OT: Tank Johnson question

[Keegs]

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.

so drinking 1 beer in Arizona and then driving with a .02 BAC is a criminal act?
always?

And there is no way you can disprove this statement:
At some point, someone is going to be 1 drink away from being legally drunk.

Also, read this one carefully too, this also is the truth:
Drinking within the legal limits and driving a car at 3am isn't breaking the law or being a criminal.


are you sure you aren't just looking for a reason to argue with me?

maybe if i type it in red, it'll be a better post.

Maybe if you type the next one in red, then your opinion will once again disprove facts.

:singing:

 

[pats-blue]

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?

If you really want answers then why do you ignore them? You keep ignoring that he was CHARGED with 2 DUI offenses and bringin up the speeding ticket. Well he isn't "guilty" of any of those things but was charged with all of those things yet you toss out the DUI charges like they NEVER occurred...yet keep the speeding ticket charge in your posts??? Do you see how messed up your logic is?

He could easily still be charged and convicted of ALL the charges...yet there is a good chance he won't simply to save court time and prosecutor effort (happens every day for "ordinary people" and better chance with Tanks $$$)

I explained it in my previous post but your aim doesn't seem to be to learn it is just to insult and argue.

 

[pats-blue]

so drinking 1 beer in Arizona and then driving with a .02 BAC is a criminal act?
always?

Where did I say that? Read carefully now...if you show impariment after 1 drink then yes it is. Tank showed impairment and he WASN'T an .02....READ SLOWLY.

And there is no way you can disprove this statement:
At some point, someone is going to be 1 drink away from being legally drunk.

Also, read this one carefully too, this also is the truth:
Drinking within the legal limits and driving a car at 3am isn't breaking the law or being a criminal.

NO IT IS NOT! How stupid are you? Here is the statue..

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.

So once again Einstien it IS ILLEGAL.(Oh by the way by illegal I mean CRIMINAL!



are you sure you aren't just looking for a reason to argue with me?

maybe if i type it in red, it'll be a better post.

Maybe if you type the next one in red, then your opinion will once again disprove facts.

:singing:

Hey wing nut I was typing in red to seperate my quotes from yours...not that anyone would have trouble..mine are the ones based on facts yours....

 

[BAM!]

And there is no way you can disprove this statement:
At some point, someone is going to be 1 drink away from being legally drunk.

If someone doesn't drink at all then they will never be just one drink away from being legally drunk.

Statement disproved and THAT is exactly what Johnson should've been doing, not drinking at all.

It shows his lack of maturity and good decision making. It shows a repeated behavioral flaw. It shows that he lies and has no respect for the organization that has stood behind him when HE told them that he was going to change.

 

[Keegs]

I explained it in my previous post but your aim doesn't seem to be to learn it is just to insult and argue.

show me where i insulted you.

So far i'm ignorant and "Einstein" (5 or 6 times)

and i haven't called you anything

If you are going to insult me though, i would prefer a little more effort. I mean, it's not like you are going to be penalized for it, and i know you are just trying to show off so at least put some more into it ok?

 

[Pujo]

show me where i insulted you.

So far i'm ignorant and "Einstein" (5 or 6 times)

and i haven't called you anything

If you are going to insult me though, i would prefer a little more effort. I mean, it's not like you are going to be penalized for it, and i know you are just trying to show off so at least put some more into it ok?

What's the point? You insult your own intelligence with your posts better than anyone could.

 

[PATSNUTme]

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?

You are getting the answers but you don't seem to want to listen. Maybe if he got a speeding ticket at noon coming from church with his family, the Bears may have not cut him. But he didn't, it was 3AM and he had been drinking.

He was put on a very short leash.
Get it now?

 

[Keegs]

If someone doesn't drink at all then they will never be just one drink away from being legally drunk.

Statement disproved and THAT is exactly what Johnson should've been doing, not drinking at all.

It shows his lack of maturity and good decision making. It shows a repeated behavioral flaw. It shows that he lies and has no respect for the organization that has stood behind him when HE told them that he was going to change.

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.

 

[Keegs]

What's the point? You insult your own intelligence with your posts better than anyone could.

nice job... truly nice work.

How about this, everyone else continues to debate this with me, and then when they make a point they you feel is great, you can just stand behind them and say "yeah that's right, what they said"

keep doing that, it's working great.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If you really want answers then why do you ignore them?

I explained it in my previous post but your aim doesn't seem to be to learn it is just to insult and argue.

So is this like the first time you've met keegs or something? LOL When keegs asks a loaded question or states his contrarian opinion and then asks for ours he's just looking for attention by creating something to argue with him about because none of the other threads here interest him at the moment or he's tried to post something snappy in them that will get him noticed and no one took the bait.

 

[Keegs]

So is this like the first time you've met keegs or something? LOL When keegs asks a loaded question or states his contrarian opinion and then asks for ours he's just looking for attention by creating something to argue with him about because none of the other threads here interest him at the moment or he's tried to post something snappy in them that will get him noticed and no one took the bait.

Hey Dr. Phil, pipe down. If any post was for attention, it was yours. You are looking for approval.

I'm just arguing on the Tank Johnson side, that's all.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

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.

What if they just don't drink that night because they know they're going to have to be behind the wheel of a vehicle and they were already put on notice by their employer that any further infractions could lead to dismissal. Nobody forced him to drink, nobody forced him to drive, these were his decisions, and his employer believed they were the wrong ones.

Is there any point to this beyond you just being bored Keegs?

 

[Keegs]

Hey wing nut I was typing in red to seperate my quotes from yours...not that anyone would have trouble..mine are the ones based on facts yours....

These aren't facts????

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

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.

 

[Keegs]

rong ones.

Is there any point to this beyond you just being bored Keegs?

not really. just wanted to argue.

It's way way way too hard to defend this scumbag... but i stand by my 2 facts.

Fact #1 and Fact #2. That's all i have right now because Tank is a moron.

Good day.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

Hey Dr. Phil, pipe down. If any post was for attention, it was yours. You are looking for approval.

I'm just arguing on the Tank Johnson side, that's all.

Tank has no argument. Perhaps we should call you Don Quixote

It is illegal in Arizona to operate a vehicle under the influence. Period.

 

[Pujo]

What's the difference? You don't have to even break the law to be cut from a football team.

 

[patchick]

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.

 

[dryheat44]

These aren't facts????

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

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're first fact doesn't make sense and is irrelevant. I can go to a bar, have a drink and go home. I am not 1 drink away from being drunk. You seem to be assuming said person will continue to drink until they get to that point. And even if your words are a "fact" what difference does it make that "at some point", "Somebody" will be. Tank Johnson WAS at 3:00 that morning. So it's neither a fact, nor relevant to the discussion.

Fact 2 has be disproven at least seven times in this thread, but you seem to lack the comprehension. Drinking within the legal limits and driving a car IS breaking the law AND is being a criminal if you are driving in an unsafe manner.

Tank Johnson IS charged with a criminal offense.

 

[BelizePats]

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

 

[Keegs]

You're first fact doesn't make sense and is irrelevant. I can go to a bar, have a drink and go home. I am not 1 drink away from being drunk. You seem to be assuming said person will continue to drink until they get to that point. And even if your words are a "fact" what difference does it make that "at some point", "Somebody" will be. Tank Johnson WAS at 3:00 that morning. So it's neither a fact, nor relevant to the discussion.

Fact 2 has be disproven at least seven times in this thread, but you seem to lack the comprehension. Drinking within the legal limits and driving a car IS breaking the law AND is being a criminal if you are driving in an unsafe manner.

Tank Johnson IS charged with a criminal offense.

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.