OT: Tank Johnson question

[Keegs]

was Tank given a curfew or any rules about now using alcohol?

If he wasn't then he should be back on the Bears.

He didn't drink enough for a DUI. Basically he was driving at 3am poorly and was cut because of it.

Don't get me wrong, this guy is truly a sack of garbage... but he shouldn't have been cut, that was wrong.... and i suggested that this exact thing would happen in the other Tank Johnson thread. Whattaya know? i'm right again.:singing:

Does anyone agree with me that Tank should not have been cut for getting a traffic ticket?

seems a little extreme

 

[Caspir]

Why should he be back on the Bears? They didn't cut him because he was (allegedly) drunk (now it turns out he wasn't). He was cut for fdisregarding the warning they gave him. When your boss at work tells you, "Listen, if you get into any trouble at all, any, we're firing you," and you decide that hiting the clubs until 3:30am is a good idea, you are setting yourself up to lose. Good for him not drunk driving, but tough luck on putting himself in a position to fail. How is it wrong to cut someone? It isn't illegal, and if he never got into trouble, and the Bears just decided to cut him, no one would think it was wrong.

 

[Keegs]

Why should he be back on the Bears? They didn't cut him because he was (allegedly) drunk (now it turns out he wasn't). He was cut for fdisregarding the warning they gave him. When your boss at work tells you, "Listen, if you get into any trouble at all, any, we're firing you," and you decide that hiting the clubs until 3:30am is a good idea, you are setting yourself up to lose. Good for him not drunk driving, but tough luck on putting himself in a position to fail. How is it wrong to cut someone? It isn't illegal, and if he never got into trouble, and the Bears just decided to cut him, no one would think it was wrong.

Umm no.... he was cut for "driving drunk". Let's not play pretend here.
what was the traffic citation that Tank ended up getting?

I'm no Alfred Einstein, but i'm willing to bet that it doesn't warrant getting fired from your job.:singing:

But seriously, if they didn't tell him specificially to not drink alcohol, and they didn't give him a curfew, then he shouldn't be cut.

And if i was told by my boss to stay out of trouble and then i got a traffic ticket he would not fire me.


now if someone "fronts" and Tank "sprays" them with his "gats", now that's a different story.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

He had an agreement with the team that he would remain out of trouble, if it had been a minor infraction the week before his suspension I might agree with you, but one shortly after being released from jail and suspended for 8 games? Nope, Chicago may be a Keegsed-up organization, but dumping Tank is one of the smarter moves they've made.

 

[AdamJT13]

In Arizona, you can be charged with DUI even if your BAC is less than .08.

 

[kriskanos]

He was drinking and driving at three in the morning.Thats not staying out of trouble. The differnce between .07 and .08 is less than 1 beer or 1 hour.So please dont play the little game that just because was just under legally drunk that all of a sudden he sprouted a frickin halo and wings.You sound ignorant.Now if you will excuse me I am about to get a few or 5 beers in me and go driving as I see its three a.m.

 

[DarrylS]

Sounds as though they were looking for an excuse anyways, even though the DUI will not stick.. gotta ask why you are out driving around while drinking early in the AM? Time for the Bears to cut their losses, as this guy's need for excitement and skirting the law is greater then his need for the riches the NFL has to offer.

 

[Gopats!!!]

He was cut for not staying out of trouble.

The last straw was speeding.

Whether you believe he deserved it or not, it's up to the club to decide.

It's sort of like 3 strikes - it doesn't matter what the 3rd strike is, but you are still screwed!!!!

As for being .07 compared to .08 , they are both very low amounts. I would much rather be driving next to someone .08 than someone talking on a cell phone. .08 will get you in a WHOLE lot more trouble, that's the big difference! He was obeying the law as far as the drinking goes, but it was the speeding that got him.

 

[Keegs]

In Arizona, you can be charged with DUI even if your BAC is less than .08.

Was he charged with a Dui?

 

[Keegs]

He was drinking and driving at three in the morning.Thats not staying out of trouble. The differnce between .07 and .08 is less than 1 beer or 1 hour.So please dont play the little game that just because was just under legally drunk that all of a sudden he sprouted a frickin halo and wings.You sound ignorant.Now if you will excuse me I am about to get a few or 5 beers in me and go driving as I see its three a.m.

"you sound ignorant"... hmmmmm the most direct indirect insult i've had on here in a while. you keep that up and you just might get noticed.

well they have to draw the line somewhere... that's how the dui rules work.
one beer isn't a dui.... 2 isn't...then the more you add the more it goes up. At some point, someone is going to be 1 drink away from being legally drunk. What a worthless point that was.

