that driving to get a Big Mac is a really good idea.

Joined: 03/22/2011

MGoPoints: 11671

mGrowOld

October 29th, 2020 at 9:37 AM ^

Next man up.  I'm sure there's a back-up Pete somewhere on campus that's been quietly training, preparing for this fateful day.   Sort of like the first runner-up at the Miss America pageant's back in the day:

"Now, as the runner-up Purdue Pete do you vow to be ready, willing and able to fulfill the duties of Purdue Pete should the original Purdue Pete be unable to do so?"

Or something like that.

Joined: 10/04/2010

MGoPoints: 213291

bluewave720

October 29th, 2020 at 11:24 AM ^

My buddies have heard my “if I win the lottery plan” many times. 
I would absolutely build a drum bigger than that and just pay people to play it near the Purdue one. Wouldn’t paint anything on it. There would just be the random kid asking his parents if he truly understands what “biggest” means. 
This idea was incepted after the 2000 game. I am a petty man capable of grudge-holding until I die. Not sorry. 

Joined: 07/17/2009

MGoPoints: 6565

UNCWolverine

October 29th, 2020 at 9:47 AM ^

Not surprised Harry's Chocolate Shop was a contributing factor.

I've been to a few Michigan road games @ Purdue, including Henson vs Brees in 2000 which was bonkers.

One of those times we went to Harry's for some beers. Some big guy got kicked out for being smashed. He then got into a 3 point stance in the middle of the street then tried to run back into the bar. The bouncers just kept shucking him away, and guy kept falling down, then getting back into his 3 point stance. This went on several times. It was fascinating to watch.

Joined: 10/06/2008

MGoPoints: 23231

MGoOhNo

October 29th, 2020 at 9:57 AM ^

The officer reported that he “was immediately met by the overwhelming odor of an alcoholic beverage” on Desmond’s breath, and that the student reportedly had watery eyes and slurred speech.

Says literally every cop affidavit after pulling anyone over after dark, ever.

I’m also tired of the overreaction to BAC numbers “Yowza!” he/she was x times the “legal limit” - MADD has successfully lobbied to lower legal limit and would have it at 0.00% if they could. Limit used to be 0.20, and has incrementally declined by successive lobbying by MADD year over year (what politician would come out in favor of “drunk” driving and against MADD?!).

I’m not in favor of drunk driving, but I’m also not in favor of random, inconclusive “sobriety tests” that literally can’t be passed, leading to “probable cause” to do blood tests where the legal limit is so low that a glass of chardonnay during dinner generates $1000s of dollars in penalties and interest for the business of government.

 

Joined: 08/12/2014

MGoPoints: 8977

MGoOhNo

October 29th, 2020 at 11:09 AM ^

Matter of fact, I was almost killed by a drunk driver in Bloomfield Hills, so if there is one to speak on this from moral high ground, I’m that person.

However, deciding who is “impaired” by BS field sobriety tests and “watery eyes” and measuring impairment via a random BAC # to generate fees and penalties is the height of government overreach. 
 

 

Joined: 08/12/2014

MGoPoints: 8977

1VaBlue1

October 29th, 2020 at 10:19 AM ^

Wow...  The dissonance here is not cognitive.  

'There's nothing wrong with drinking and driving!  MADD shouldn't be listened to, they have no experience with drunk driving - they don't even drink!  We can handle our liquor and should be allowed to do whatever we want!'

     -- Summary of MGoOhNo's thought's behind his post

Joined: 01/31/2016

MGoPoints: 127316

xtramelanin

October 29th, 2020 at 10:26 AM ^

vablue, ohno actually raises a good point.  if you've read enough police reports you start to realize there are a certain percentage of officers that put in facts that aren't there, or exaggerate existing facts to make them more impactful.   i didn't read his comment to say 'nothing wrong' with DUI's.  it seems he was really after MADD, which started as a very good and understandable idea but has in some instances morphed beyond that point. 

Joined: 12/09/2014

MGoPoints: 15439

1VaBlue1

October 29th, 2020 at 10:57 AM ^

I don't doubt that some officers adhoc 'alternative facts' and pure hogwash into their reports.  I also don't agree that a police report should be considered gospel in court.  But that's not what I took from that post.  What I read was a rant against any arbitrary BAC level and against MADD for having the audacity to press for limits on one's ability to drink and drive.  I also don't believe that having a glass of wine (or two) with dinner will get someone $thousands$ in fines and whatnot.

