bigreese82
Footballguy
No link..should come out soon
*******Joe edit of title
*******Joe edit of title
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Anyone hear Steve McNair was arrested last night? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bigreese82
- Start date
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
According to PFT, WBAL radio is reporting that he was arrested under the "DUI Owner" law which makes the owner of a vehicle driven by somebody that is drunk responsible as well. McNair's brother in law was reportedly the one driving drunk.
Big Score
Footballguy
Now that's a bunk law.
Zoomanji
Footballguy
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
If the BIL was drunk, McNair was drunk as well..the BIL just took the rap.No way a sober person lets a drunk drive their vehicle. Any word if McNair was packing?
painkiller
Footballguy
"DUI Owner" law?? What the?What if the car was a rental? Would the rental company (owner) be in trouble?
Or the old, "the least drunk person drives" routine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pipes
Footballguy
It probably was a situation where the brother-in-law thought or maybe even was in better shape to drive. It's stupid but who hasn't been in that situation before.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mungo Burrows
Footballguy
massraider
Footballguy
Are you serious with this?
BigJim®
Footballguy
How so? He was a passenger of the car, and should not have allowed a drunk to be behind the wheel. Presumably he handed a drunk his keys, which fits fairly comfortably within the category of criminal negligence. Maybe if he was not involved at all, i.e. at home watching TV, totally unaware, I would look at this law differently. However in that case I highly doubt the law would apply unless the keys were handed to a drunk person.
massraider
Footballguy
Lot of assumptions in this post.
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
That may be the stupidest law ever.
lions327
Footballguy
Even more stupid is McNair sitting in the passenger seat with a drunk driving HIS CAR...goodness these athletes make millions of dollars, you would think they would pay for a ride if need be, rather than risk their lives.
BigJim®
Footballguy
Really? Feel free to itemize my "lot of assumptions." I see a single assumptuion: That he likely handed the drunk the keys if that guy was driving his car while McNair was a passenger. That doesn't exactly strike me as a stretch. How many people have a set of keys to your car, and how would they get them? In any event you can't doubt Tennessee's legislature created the law based on that assumption. My only edit to that prior post is I've determined that an owner need not be present to be cited under this law. That does seem odd, really a strict liability standard, although again I doubt it is charged in such situations without special circumstances [i.e. parent giving keys to a repeated dui offender child with a suspended license, person giving keys to a person known to be drunk at the time].
BigJim®
Footballguy
A law that screams "get a cab instead of risking the lives of your intoxicated friends and the community" is stupid? Guys, take a step back. Allowing a drunk to drive your car is no different than handing a drunk your firearm. It's based on criminal negligence where there is a significant risk of harm to others. I don't have any problem with this law if it cuts down on instances where 2 drunk people are playing "I think I'm more sober than you."
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
I don't really have a problem with the law, assuming it has exceptions or whatever to deal with the situations you guys are bringing up. I have a feeling that if you lend (or rent or whatever) a car to someone and you aren't in it, the law probably does not apply.
But if you leave a place you drove (or were driven) to and the guy behind the wheel is drunk, I have a problem with that - whether you are drunk or not. As the owner of the car, YOU have control over who drives it right? That's why there is responsibility there.
I wonder how many of those who says this law is so stupid have had family members killed by drunk drivers.
But if you leave a place you drove (or were driven) to and the guy behind the wheel is drunk, I have a problem with that - whether you are drunk or not. As the owner of the car, YOU have control over who drives it right? That's why there is responsibility there.
I wonder how many of those who says this law is so stupid have had family members killed by drunk drivers.
CommuterMan
Footballguy
redman
Footballguy
If he was "smart" enough to put his BIL behind the wheel to avoid Goodell's wrath, he knew there was a problem and should have called a cab.
Now, for those whining about the unfairness of the DUI Owner Law, please explain to me how that's any more unfair than a bar owner getting punished for selling drinks to someone who could take a cab.
Now, for those whining about the unfairness of the DUI Owner Law, please explain to me how that's any more unfair than a bar owner getting punished for selling drinks to someone who could take a cab.