I called this guy a "sack of garbage", that obviously means i don't think he's an angel. he's clearly a scumbag.

But what laws did he break?
And what was the citation?

Drinking within the legal limits and driving a car at 3am isn't breaking the law or being a criminal.

Should someone lose their job because of a traffic citation?

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

"you sound ignorant"... hmmmmm the most direct indirect insult i've had on here in a while. you keep that up and you just might get noticed.

well they have to draw the line somewhere... that's how the dui rules work.
one beer isn't a dui.... 2 isn't...then the more you add the more it goes up. At some point, someone is going to be 1 drink away from being legally drunk. What a worthless point that was.

I called this guy a "sack of garbage", that obviously means i don't think he's an angel. he's clearly a scumbag.

But what laws did he break?
And what was the citation?

Drinking within the legal limits and driving a car at 3am isn't breaking the law or being a criminal.

Should someone lose their job because of a traffic citation?

This happened to a co-worker of mine just last week. He had been in and out of (alcohol) related rehab, etc for a while. My employer was very patient, kept him on, etc. He was finally given an ultimatum, straighten up or your gone. That nite, he got a traffic ticket and a huge fine, jail time (commuted mostly) because of his repeated problems. He was fired. It was not the one "traffic ticket" per se that got him fired, but the pattern of failing to take responsibility for his actions and life.

But what laws did he break?
And what was the citation?

Speeding..it may be minor, but it is a law. It is also illegal to be driving under the influence in Arizona. The "law" allows police to not charge ppl under .08 if they exhibit enough sobriety to drive. That does not make it "not illegal" (thats cutting hairs, yes, but it is the law).

 

[37Harrison]

Dude, he was cut because he constantly gets in trouble. He told his bosses that he would stay out of trouble. Whether or not he was legally drunk while he was driving is irrelevant. He was pulled over by the police, again, after he told his bosses that he would behave. Drinking and then driving in the early morning hours is NOT staying out of trouble. It is a pattern with him. He will only continue with his ways until he realizes that his behavior is the reason for his troubles. Obviously, even after going to jail, it hasn't sunken in with him.

Was he drinking? Yes.
Did he then get into a car and drive after drinking? Yes.
Did he get pulled over by the cops? Yes.
It's not like the cops are looking for Johnson, he finds them. That is not what you want from an employee who was just released from prison and more than likely on probation with his team.

A message needed to be sent to the rest of the guys in the team as well.

So to answer your question which I think is doesn't take his past into account, yes. He should be cut after getting a traffic citation because he was doing things that lead to bigger problems. You don't wait for an accident to happen if you can avoid it. You have to take his past actions into account (which I am sure the Bears did) and what he said to his bosses. This incident, probably any incident, involving the police was the last straw. He should've been cut before this incident for doing things tha caused him to go to prison in the first place.

 

[dryheat44]

It is also illegal to be driving under the influence in Arizona. The "law" allows police to not charge ppl under .08 if they exhibit enough sobriety to drive. That does not make it "not illegal" (thats cutting hairs, yes, but it is the law).

Keegs, this is the important part. In Arizona, as well as many other states, you can be arrested for DUI for anything above .05. At .08, you're legally drunk, no question, no ifs ands or buts. But, for example, a 95 lb. college girl can be at .06 or so and be out of her gourd drunk. She can be charged with DUI, and should be if she exhibits drunken behavior.

Now, there is a lesser charge, which is DWI (confusing, I know), Driving While Impaired. It's used for situations where someone has been drinking and driving erratically, but tests at under the limit. This is what Tank will probably be charged with.

Tank Johnson tested at .072. That's an awful lot of drinks for a 300 lb man. It was likely a couple hours between his arrest and his test. He could be charged with DUI, but he really can't fight a DWI given the facts.

The Bears probably cut him for bad judgement. Here's a guy on last chance status, and less that 24 hours after leaving the Bears facility, he's behind the wheel of a car having had many beverages. Essentially, he got fired for misconduct (embarrasing the organization).

 

[pats-blue]

"you sound ignorant"... hmmmmm the most direct indirect insult i've had on here in a while. you keep that up and you just might get noticed.

well they have to draw the line somewhere... that's how the dui rules work.
one beer isn't a dui.... 2 isn't...then the more you add the more it goes up. At some point, someone is going to be 1 drink away from being legally drunk. What a worthless point that was.

I called this guy a "sack of garbage", that obviously means i don't think he's an angel. he's clearly a scumbag.

But what laws did he break?
And what was the citation?

Drinking within the legal limits and driving a car at 3am isn't breaking the law or being a criminal.

