ADVERTISEMENT

Boyd charged

Sean Miller Fan

Lair Hall of Famer
Oct 30, 2001
64,715
20,789
113
with DUI. No surprise. Tyler shoulda known you don't drive through Jefferson Hills at 2:35 AM if you're from Clairton.

This doesn't change anything for me. If he was 5 months older, the cops would have said, "Thanks for your cooperation, have a good night, and drive safe." Because he's not, people act like its some terrible thing.

I hope our administartion doesn't take the "holier than thou" approach like the old one. Internal team discipline seems like the way to go here. We dont need him to beat YSU but you dont want to chance anything.

Yea, ok, Boyd broke the law, he was underage drinking 5 months prior to his 21st birthday (the horror!) and was over the DUI limit for people under 21. Pay the fine, take the points, run some sprints, and lets move on!
 
  • Like
Reactions: colingrant2
We will see on what side of the fence our new AD,Coach and Chancellor play this one...
 
with DUI. No surprise. Tyler shoulda known you don't drive through Jefferson Hills at 2:35 AM if you're from Clairton.

This doesn't change anything for me. If he was 5 months older, the cops would have said, "Thanks for your cooperation, have a good night, and drive safe." Because he's not, people act like its some terrible thing.

I hope our administartion doesn't take the "holier than thou" approach like the old one. Internal team discipline seems like the way to go here. We dont need him to beat YSU but you dont want to chance anything.

Yea, ok, Boyd broke the law, he was underage drinking 5 months prior to his 21st birthday (the horror!) and was over the DUI limit for people under 21. Pay the fine, take the points, run some sprints, and lets move on!

My thought as well. I'm 100% positive his mother prepped him about this. 100%
 
He is going to be charged, go through an ARD, the charges will be dismissed and that will be that.

He will probably also be suspended for the first game because he is being charged.

If the punishment is any more severe than that then we are overreacting. Driving while impaired is obviously a very big deal. Driving with a .02 BAL is not at all a big deal.
 
Clairton police stop alot of people along that route also.
PA underage DUI laws are strict as hell.
 
I was not going to make many friends but IMHO PA's DUI laws are too strict.

Please do not misconstrue this is me condoning people getting drunk and driving because that could not be further from the truth. I have lost a loved one to an accident involving a drunk driver, so I know well that pain.

However, I also know people whose lives were ruined due to some unusual interpretations of our overly punitive and inflexible DUI laws.

I have a good friend who had a little too much to drink one night so she decided to sleep in her car rather than getting behind the wheel. It was a very responsible decision on her part. She should have called a cab or one of her friends come and get her but she did not want to bother anyone, so she just pulled the blanket from her trunk and decided to sleep it off.

The problem is she decided to sleep in the passenger seat and recline it rather than in the backseat. That was a very bad decision on her part as it ultimately cost her her drivers license and her job.

That is ridiculous, IMHO.

I know another guy who was convicted of two DUIs 10 years apart. One was earned and the other was very questionable. Had the second DUI come just four days later, it would've been no big deal. However, in PA, two DUIs in a ten-year period is a mandatory sentence.

Well, while in what can best be described as a halfway house – where he was in with truly hardened criminals – my friend developed symptoms that ultimately proved to be skin cancer. Unfortunately, because he was locked up, but because he was locked up he was not able to get the medical attention he needed and very nearly died as a result.

He was very lucky the cancer did not spread to his lymph nodes. Six months later, after some very aggressive chemotherapy and radiation treatment, he was able to quell his disease.

I understand that he made a bad decision – two bad decisions in a 10 year period. However, that was a ridiculously strict punishment for someone who is otherwise an outstanding human being. What amounted to one bad choice and one very questionable decision by the police/judge, should not result in you losing your job/life any more than a bad decision should cost an innocent person his or her life as the victim of a drunk driver.

I guess I just think there's a middle ground to be had here that we have not yet achieved wrt our drunk driving laws as well as many others.

One in four prisoners in the entire world is incarcerated in American prisons. Very often it is for overly punitive DUI and/or drug laws. We need to find a better, more sensible way to adequately address this issue without ruining peoples' lives for what amounts to one bad decision.
 
Clairton police stop alot of people along that route also.
PA underage DUI laws are strict as hell.

I've never seen the Clairton police patrolling 885 or 51, probably mostly because their jurisdiction is so small and they have real crime to attend to. Jefferson Hills cops are some of the worst around. Its one of those police departments that have no real crime to deal with, so they expend their resources in pulling people over. This is why I said Boyd should have known this and drove back to Pittsburgh on 837 through Duquesne and Homestead.

