OT: Tank Johnson question

[Keegs]

What is worng with you Keegs? Why do you constantly end up fighting with people on this board. It is a rare day when one of your threads does not break down into a pissing match. It makes no sense. Surely you must have better outlets than this?
The premise of this thread is so juvenile and counter productive. Its a lose lose, dude.

Rich

i didn't start an argument. My thread is called "tank johnson" question.

If these people would like to start an argument with me, i'm always willing to play ball.

but "the other side" appears to be a fun one to be on and several people will just jump in against me for no reason other than getting attention or approval.

All you have to do is read it to see this. Happens all the time on here.
also ,it appears that it is ok to insult certain posters (myself) while you cannot insult others.

 

[TruthSeeker]

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

No, I don't agree with you. I hardly think that staying out until the early morning hours and driving home just below the legal limit constitutes a change in his lifestyle which is what the Bears were looking for and what Tank needs. Do you??

 

[Pujo]

FACT #1 (yet to be disproved)
At some point, someone is going to be 1 drink away from being legally drunk.

Ok, so?

FACT #2 (yet to be disproved)
Drinking within the legal limits and driving a car at 3am isn't breaking the law or being a criminal.

You don't understand what legal limit means in Arizona. .08 is the per se limit, it means if you're .08, you're automatically presumed to be drunk. .05-.08 means you may be drunk, though the officer's sense of how impaired you are determines whether you're drunk or not (and of course, you get to challenge the officer's assumption in court).

Tank's BAC was around .07, meaning he was not over the per se limit, but over the "possibly impaired" limit. Consider your "fact" disproven. And yet, none of that has anything to do with Tank's being cut. He was cut because the Bears felt like that was best for the team.

 

[Keegs]

Ok, so?

You don't understand what legal limit means in Arizona. .08 is the per se limit, it means if you're .08, you're automatically presumed to be drunk. .05-.08 means you may be drunk, though the officer's sense of how impaired you are determines whether you're drunk or not (and of course, you get to challenge the officer's assumption in court).

Tank's BAC was around .07, meaning he was not over the per se limit, but over the "possibly impaired" limit. Consider your "fact" disproven. And yet, none of that has anything to do with Tank's being cut. He was cut because the Bears felt like that was best for the team.

If something is "legal" than it cannot also be "illegal".

Unless they switch around the definitions of these 2 words, i am right.

And you are wrong.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

If something is "legal" than it cannot also be "illegal".

Unless they switch around the definitions of these 2 words, i am right.

And you are wrong.

Define "legal" little buddy.

 

[Keegs]

Define "legal" little buddy.

From the PUJO Dictionary:


Legal- Anything that is also illegal

:singing: thanks bor

 

[PATSNUTme]

Keegs does love to stir a turd.

 

[AdamJT13]

If something is "legal" than it cannot also be "illegal".

Unless they switch around the definitions of these 2 words, i am right.

And you are wrong.

In Arizona, it is ILLEGAL to drive a car while impaired -- no matter what your BAC is.

It's not LEGAL to drive with a BAC of .072 unless you also are not impaired, even to the slightest degree. And scientific studies suggest that impairment can begin at a BAC as low as .02.

 

[AdamJT13]

Was he charged with a Dui?

Not yet, but he could be.

 

[pats-blue]

There should be no confusion.

FACT #1 (yet to be disproved)
At some point, someone is going to be 1 drink away from being legally drunk.
-Everyone on the planet, at some point, can be 1 drink away from being legally drunk. this is a fact.
I brought this up when we were discussing the idea of him being so close to a .08, and someone mentioned that being "1 drink away" means he is pretty much guilty. You have to draw the line somewhere is how i responded.


FACT #2 (yet to be disproved)
Drinking within the legal limits and driving a car at 3am isn't breaking the law or being a criminal.
-if someone is drinking within the legal limits and driving a car at 3am then it is impossible for this to be breaking the law or a criminal act because it is specifically "within in the legal limits".
- We would have to re-define the phrase "legal limits" for what you said to be correct.

UUHH no you don't here is the statute Tank was charged with and is a Class 1 Misdemeanor (JUST SO YOU KNOW Keegs that means it is a CRIMINAL Violation)

ARS 28-1381

A. It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstances:

1. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.

I posted it earlier yet you ignore it. IF you show impairment to the SLIGHTEST degree with alcohol in your system it IS ILLEGAL PERIOD no need to redefine anything it is AZ LAW again PERIOD. What problem do you have comprehending that FACT.?

 

[37Harrison]

nice try but no.

If this person never drinks or has that problem that Kim Basinger had in that one movie where one drink sends her to the moon than one drink will in fact make someone drunk.

Also, if i make a drink with 6 shots of run in it, that will make me one drink away from being legally drunk.

I'm sorry but this is the truth.

It is possible for someone to be one drink away from being legally drunk, if they "don't drink".

but then again, if they "dont drink" then drinking isn't even an option so i don't know if we can use your point.

Whatever dude, you can't use my point because it disproves yours.