Should someone lose their job because of a traffic citation?

Actually your completely wrong.

In AZ there are 2 DUI statues that everyone arrested for DUI is charged with...Operating a vehicle while imparied to the slightest degree and Operating a vehicle > .08 within two hours of driving.

He is not guilty of DUI...but he WAS arested for it and rightfully so. They can still charge him with the slightest degree (90+% chance of a guilty verdict) and if they wanted to be real A *oles they could try and prove he was "on the way down" when he was pulled over and dropped under .08 because of the delay in getting the blood drawn but was OVER .08 when he was driving.(depending on the BAC up or down about 40-60% chance of guilty still with the BAC what it was)

I'm not sure what your point is as he was not fired for a ticket he was fired for numerous transgressions of which this was the final straw for the Bears.

So...What laws did he break? Impaired to the slightest degree which is a CRIMINAL traffic violation (C1M) (he did poorly in the SFST's and that is indicative of a >.08 BAC 80+% of the time depending on the tests done(this is supposition as I have not seen the offciers observations))and was arrested for DUI (but will most likely not prosecute to save court time) Without knowing the blood draw time and the degridation of the BAC in the blood (up or down)...if it was on the way "down" you or I would stand a 50/50 chance of being charged. I would say he only has a 10% chance if this is the case because of his money since they don't have the $$ to fight a border line DUI since he was already off the street for the night.

Out of many of the NFL players who are in trouble I have some of the least heartache with Tank. He seems contrite (though I could be also if that much $$$ was at risk) I will also add by all indications he was not a D*ck in any way and was very co-operative (even though he probably knew this would cause him more trouble than the average person. SHould he get extra credit for being co-operative? I don't know but viewing whats in the papers with most NFL player contact with the police he should...My experience with NFL players has been positive..Larry Centers and JR Redmond (both very polite and courtious..no tickets and no prefrential treatment..though Larry Centers was all but begging for a "break" when I wasn't going to ticket him anyways) My question would be why not hire a driver??? IT really isn't that expensive here.

Keegs really you need to learn the facts before you go off half ****ed.

 

[Keegs]

Actually your completely wrong.

In AZ there are 2 DUI statues that everyone arrested for DUI is charged with...Operating a vehicle while imparied to the slightest degree and Operating a vehicle > .08 within two hours of driving.

He is not guilty of DUI...but he WAS arested for it and rightfully so. They can still charge him with the slightest degree (90+% chance of a guilty verdict) and if they wanted to be real A *oles they could try and prove he was "on the way down" when he was pulled over and dropped under .08 because of the delay in getting the blood drawn but was OVER .08 when he was driving.(depending on the BAC up or down about 40-60% chance of guilty still with the BAC what it was)

I'm not sure what your point is as he was not fired for a ticket he was fired for numerous transgressions of which this was the final straw for the Bears.

So...What laws did he break? Impaired to the slightest degree which is a CRIMINAL traffic violation (C1M) (he did poorly in the SFST's and that is indicative of a >.08 BAC 80+% of the time depending on the tests done(this is supposition as I have not seen the offciers observations))and was arrested for DUI (but will most likely not prosecute to save court time) Without knowing the blood draw time and the degridation of the BAC in the blood (up or down)...if it was on the way "down" you or I would stand a 50/50 chance of being charged. I would say he only has a 10% chance if this is the case because of his money since they don't have the $$ to fight a border line DUI since he was already off the street for the night.

Out of many of the NFL players who are in trouble I have some of the least heartache with Tank. He seems contrite (though I could be also if that much $$$ was at risk) My question would be why not hire a driver??? IT really isn't that expensive here.

Keegs really you need to learn the facts before you go off half ****ed.

You explained how DUIs worked in Arizona... congratulations, your cookie is in the mail. But what EXACTLY am i "completely wrong" about?

explain to me how this statement could possibly be false:
At some point, someone is going to be 1 drink away from being legally drunk.

I don't think you can. Please don't lie.



I would feel better about Tank than the guy that paralyzed the strip club bouncer, but that's just me. You are entitled to your opinion, which is apparently more important than mine (however that works).

 

[Pujo]

The only opinion that matters is the Bears', and they've made it clear. A player in the NFL can be cut for anything, including just a speeding ticket. He got fired for making the team look bad, for getting his name in the papers again for the wrong reason. And you, Keegs, can't argue with that because it's not academic: the Bears have already spoken, Tank has been cut. Go file a grievance if you don't like it.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

explain to me how this statement could possibly be false:
At some point, someone is going to be 1 drink away from being legally drunk.

I don't think you can. Please don't lie.