Last edited by a moderator:
Keith Lewis
Footballguy
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
It's a stupid law because it tries to extend individual responsibility to other people. Serious question: do you ever get behind the wheel after having a drink?
massraider
Footballguy
I can't find the link everyone else seems to have read that states:
1. McNair was drunk
2. McNair and his BIL decided the BIL was less drunk
3. McNair knew the BIL was drunk
4. McNair gave him the keys
5. McNair had his BIL drive to avoid the commissioner of the NFL
Anyone got a link? TIA
1. McNair was drunk
2. McNair and his BIL decided the BIL was less drunk
3. McNair knew the BIL was drunk
4. McNair gave him the keys
5. McNair had his BIL drive to avoid the commissioner of the NFL
Anyone got a link? TIA
redman
Footballguy
Newsflash: we extend individual responsibility to other people all the time. Hell, we have billions of dollars of tobacco litigation going on right now that's premised upon precisely the same priniciple.
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
You're assuming I agree with those "extensions of ind. responsibility", which I don't.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
I'm not resposible for determining who drives my car? That IS individual responsibility, it doesn't need to be "extended".Answer. Yes, a drink - maybe two or even three if it's over the course of a fairly long period of time. But I don't drive drunk, and I wouldn't let someone who WAS drunk drive my car. Is it really that hard?
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
1. Don't care - irrelavent.2. Don't care, only thing that matters is "was BIL drunk".3. That matters I think, but I don't know how the law reads. If McNair didn't know or was lied to, etc. he will probably get off. Doesn't make the law a bad law.4. It's his car, so unless the car was essentially STOLEN (which we would have heard about), it is fair to assume McNair knew he had the keys since he was in the same car. Unless of course, McNair was sloppy-fall-down, don't know what's going on drunk, in which case, we get back to #3.5. Don't care. For me, it's about killing people on the road, not the commissioner.
massraider
Footballguy
I don't give a crap what is relevant, I am pointing out the random conclusions people are reaching.
redman
Footballguy
I don't either, but I think it's silly to make like this is a precedent-setting extension of responsibility. It's not, even within the context of DUI as I pointed out regarding punishments to tavern owners.
fatness
Footballguy
No, nobody has a link to that. Please don't interrupt the mob.
redman
Footballguy
"Burn her him anyway!"
Keith Lewis
Footballguy
There is a new law in California where a boat is the owners responsibility. If a boat owner allows a drunk to drive his boat, the boat owner will be held responsible.
Maybe it's not such a bad thing, too many children are getting killed by these boats.
It's really not that hard, Don't drink and drive. Seriously how difficult is that?
Maybe it's not such a bad thing, too many children are getting killed by these boats.
It's really not that hard, Don't drink and drive. Seriously how difficult is that?
BigJim®
Footballguy
What does that have to do with anything? Most people would acknowledge moments of poor judgment but that is not the same as disagreeing with the laws that might have applied to conduct. I have in fact blown a yellow once and thanked my lucky stars; I might have deserved a worse fate. My wife and I did take a $20 cab home 4 days ago from a party even though we were both feeling fine to drive. If 100% certainty is worth $20 to me I would assume it is worth that to a millionaire.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
As far as I can tell, there was speculation, not conclusions.I'm not ready to string the guy up, I'm mostly responding to the knee-jerk reaction of, "man that's a stupid law". I'm a BIG believer in individual liberty, but in this case I just don't see the harm in prohibiting a person from handing over his car keys to a drunk guy.As for McNair himself, yeah - we judge famous people, sometimes on less than perfect information. Comes with the territory. You want the money? The fame? The hero worship? OK, just know that when and if you screw up, you will be judged.What I never understand in these cases is why these guys don't exercize better judgement. There were a thousand ways to avoid this situation, and McNair didn't pick any of them (allegedly). You want to party? Cool, get a designated driver. Get a cab. Get a limo. Ride your bike - I don't care, just don't drive drunk (which he has already done), and don't let a drunk friend/relative drive your car either so no innocent bystanders get killed or maimed. It's not rocket science.
massraider
Footballguy
Something I didn't say at all.And yeah, it was speculation, not a conclusion. Not much of a difference when you've already decided to light the torches and head for the castle.I wouldn't be surprised if it was a case of the cops screwing with a pro athlete. You kow how that is. And it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the BIL was sober; after all, we have no proof he was drunk, other than him refusing a breathalyzer.