That post screams of a poster that is bitter about paying a large fine/societal debt because he got busted driving drunk when he otherwise thought he was just fine.  I'm guilty of driving drunk on too many occasions to remember - my younger days were not always conducted in a safe and smart manner.  Fortunately, I never caused any damage or injury to people or property - mostly because I was lucky as fucking hell on several occasions.  I was also lucky enough to have not been stopped by police under such circumstances.  I know damn well that the person who's drinking will always think he's just fine...

There has to be a limit somewhere.  Rampaging about MADD isn't going to change that.  I do think MADD has gone too far in some cases.  It's possible to remove the stick from ones ass to have a good time, while still being responsible enough to not endanger others lives/property.

Joined: 01/31/2016

MGoPoints: 127316

MGoOhNo

October 29th, 2020 at 11:22 AM ^

See my post above, as I’m on the other end of the spectrum that you incorrectly assumed, and feel bad.

I’m not defending impaired driving, far from it, I’m criticizing a capricious and arbitrary standard that’s designed to generate $1000s of dollars in fees, based on politically motivations, and motivation for cops to ring up busts.

There’s like a standard utterance in these reports that makes me cringe every time I read it. It’s not right. Running over people in a parking lot after admitting 11+ drinks is also not right. But assuming that 0.08 is the correct standard for all is also not right, and freaking out about “x times” that arbitrary limit (which whether you like it or not is mostly determined by lobbying from a political organization) is also not right.
 

 

 

Joined: 08/12/2014

MGoPoints: 8977

1VaBlue1

October 29th, 2020 at 11:49 AM ^

This is a much better explanation of your point, and is something I can largely agree with.  I will not feel bad for my previous statement, though...  

Unfortunately, the law exists because people continue to drive while drunk, and so there has to be some limit on where the law's line is drawn.  People handle drink differently - some can have 2 beers before being a little impaired, some can have four.  Since we don't have laws tailored to individuals, there has to be a common line.  Perhaps you can design a law tailored to individuals?  Probably not...  What you can do, though, is lobby to have the law changed to allow a higher limit, and/or to eliminate arbitrary determinations re: the law.

The entire law enforcement apparatus is largely designed to draw fee's.  Some states fund the entire court system on legal fee's (fines, penalties, court costs) - and all of them are arbitrary.  I would love for that to change, but until someone (myself?) is ready to lead that change, it's not going anywhere.  Hell, Florida tried to change that by popular ballot, and still couldn't!

Joined: 01/31/2016

MGoPoints: 127316

Brimley

October 29th, 2020 at 11:07 AM ^

All right, since that was directed at me ("yowsa"): 1) When BAC began to be used as an objective measure of being drunk, .15 was the standard.  This was the case between 1938 and into the 1970s.  This number was considered "drunk" generally, not "impaired" to drive a vehicle.  Not .2 as you state.  2) Do you really need a lecture on how medicine has evolved since 1938?  Are you sure you want to defend this guy based on, generously, 45 year old science?  3)  Is .8 too low?  No fuckin' clue.  I'll let you do the work to find studies on that.  Since this guy was was over double that, it's moot to his situation.  4)  Apparently we need SOME objective standard since "every cop" will cite "smelled like alcohol and slurred his words".  5) Should his life be over because he made a very, very poor choice?  Of course not.  I had some fun at his expense, which maybe was a poor choice as well given his age and so on.  Are his actions in any way defensible?  Sorry, man.  They aren't.  I hope he learns from them, doesn't repeat them, and moves on to a happy, healthy life.

Joined: 03/22/2011

MGoPoints: 11671

The Geek

October 29th, 2020 at 11:45 AM ^

I wasn’t going to comment, but I can’t help myself  

Some bad cops will exaggerate affidavits, I’m sure, but the rest is just hogwash. You obviously do not care for MADD, but why?

I got a DWI in Oakland Co. about 30 years ago and blew a .18. Some buddies and I were drinking for hours and were returning home from a Pistons playoff game at The Palace. I was hammered drunk. Luckily I didn’t hurt anyone, but learned my lesson. 

The cop had every right to pull me and my buddies over. I was caught red handed and wanted to skip the sobriety tests and go straight to the breathalyzer (to speed things up), but he did the tests anyway. 
 

Joined: 09/08/2009

MGoPoints: 24820

CFraser

October 29th, 2020 at 12:56 PM ^

While BAC isn’t a direct predictor of level of intoxication (tolerance factors hugely into that), I agree to take a conservative tack. A BAC of .08 for an average drinker has been researched extensively and shown to adversely affect motor function and reaction time. Why would we allow beyond that limit at all? And what do you propose to evaluate intoxication more effectively and expediently in the field? Actually, why allow any drinking before driving at all? There are so many other methods of transportation and such dire and permanent consequences of mixing the two. This is shown day after day...after day. 

Joined: 08/15/2017

MGoPoints: 6262