If someone doesn't drink (and assuming they don't have some sort of disease that Kim Bassinger or any other person has) then they are never one drink away from being drunk because they don;t drink in the first place. Also one drink was under the assumption it wasn't a pitcher of moonshine or whatever other ridiculous statement you are going to make (6 shots in one drink).

You are so far out there it is laughable.

I disproved your original statement, man up and just accept it.

 

[OhExaulted1]

I'm not going to dive into the current battle in this thread, but I think there's a general principle at issue that comes up a lot.

When a player is fired or disciplined for an off-field brush with the law, you often hear defenders say things like "but he hasn't been convicted yet" or "but his alcohol level was below the limit so it's not really a crime" or "what ever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?" Similarly, when a player (or broadcaster) is fired or disciplined for saying something offensive, you get a guaranteed flood of complaints: "aren't we supposed to have free speech in this country?"

Freedom of speech and the presumption of innocence protect you from mistreatment from your GOVERNMENT. The GOVERNMENT isn't supposed to punish you for voicing opinions that the public considers unpalatable. The GOVERNMENT has to prove you're guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But a private employer can and should fire a guy for conduct that makes the employer look bad to its customers. A private employer can and should fire a guy for a pattern of conduct that demonstrates poor judgment, regardless of whether the conduct constitutes a crime. The rules and statues in question aren't the criminal code but labor law and the employee's contract.

So Keegs, .07 vs .08 might matter a lot to the legal system, but it has nothing to do with the Chicago Bears. They had a problem employee, they tried to be patient with him, gave him counseling, guidelines and extra chances, and ultimately pulled the plug. It happens all the time in every industry.

Bingo! The clearest and most concise answer to the argument. Good post patchick.

 

[kriskanos]

"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.

Ignorant means lacking knowledge.Why are you defending this guy?If his blood alcohol level was .07 and he caused a wreck that killed someone,would you still defend him? The answer is yes because you dont seem to find anything wrong with drinking and driving. Which makes you ignorant.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Ignorant means lacking knowledge.Why are you defending this guy?If his blood alcohol level was .07 and he caused a wreck that killed someone,would you still defend him? The answer is yes because you dont seem to find anything wrong with drinking and driving. Which makes you ignorant.

:nono: Don't let our little buddy get under skin that way, clearly Keegsey does not lack the knowledge of the dangers of drinking and driving. Were he to actually espouse such behavior it would make him a Bears' fan and a Ditka aficionado...lately I've been wondering about indications of such tendencies.

 

[Pujo]

If something is "legal" than it cannot also be "illegal".

Unless they switch around the definitions of these 2 words, i am right.

And you are wrong.

Tell it to the Arizona Supreme Court, because that's how the law is written and that's how it's enforced.

 

[Keegs]

:nono: Don't let our little buddy get under skin that way, clearly Keegsey does not lack the knowledge of the dangers of drinking and driving. Were he to actually espouse such behavior it would make him a Bears' fan and a Ditka aficionado...lately I've been wondering about indications of such tendencies.

did he get a DUI?
what has he been charged with?

I know what you are trying.... but you are going to have to put a hell of a lot more work into it to get the result you desire.

 

[Keegs]

Ignorant means lacking knowledge.Why are you defending this guy?If his blood alcohol level was .07 and he caused a wreck that killed someone,would you still defend him? The answer is yes because you dont seem to find anything wrong with drinking and driving. Which makes you ignorant.

but he didn't kill anyone.

ummm if he murdered someone i wouldn't defend him.

wow that was stupid.:singing:

 

[Keegs]

Tell it to the Arizona Supreme Court, because that's how the law is written and that's how it's enforced.

but what has he been charged with? (serious question)

if he doesn't get charged with a DWI or DUI your entire side's argument goes to poo in a handbasket.

 

[Keegs]

Whatever dude, you can't use my point because it disproves yours.

If someone doesn't drink (and assuming they don't have some sort of disease that Kim Bassinger or any other person has) then they are never one drink away from being drunk because they don;t drink in the first place. Also one drink was under the assumption it wasn't a pitcher of moonshine or whatever other ridiculous statement you are going to make (6 shots in one drink).

You are so far out there it is laughable.

I disproved your original statement, man up and just accept it.

if someone never drinks, then the whole "one drink away from being legally drunk) doesn't apply. It can't apply. the person doesn't drink.

Although taking my argument and reworking it isn't something i usually applaud, i'll step away from that this one time.

excellent job.

everybody can be one drink away from legally drunk at some point in time.
But for this to be true, you have to assume that the person is drinking. I shouldn't have to include that sentence.

 

[pats-blue]

did he get a DUI?
what has he been charged with?

So using your logic, if someone breaks into your house and steals your stuff, does something to your family....unless they are found charged and convicted they are still a fine upstanding citizen welcome to eat at your table?

Tank was a .073 he WAS impaired to the slightest degree to say the least....that IS his BAC there is no arguing this FACT. Why do you insist on being a ****** does it impress your myspace friends that much?