I'm just saying. Cop sees a young guy driving FROM Clairton at 2:35 AM (and there's no other reason you'd be on that road unless you were coming from Clairton) and he pulls him over. I'd bet those cops are sitting on the border there every single night just waiting for Clairton kids to come into their jurisdiction. Just saying.

But, whatever, he'll be charged, the charges will be dropped through an ARD like Doc said. And at that point, I dont think he should be suspended. Remember Baldwin's (and Ray Graham's) charges eventually got dropped. Same with Levance Fields. None of those guys missed any time.
 
I know cops from other areas who can't get out of tickets/citations from Jefferson Hills Police and its an unwritten rule that you take care of fellow police officers from your area or outside your area. Not even for petty traffic offenses.
 
Yeah, I'm not going to go there, and I'll just accept a summer can't go buy here without a good player either leaving, getting hurt, or f'ing up. Probably not all done yet either.
 
I was not going to make many friends but IMHO PA's DUI laws are too strict.

Please do not misconstrue this is me condoning people getting drunk and driving because that could not be further from the truth. I have lost a loved one to an accident involving a drunk driver, so I know well that pain.

However, I also know people whose lives were ruined due to some unusual interpretations of our overly punitive and inflexible DUI laws.

I have a good friend who had a little too much to drink one night so she decided to sleep in her car rather than getting behind the wheel. It was a very responsible decision on her part. She should have called a cab or one of her friends come and get her but she did not want to bother anyone, so she just pulled the blanket from her trunk and decided to sleep it off.

The problem is she decided to sleep in the passenger seat and recline it rather than in the backseat. That was a very bad decision on her part as it ultimately cost her her drivers license and her job.

That is ridiculous, IMHO.

I know another guy who was convicted of two DUIs 10 years apart. One was earned and the other was very questionable. Had the second DUI come just four days later, it would've been no big deal. However, in PA, two DUIs in a ten-year period is a mandatory sentence.

Well, while in what can best be described as a halfway house – where he was in with truly hardened criminals – my friend developed symptoms that ultimately proved to be skin cancer. Unfortunately, because he was locked up, but because he was locked up he was not able to get the medical attention he needed and very nearly died as a result.

He was very lucky the cancer did not spread to his lymph nodes. Six months later, after some very aggressive chemotherapy and radiation treatment, he was able to quell his disease.

I understand that he made a bad decision – two bad decisions in a 10 year period. However, that was a ridiculously strict punishment for someone who is otherwise an outstanding human being. What amounted to one bad choice and one very questionable decision by the police/judge, should not result in you losing your job/life any more than a bad decision should cost an innocent person his or her life as the victim of a drunk driver.

I guess I just think there's a middle ground to be had here that we have not yet achieved wrt our drunk driving laws as well as many others.

One in four prisoners in the entire world is incarcerated in American prisons. Very often it is for overly punitive DUI and/or drug laws. We need to find a better, more sensible way to adequately address this issue without ruining peoples' lives for what amounts to one bad decision.


Very well stated. Never understood why sleeping in the front seat was a crime.
 
Very well stated. Never understood why sleeping in the front seat was a crime.
There was an Everybody Loves Raymond episode where Debra did that and got in trouble. Her issue is that the keys were also in the ignition.
Getting in trouble for sleeping in the passenger seat is outright asinine. How in the hell is the person going to drive from there?

Between both of Doc's stories, what is maddening is when you read about people who have a dozen plus DUI's who are still out in society and driving.
 
whoever said life was fair? you may not like the rules but the rules are the rules.

drinking and driving is dangerous, its changed many lives forever.
 
Yeah, I'm not going to go there, and I'll just accept a summer can't go buy here without a good player either leaving, getting hurt, or f'ing up. Probably not all done yet either.

It happens everywhere; (re)read that Outside the Lines article I posted. I think the difference is Pitt isn't able/willing to cover it up, for a variety of reasons.
 
Suspend him for running plays for the first series. Why punish his teammates, fans and the entire city? That wouldn't be fair and just. I say we need to sue the Jefferson police and tear down the Franco statue at the airport and replace the trustees of the university with crazy people in response.
 
You have to have probable cause to stop someone and that has to be included in your written intox report which is submitted with other observations, test results etc which goes to the das office and given to the defense through discovery prior to trial.
 
We will see on what side of the fence our new AD,Coach and Chancellor play this one...

TB knows he will be playing Sundays.... What if he says F it, I don't need this BS, I'll sit out a year and kiss my backside.