What does the correctness of this statement have to do with your argument? A man who has been warned repeatedly to stay out of trouble should not be 1 drink away from being legally drunk, then get in a car. Period. Its not that he was that close to being unable to drive, its that he showed the poor judgment to put himself in that position. It was not the incident that got him released, it was the pattern of poor judgment. You seem to ignore that and want to focus on the "straw".

 

[PATSNUTme]

"you sound ignorant"... hmmmmm the most direct indirect insult i've had on here in a while. you keep that up and you just might get noticed.

I called this guy a "sack of garbage", that obviously means i don't think he's an angel. he's clearly a scumbag.

It sounded as a pretty direct insult to me. Nothing indirect about it.

Anyway, If this was the first time the guy go into a situation, then nothing would have happened with the Bears. You have to take the incident in context as to what has happened just before this. He just had a sit down with the Commish and read the riot act. He had to stay out of trouble-any trouble.

So, he acknowleged he understood by being out at 3:30AM and being stopped by police. Yes, teh Bears were justified in releasing him adn I would suspect that the Commish will extend his suspendsion.

The same with Pac Man. He has his meeting withteh Commish and a week or two later he goes out and is around a shooting incident at 4AM.

These guys just don't get it.

 

[pats-blue]

"you sound ignorant"... hmmmmm the most direct indirect insult i've had on here in a while. you keep that up and you just might get noticed.

well they have to draw the line somewhere... that's how the dui rules work.
one beer isn't a dui.... 2 isn't...then the more you add the more it goes up. At some point, someone is going to be 1 drink away from being legally drunk. What a worthless point that was.

I called this guy a "sack of garbage", that obviously means i don't think he's an angel. he's clearly a scumbag.

But what laws did he break?
And what was the citation?

Drinking within the legal limits and driving a car at 3am isn't breaking the law or being a criminal.

Should someone lose their job because of a traffic citation?

Well Einstein...could it be the bolded qoute of yours? THAT IS WHERE YOU WERE WRONG.

So lets see here is your brilliant response to my post...

You explained how DUIs worked in Arizona... congratulations, your cookie is in the mail. But what EXACTLY am i "completely wrong" about?

See above you claimed he wasn't doing anything criminal....WRONG see my post he WAS.

explain to me how this statement could possibly be false:
At some point, someone is going to be 1 drink away from being legally drunk.

OK what are you 6? So someone that is 1 drink away from "drunk" is A OK to drive a vehicle to you? I also explained to you that this is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE to "drive 1 drink away from being legally drunk" so what are you having trouble understanding here?

I don't think you can. Please don't lie.







I would feel better about Tank than the guy that paralyzed the strip club bouncer, but that's just me. You are entitled to your opinion, which is apparently more important than mine (however that works).

You need reading comprehension lessons. If you read my post I stated I have the LEAST heartache with Tank than ANY NFL player in the news that has been in trouble, what part of that don't you understand (I know how that works you need to pay attention in school more)

Again you need to work on your comprehension skills before you post all indignant you just look like a fool.

 

[Keegs]

It sounded as a pretty direct insult to me. Nothing indirect about it.

Anyway, If this was the first time the guy go into a situation, then nothing would have happened with the Bears. You have to take the incident in context as to what has happened just before this. He just had a sit down with the Commish and read the riot act. He had to stay out of trouble-any trouble.

So, he acknowleged he understood by being out at 3:30AM and being stopped by police. Yes, teh Bears were justified in releasing him adn I would suspect that the Commish will extend his suspendsion.

The same with Pac Man. He has his meeting withteh Commish and a week or two later he goes out and is around a shooting incident at 4AM.

These guys just don't get it.

No actually I took it as indirect. let me explain.
"you sound ignorant" is used instead of you are ignorant so that he can back out of the statement later if/when he gets accused of insulting me. He can say "i didn't call him ignorant", "i just meant that when he said what he said, he sounded ignorant". But since this rule is randomly enforced, and I am the one who was indirectly insulted, i'm sure nothing will come of this.

And i don't think you can compare Tank to Pacman. Nobody was paralyzed as a result of Tank's actions that we know of. He also was not involved in 2 shootings. He is a scumbag though and anyone with that many guns obviously has a problem,and for all we know he supplies guns and things like the pacman incident happen as a result..... but if he doesn't get a DWI or DUI than the getting cut was too severe.

I'm not asking these questions to prove a point, im seriously curious as to the whole thing and actually want answers...

Was he told not to drink?
was he given a curfew?
Does staying out of trouble really apply to speeding tickets?

If the speeding ticket was at noon, would the same thing have happened?