BigJim®
Footballguy
I'm sorry, I too missed the part where people were alleging that McNair was drunk; my own discussion is focusing on the rationale of such a "stupid" law. The result of this law is strict liability when a drunk is driving your car, regardless of your own level of intoxication and regardless of your presence in the vehicle.
massraider
Footballguy
It took all of 6 posts.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
I'm not storming the castle. We will know more in time. Until then (and probably even then), just idle chat - like most of what we do here.As for cops screwing with a pro athlete, maybe, but I think it is FAR more likely that where there is smoke, there is fire. If you are absolutely certain you aren't drunk (i.e. you haven't been drinking), why on Earth do you refuse a breathalyzer? Especially when you are in your high-rofile BIL's car, and that high-profile BIL happens to have a history of drunk driving? Maybe it's one of those really strange cooincedences. But I doubt it.
massraider
Footballguy
So do I. But I was just speculating.
BigJim®
Footballguy
Yeah, and I disagree with taxes. Colin, welcome to society. Your elected legislature makes laws you sometimes don't agree with. Usually they have a rational basis and public support or they aren't worth a legislature's time. The tobacco litigation is not a great example as that is not criminal law. However, there are criminal laws based on causal negligence as opposed to actual intent; many of such involve alcohol. Dram shop and sales to minors are great examples where the legislature has taken the position that a person's conduct could not have occurred but for the negligence of someone else.
Wilbur Wood
Footballguy
The law is appropriate to the extent that the owner of the car can proved to be complicit in the decision to allow a drunk person drive his car. As you cite above, to the extent that McNair has a prior DUI of his own, it is quite likely that that factor "drove" the decision. I've seen that behavior first hand many a time (albeit ~ 20 years ago) in which a bunch of guys come out of a bar, toss the keys around like a "hot potato" with the logic of "I've already got a DUI in my past and you have a clean record, so you're driving" being the determining factor of who gets behind the wheel.
Frank Black
Footballguy
I am an attorney who has experience defending crimes and prosecuting crimes. Many (maybe most) states have this kind of law. In most states with this kind of law, it's not only about ownership. The owner must also be present in the vehicle.
To me, this case probably turns on whether McNair was present in the vehicle with the driver. If so, the next question is whether McNair knew or should have known that the driver was impaired.
If McNair knew or should have known that the driver was impaired, he should be found guilty. Think of it in terms of aiding an abetting a crime.
To aid and abet a crime, you do something that helps the person commit the crime. If McNair owned the vehicle, he was in a position to prevent the driver from driving because McNair had the right to tell the driver not to drive the car. If McNair knew or should have known the person was impaired, McNair facilitated the driver to drive while impaired. I'm condensing the analysis, but this is the nuts and bolts of it.
To me, this case probably turns on whether McNair was present in the vehicle with the driver. If so, the next question is whether McNair knew or should have known that the driver was impaired.
If McNair knew or should have known that the driver was impaired, he should be found guilty. Think of it in terms of aiding an abetting a crime.
To aid and abet a crime, you do something that helps the person commit the crime. If McNair owned the vehicle, he was in a position to prevent the driver from driving because McNair had the right to tell the driver not to drive the car. If McNair knew or should have known the person was impaired, McNair facilitated the driver to drive while impaired. I'm condensing the analysis, but this is the nuts and bolts of it.
Frank Black
Footballguy
I will also add that in many states, once the driver's case is fully resolved, the DA usually dismisses the owner/passneger's charge. This is not a legal requirement, but is more of a policy decision of the DA's office.