What I don't understand with all of the BS, he is on summer break, let the courts decide, not a PITT issue.
Talk shows are hammering the kid, I would do this I would do that, the callers on our Pittsburgh talk shows have convenient memory... Chris Muller what a D-bag.
 
Frankly, I don't think this is an issue at all. Yes he made a bad judgment call, but not as bad as it could have been. He was well below the limit. I don't think your coach should make him sit out a whole game for this, but maybe just a half just to give an example to all the other younger athletes who look up to TB as a role model. And this should be handled internally.

Being a PSU fan, I can tell you this. When ever a news breaks out about something like this, don't even bother reading them. All the media cares for is hits to their site and they will say anything and everything to flame the situation and make it look a lot worse than it is. Talk shows are the same. Just ignore them. Newho, best of luck to you guys for the season. Hope both of our teams does well and I cant wait till 2016.

Cheers!
 
First, I'll repeat what I wrote in an earlier thread. DUI is bad sh*t. It is tempting disaster every time someone does it. Society should come down hard on it. I had one episode, about TB's age, where I was with friends, i was driver, we went out of town to see a band. Didn't anticipate drinking but did so. Way too much. Suddenly the night was over and we had to get home. I jumped right in and fired up the car.

Being in a strange town (different state too), very lateat night, strange roads, drunk off my ass, with very close friends in (my dad's!) car, it was the dumbest thing I have ever done to this day (and I traveled to the Pitt-Toledo game in 04).

I made it, no stops, no accident. But I shouldn't have made it. I deserved to have a disaster. How freaking stupid. If there is a God, I figure He was looking out for my innocent friends (and other innocent drivers), and that's what saved me. I was that bad that night.

I never went to that extreme ever again, but yknow what, it wasn't the absolute last time I got in the car knowing I shouldn't. And I really think part of the reason why is that the actual punishment for DUI isn't threatening enough. Oh, it sucks when you're caught (I hear), very inconvenient and costs a pretty penny. But clearly is not enough to really, truly deter nearly anyone from doing it.

I say all that in pretext because if we really did what was best for society, TB would be slammed hard for what he did. Or actually, the threat of what could happen to him if caught (and punished) would have been bad enough would have kept him from even trying.

But, it ain't. It's kind of a joke really. A phony class you have to sit through, a fine. You might lose your license for a couple weeks if you were bad enough. But ultimately the state and mechanics and insurance companies all want you back on the road, so it's way too forgiving.

And since most people do it at some time, they seem willing to minimize it when others do. I wrote in another thread, a guy I know, a teacher, got busted 2 blocks from the school where he teaches. Really high BAC. Booked, lost his license (for only a short while, natch), name in the paper, everyone knew. Feared about his job. Turned out, they couldn't have cared less. Chatting with his boss, got the idea of "heh, heh, we've all been there". Last I heard, he has driven drunk again multiple times since. Even smacked into another car in a bar parking lot. Where the hell is the deterrence?

Long story short, since this issue seems to be one where many, many, many wrongs make a right ... not really of course, but society has decided so ... and because I'm a Pitt football fan, then dammit, if another guy gets to walk with inadequate repercussions for a bad thing, at least it should be a guy who will provide me entertainment out of it. Make 'm run the steps and miss the YSU game (with our luck he'd only have gotten injured in it anyway). That sucks to say, but as long as everyone else in the country has their head up their tails on this issue, why should he be a martyr?
 
Will it deter him or anyone else from doing it again?, no, but I think it gives Pitt credibility if he supends him in some way. New coach, AD, Chancellor and Pitt still fighting the perception of being unstable and incompetent.
 
Let's play.......LETS BE BRUTALLY HONEST HERE.

Tyler Boyd is a pretty good kid by all accounts. Tyler Boyd also did something that likely 75% of kids his age have done.
If Tyler Boyd would play for Penn State or WVU, most on this board would be judge, jury and executioner, declaring him a criminal and wanting prosecution to send a message and throw the book at him, and suspend him for life. I guess that is what fans do, they completely lose perspective on their team vs rival teams. It is sort of like, well being drunk.

Doc mentioned PA's antiquated alcohol laws. Is it any wonder about a state that thinks it itself is the best way to distribute alcohol to the public instead of private entities like in any other state? PA definitely shows its Quaker heritage with some absolutely backwards and antiquated rules concerning alcohol.

But I want to focus on what I feel is one of the most immoral, ridiculous laws, and it is now nationwide. First off a thanks to one of the most powerful, internal "terrorist" groups in this country for greasing the wheels to this law. Mothers are a good thing. Drunk Driving is a bad thing. Mothers being against Drunk Driving is a good thing. Mothers losing children to drunk driving is a terrible thing. MADD is absolutely horrible. This is a perfect example of taking a good intention, and just like we do when we apply "zero tolerance" (read eliminate common sense and rationality) to another problem and come up with a friggin convoluted "solution".

