OT: Braylon Edwards arrested with DUI

[alamo]

But I guarantee you that DUI falls under the personal conduct policy.

The following does support that point of view:

This Policy is not to be considered a grant of authority to discipline players but instead is an agreement to impose the stated discipline for violations of the requirements of the Intervention Stages. Discipline for violations of the law relating to use, possession, acquisition, sale, or distribution of substances of abuse, or conspiracy to do so, will remain at the discretion of the Commissioner.

So as I read it it is indeed the criminal offense which does allow additional punishment.

 

[TruthSeeker]

First he's taunting Butler now he's taunting the NYPD. Ball's in your court Goodell. Do the right thing!

On a side note, how dumb do you have to be to not call a cab. I'm pretty sure he can afford it, and don't tell me there are no cabs in the cab capital of the world. Idiot. :violent:

Exactly, what an idiot ! Get a freaking cab, or limo, or take a bus. His car still would have been there the next day. These rich famous people are morons, like Paris Hilton, take a damn limo.

Maybe when people intercept the ball in front of him, they can taunt him by making believe they are drinking something.

 

[boston22407]

**BREAKING NEWS** Braylon Edwards was with 4 Passengers during his DUI arrest. "Inaccurate" media frauds reported 1 passenger earlier.

 

[NYJetsfan]

You're wrong.

It falls under personal conduct. There is no separate statute in the CBA for manslaughter.

You actually think DUI is substance abuse but hitting someone with your car makes it different? So the NFL looks at this differently from the law? Yeah right.

For a first offense of personal conduct, he may not get anything. That's a whole other argument.

But I guarantee you that DUI falls under the personal conduct policy.

Read up on Vincent Jackson. It says BOLDFACE in all the articles on Jackson that it falls under personal conduct.

NFL.com news: Chargers' Jackson suspended three games by NFL for conduct

This is difficult stuff isn't it. Okay, read your article and it clearly states that this was his second offense. It moves from substance to personal conduct after Jackson violates a mandate in their policy not to drink after his first violation. That's how his current suspension fell under the personal conduct policy. He was under an NFL substance abuse program, which instructs that he does not drink. He did, received a DUI, and violated the terms of the NFL substance program. Anyhow, I'll concede that you're right because we'll beat it to death otherwise

 

[NYJetsfan]

The following does support that point of view:

This Policy is not to be considered a grant of authority to discipline players but instead is an agreement to impose the stated discipline for violations of the requirements of the Intervention Stages. Discipline for violations of the law relating to use, possession, acquisition, sale, or distribution of substances of abuse, or conspiracy to do so, will remain at the discretion of the Commissioner.

So as I read it it is indeed the criminal offense which does allow additional punishment.

It's in the language underlined. The interventions stages are the entry into the substance abuse program. Violations of this "intervention program" mandated by the NFL, make it a personal conduct issue. If this is Edwards first substance issue, and alcohol as indicated in my link falls under substance, then he'd be required to enter that program before any suspensions were leveled.

 

[alamo]

Quote:
His second DUI conviction, Jackson was subject to the NFL's personal-conduct policy.

NFL.com news: Chargers' Jackson suspended three games by NFL for conduct

You edited the quote to give it a slightly different meaning. The actual full quote in the story is:

Because it was his second DUI conviction, Jackson was subject to the NFL's personal-conduct policy.

which implies (as written) that a first DUI might not be.

 

[NYJetsfan]

For those of you calling on Goddell to do the right thing, you should expect the team to do the right thing long before Goddell ever gets involved. Teams need to hold the players accountable. I know that's a utopian view, but the Jets need to suspend him for one game this coming Sunday.

 

[alamo]

It's in the language underlined. The interventions stages are the entry into the substance abuse program. Violations of this "intervention program" mandated by the NFL, make it a personal conduct issue. If this is Edwards first substance issue, and alcohol as indicated in my link falls under substance, then he'd be required to enter that program before any suspensions were leveled.

As written it seems to say, though, that violations of the law are penalized additionally at the discretion of the commissioner.

So much of this stuff is written broadly and covered by precedent and separate agreement. I see a lot of confusion everywhere. Which has me somewhat confused.

 

[NYJetsfan]

As written it seems to say, though, that violations of the law are penalized additionally at the discretion of the commissioner.

So much of this stuff is written broadly and covered by precedent and separate agreement. I see a lot of confusion everywhere. Which has me somewhat confused.

Yeah, that's why I've been careful to include in a couple of previous posts that Goddell could still do what he wants. Hopefully the Jets do the right thing on Sunday and don't let him play and none of this will matter.

 

[alamo]

**BREAKING NEWS** Braylon Edwards was with 4 Passengers during his DUI arrest.

This reminds me of the sad incident in Framingham last week where two drunk guys ran down and killed a highway worker. Both the driver and passenger had previous DUI convictions. The driver, who was way over the legal limit, said he was driving because his buddy was too drunk to do so
Makes me wonder about the 4 guys riding with Braylon.

 

[Its_The_Patriots]

What ticks me off most about this, is that he was under the influence, and could have easily gotten an innocent bystander or driver killed. It's a good thing the officer pulled him over for tinted windows, otherwise this situation could have been alot worse. What an idiot!