BigJim®
Footballguy
Actually. we probably won't know much more. There was no basis to give McNair himself a breath test, as that is irrelevant to the law he was cited under. Any statements by authorities that McNair was intoxicated are probably actionable as slander, and without a breath test they would be hard pressed to assert truth as a defense. Look for the brother in law to fall on the dagger here, not that it matters really.I'm assuming he was sober and just criminally negligent allowing a drunk behind the wheel of his car. That's really all that's involved here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
You seem to think I'm
about it, which I'm not. Not whining in the slightest. My opinion is that the law is silly, as are many others. I also realize I live here in the USA, so I have to obey them. 
redman
Footballguy
If he's present in his own vehicle with a drunk driver, it's a fair question to ask why he was not driving his own vehicle, no? This doesn't look good for him IMHO as this goes beyond negligent entrustment given his presence there.
Frank Black
Footballguy
Colin, I thought you are an attorney yourself. Certainly you understand the concept of aiding and abetting? Are you saying that concerning aiding and abetting, there should be an exception for driving while impaired?You seem to think I'mabout it, which I'm not. Not whining in the slightest. My opinion is that the law is silly, as are many others. I also realize I live here in the USA, so I have to obey them.
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
I'm not an attorney, I just think laws like this are asking for trouble. Example: My parent's neighbor is a Congressman. He was driving his wife's car in D.C. after some official dinner and was pulled over a block from the hotel. His wife was in the passengers seat and they were in her car. The officer's booked him for a .08 and hauled him in. The wife hadn't been drinking. Under this law, she would be subject to prosecution.
While I don't know the details of McNair's night, I think its presumptuous to assume he and the BIL went out and got tanked and then decided to play auto-roulette on the city streets. They could have grabbed a couple beers somewhere and it might not have occurred to McNair that the BIL was legally intoxicated. They could have decided to go out and McNair said, "no way am I driving no matter what. I am not getting another DUI" and the BIL said, "ok, I'll make sure and not have much alcohol" only to find he had a bit too much.
My point is there are WAY too many variables to start charging people in the vicinity of a crime. I understand "aiding and abetting" but charges like that are reserved for (1) serious crimes/criminals (2) uncooperative witnesses.
While I don't know the details of McNair's night, I think its presumptuous to assume he and the BIL went out and got tanked and then decided to play auto-roulette on the city streets. They could have grabbed a couple beers somewhere and it might not have occurred to McNair that the BIL was legally intoxicated. They could have decided to go out and McNair said, "no way am I driving no matter what. I am not getting another DUI" and the BIL said, "ok, I'll make sure and not have much alcohol" only to find he had a bit too much.
My point is there are WAY too many variables to start charging people in the vicinity of a crime. I understand "aiding and abetting" but charges like that are reserved for (1) serious crimes/criminals (2) uncooperative witnesses.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
You are muddying the issue with your examples.Case A) is a very borderline case, and as painted it doesn't seem like a big deal, but I'm not sure the law would even apply in situations like that. The car is very likely legally "jointly owned" in that case, therefore he's driving his own car. Even if it did apply, you are essentially hinging your "objection" on the .08. Replace the .08 with 1.8 and aside from the joint ownership issue, I can live with prohibiting her from allowing him to drive. If you have a problem with .08 being the limit, that's a different issue altogether.Case B) is very similar. You basically saying that hey, if the guy wasn't THAT drunk, no big deal. We don't know one way or the other how drunk BIL was (if he was drunk). But that's NOT the issue you claim to have a problem with.In cases where it's not all that clear TO THE OWNER whether the driver was drunk or not (i.e. in the .08 range), the law very likely wouldn't apply anyway so there is no reason for you to have problem with those scenarios. If the driver is obviously hammered, it is going to MUCH easier to prosecute the owner of the "aiding and abetting" charge, as it should be.Gray areas in the law are VERY common. That's what judges and juries are for. It doesn't mean the law is bad.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mungo Burrows
Footballguy
Serious question: If the person is doing something criminally negligent, why does there need to be a separate law to cover it? Aren't there standing laws against such criminal negligence? It seems the purpuse of the law would be to punish situations where the standing negligence laws can't be applied, or to statisfy some BS political agenda - neither of which seem like good reasons to have such a law.