To allow a child to marry. To allow him or force him to defend the country and die in our wars. To pay taxes. To have access to all the rigors of our criminal justice and punishment system. To allow these kids be an adult in every facet of life, but to not allow them to take a legal drink is unconscionable. It is immoral. Why? Because MADD thinks it is a good idea? Studies show? I won't go into how forcing these kids underground just encourages binge drinking, but the fact is, in this country and the individual states, you have established drunk driving limits. Drunk driving, driving under the influence is the same whether you are 20 or 21. 19 or 25. And we know alcohol affects people differently, some may be over the limit but rather in control, others could double for the old Otis the drunk character from Mayberry.

By all accounts, if Boyd was 5 months older, this merely would be a traffic citation. 5 months. But if we would start a draft tomorrow (military not NFL) Boyd would be eligible to go and die. He is responsible in every other way as an adult. 5 months. This is ridiculous, a travesty of calling some an adult and deeming him responsible enough to marry and raise children, make "adult" decisions in every facet of life, yet not be allowed to take a drink. Hell, no wonder why marijuana use and worse is on the up, at least there is not an illegal age criteria our legal system can pile on.

It is stupid. It is also the most single political incorrect stance to take, to try and repeal the legal drinking age and move it back to 18 or at least 19. It is political suicide. So, we put essentially Scarlet letters on people that can follow them around for life, for doing something not different than any of us adults do, have a drink and get into a car. Drunk is drunk. But again, drunk is not age dependent.
 
...and having a few drinks does not necessarily mean you're drunk. The kid blew a .02 BAL. I'm sorry but that is by definition unimpaired.
 
Will it deter him or anyone else from doing it again?, no, but I think it gives Pitt credibility if he supends him in some way. New coach, AD, Chancellor and Pitt still fighting the perception of being unstable and incompetent.

Run steps (in the lower bowl, it's not even much of a workout).

Miss YSU game.

Maybe add a PR event addressing kids in a camp (such as the Mel Blount camp they do annually) and telling them what a dumb mistake he made. A couple tear drops would be a nice touch. Make sure Richie Walsh is there to cover it. Have Mel in the shot, wearing his goofy cowboy hat. A Steelers hero makes everything OK in yinzers' eyes.

It should absolutely be no more than that. Well, actually it should, but as I stated above, since many, many other fools get off Scott free for far worse cases of DUI (as they do every day), don't ruin MY fall by making it worse for this guy.
 
...and having a few drinks does not necessarily mean you're drunk. The kid blew a .02 BAL. I'm sorry but that is by definition unimpaired.

I guess in my long winded post, that is my point. And that is the result of "zero tolerance" type of application of rules. When I was Tyler's age, the cops would follow you home or take you home, when they realize that yes, you had a drink or two, but you weren't drunk. Now, they have no choice. No discretion.
 
This is what happens when laws are promulgated that define things based on sub-rational politically correct perceptions vs scientific reality.
 
First, I'll repeat what I wrote in an earlier thread. DUI is bad sh*t. It is tempting disaster every time someone does it. Society should come down hard on it.

OK. But, to quote my Penn State friends, why does this have to be a football issue? Let the legal system decide what happens with Boyd? What he did doesn't affect Pitt football. Pitt football didn't cause him to drive after having a minor amount of alcohol.

After seeing Penn State barely get a wrist-slap for covering up horrendous atrocities, I dont see how seemingly minor non-football related stuff like this should be penalized. If Boyd skips a few practices for no reason, ok, suspend him. If he bad-mouths Coach Narduzzi, fine. But this isn't football related.
 
It affects Pitt's perception. If nothing, get ready for Cook et al. 'Shame on Pitt' 'Shame on Narduzzi' 'Shame on Gallagher'..
 
OK. But, to quote my Penn State friends, why does this have to be a football issue? Let the legal system decide what happens with Boyd? What he did doesn't affect Pitt football. Pitt football didn't cause him to drive after having a minor amount of alcohol.

After seeing Penn State barely get a wrist-slap for covering up horrendous atrocities, I dont see how seemingly minor non-football related stuff like this should be penalized. If Boyd skips a few practices for no reason, ok, suspend him. If he bad-mouths Coach Narduzzi, fine. But this isn't football related.

All I can say is again, similar to other situations (like Durand Johnson), it's moronic for Pitt to keep outrageously higher standards than the baseline established by the most successful programs. And they would give this only the most trivial, strictly-for-PR discipline.