 

[NYJetsfan]

What ticks me off most about this, is that he was under the influence, and could have easily gotten an innocent bystander or driver killed. It's a good thing the officer pulled him over for tinted windows, otherwise this situation could have been alot worse. What an idiot!

In a study by the federal government, The Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration's survey of 127,000 adults found that 15% of drivers 18 and older said they had driven under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year. Over a 10 year period, that number increased to over 50%. Over half this counrtry has drank more than the hourly drink limit and drove. It doesn't make it okay, but it's a fact. And in this sport, how many people do you think leave the stadiums each Sunday "Over The Limit". I bet it's well over 50%. So while I understand your statement, I think there's a lot of idiots pointing fingers and saking how could he do this. Funny how we all turn in to saints when is suits us.

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

Dance that off you smug jackazz.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

In a study by the federal government, The Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration's survey of 127,000 adults found that 15% of drivers 18 and older said they had driven under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year. Over a 10 year period, that number increased to over 50%. Over half this counrtry has drank more than the hourly drink limit and drove. It doesn't make it okay, but it's a fact. And in this sport, how many people do you think leave the stadiums each Sunday "Over The Limit". I bet it's well over 50%. So while I understand your statement, I think there's a lot of idiots pointing fingers and saking how could he do this. Funny how we all turn in to saints when is suits us.

1) I, for one, am part of the 85% who has not driven drunk in the past year and 50% that has not driven drunk in the the past 10. In fact I have never driven drunk. Not that I don't drink...I do but when I do I walk. If I am going to drive I don't drink. I don't drink in moderation, I don't drink at all. Not one drink. I have no problem being self righteous on this matter of engaging in homicidal behavior.

2) He wasn't slightly over the limit as many of those in your study. He was twice the legal limit. That isn't being buzzed, in which you had three beers instead of two. That is falling down totally drunk off your ass drunk.

 

[Tunescribe]

In a study by the federal government, The Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration's survey of 127,000 adults found that 15% of drivers 18 and older said they had driven under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year. Over a 10 year period, that number increased to over 50%. Over half this counrtry has drank more than the hourly drink limit and drove. It doesn't make it okay, but it's a fact. And in this sport, how many people do you think leave the stadiums each Sunday "Over The Limit". I bet it's well over 50%. So while I understand your statement, I think there's a lot of idiots pointing fingers and saking how could he do this. Funny how we all turn in to saints when is suits us.

The same study found that .0000000000000000000000000000000001 percent of drivers were prone to drive under the influence of alcohol after lewd dancing and celebrating a week 2 Super Bowl win.

 

[upstater1]

You edited the quote to give it a slightly different meaning. The actual full quote in the story is:

which implies (as written) that a first DUI might not be.

So explain that one to me please.

DUI isn't personal conduct unless you do it twice?

That's why the quote is there as I edited it.

I left out the because.

Why?

Because it's non-sensical. Let's think this through again. I do something that is illegal once. Is that personal conduct or not? I do it again, only then does it fall under personal conduct?

That makes sense to you?

It shouldn't.

I can't see why you guys don't see the difference between substance abuse and DUI.

 

[upstater1]

NFL's substance abuse program INCLUDES alcohol. Here's the link: http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/sports/drugs/policy/football/index.html

Of course it does.

Jeez.

Who said it didn't?

Someone with a .16 is not abusing alcohol though.

After a Sunday watching football, I'm sure my blood alcohol is higher. Am I abusing it? No. Some doctors might even say it's HEALTHY!!!

This is the simplest concept for anyone to understand. It's hard to see why you guys are screwing it up repeatedly.

Being inebriated is not necessarily an abuse of a substance. Driving while inebriated is a criminal offense!!!

What's so hard to understand?

 

[upstater1]

This is difficult stuff isn't it. Okay, read your article and it clearly states that this was his second offense. It moves from substance to personal conduct after Jackson violates a mandate in their policy not to drink after his first violation. That's how his current suspension fell under the personal conduct policy. He was under an NFL substance abuse program, which instructs that he does not drink. He did, received a DUI, and violated the terms of the NFL substance program. Anyhow, I'll concede that you're right because we'll beat it to death otherwise

It doesn't say anything about moving from substance abuse to personal conduct.

 

[NYJetsfan]

ESPN now confirming that this is NOT a personal conduct issue, that it IS a substance issue.

 

[Its_The_Patriots]

In a study by the federal government, The Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration's survey of 127,000 adults found that 15% of drivers 18 and older said they had driven under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year. Over a 10 year period, that number increased to over 50%. Over half this counrtry has drank more than the hourly drink limit and drove. It doesn't make it okay, but it's a fact. And in this sport, how many people do you think leave the stadiums each Sunday "Over The Limit". I bet it's well over 50%. So while I understand your statement, I think there's a lot of idiots pointing fingers and saking how could he do this. Funny how we all turn in to saints when is suits us.

Who cares! The guy was driving while under the influence, which could have easily led to someones death including his own, and passenger he had in the car with him, so that makes him and idiot. If that makes me a saint, then it is what it is.