As I stated, I think society should be far more outraged by DUI (and certainly, institutionally enabled serial child rape!). But it doesnt. The latter is particularly angering to me personally, but Pitt wasnt bothered in the least by PSU, and begs for even more games. So why bust and suspend individual players loads more harshly than our opponents?

Maybe D1 sports is a cesspool, but Pitt willingly signed up to compete in this entity, and charges money, then whines when more fans don t show or won't donate because the teams get their teeth kicked in by the cess pool teams. How they react to TP is just another litmus test of this bigger issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panther Parrothead
Has Boyd's blood alcohol content been reported? I may've missed it. I thought I read .02 in here but that didn't seem right.
 
OK. But, to quote my Penn State friends, why does this have to be a football issue? Let the legal system decide what happens with Boyd? What he did doesn't affect Pitt football. Pitt football didn't cause him to drive after having a minor amount of alcohol.

After seeing Penn State barely get a wrist-slap for covering up horrendous atrocities, I dont see how seemingly minor non-football related stuff like this should be penalized. If Boyd skips a few practices for no reason, ok, suspend him. If he bad-mouths Coach Narduzzi, fine. But this isn't football related.

SMF, agree, not football related and no one injured, this is for his parents to address.
 
Has Boyd's blood alcohol content been reported? I may've missed it. I thought I read .02 in here but that didn't seem right.

Johnny, .02 is the limit for underage drinking. So it seems like it was under .08 (the legal limit), but .02 or over. Because he is 20 years old and it being over .02, that is over the underage limit, so he is being charged.

As has been mentioned, if he was 21, he would have been sent home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnnyGossamer
Thanks, zap! In that case, I doubt he gets anything. Not even a game. Discipline him in practice.
 
Has Boyd's blood alcohol content been reported? I may've missed it. I thought I read .02 in here but that didn't seem right.

As I understand things--The only factual info seems to be that his breathalyzer test was "well under 0.08." As we know 0.08 is the point at which an adult driver is considered to be driving drunk (DUI) (in the past it was typically 0.10). However, PA State law apparently defines DUI as 0.02 or higher if you are under 21. Since Boyd is ~5 months under 21 the lower legal standard applies. So, in effect he could have been essentially sober (scientifically speaking) and still considered DUI by legal definition. After the breathalyzer it was reported he was taken to a hospital for a blood draw for a more accurate blood alcohol reading to be obtained.

Neither the original breathalyzer nor the blood draw result is publicly known.
 
This is what happens when laws are promulgated that define things based on sub-rational politically correct perceptions vs scientific reality.

Exactly it. No one is for drunk driving, and no one wants to see kids being drunk, but the mere fact that a person is an adult for every possible facet of their life, save for taking a drink, that is ridiculous. There is one thing being impaired, but taking a drink at 20 years old is not necessarily being impaired. It is just having a drink. What is different between having a drink at 20 or at 21 on a person?

Like I said in another post, anytime you hear the need for "zero tolerance", you are just saying the absence of reason and common sense.
 
...and having a few drinks does not necessarily mean you're drunk. The kid blew a .02 BAL. I'm sorry but that is by definition unimpaired.
You might want to do some actual research on the legal definition of DUI. According to my research, .08 is considered DUI for adults. The legal limit for DUI for minors in PA is .02, so if Boyd blew a .02 reading, legally he was drunk driving for a minor.
 
You might want to do some actual research on the legal definition of DUI. According to my research, .08 is considered DUI for adults. The legal limit for DUI for minors in PA is .02, so if Boyd blew a .02 reading, legally he was drunk driving for a minor.

Yes, that is the "legal limit". But again, it doesn't necessarily make him "impaired". That is DVY's point. And in 5 months, there wouldn't be any issue. Again, that is the point.

Look, let's just outlaw alcohol. I think all of us have no patience for those constant DUI offenders, who have multiple charges, or those driving at limits over 2-3 or more times the legal limit. But .02 is no different that me having a beer. I am not impaired after a beer or 2. Sorry.
 
A DUI attorney on Facebook said Boyd most likely blew a low reading and the cops probably took him in for a blood test hoping it would result in a higher numbers. They would do this if he said he just recently consumed the alcohol (the alcohol may not have metabolized yet).

He also said do not ever consent to a breathalyzer since he can't really cross examine or retest the results and b/c juries think they're always accurate. Went onto say blood tests are better for defendants b/c he can have the blood retested and cross examine everyone who handled the samples, and said labs have a history of being both corrupt and careless.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT