The problem with that is, you don't get to pick which laws to obey.
Boyd charged
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
The problem with that is, you don't get to pick which laws to obey.
No, I get that. Technically, if he had a single drop of alcohol in his system, or even if he admitted to having a single alcoholic drink, he would be legally in the wrong due to his age. I just don't agree that a .02 BAL is impaired in any way. I think it is an overly punitive standard and should be repealed.
BTW, my view has nothing to do with Tyler Boyd. I have seen how these overly strict laws ruin good people's lives - often people who were not being irresponsible or dangerous in any way. I couldn't care less if Boyd is suspended for one series, one game, three games, or even if he is forced to retire due to his heinous choice to drink two shots a full five months before he was legally permitted to do so.
I think the whole thing is bullschitt on every level, I really do. This kid has had his name dragged through the mud from coast to coast and from where I sit he basically did nothing wrong.
That's absolutely true. However, these laws are not the word of god. They can be changed to reflect a more common sense approach to curbing drunk driving. We change laws all the time to reflect our changing culture.
Again, I am not condoning drunk driving. However, I am also not condoning activist judges and overzealous special interest groups.
We can find a middle ground and a .02 BAL for a 20 year-old is not middle ground. He should be charged with under-aged drinking and that should be it. Pay the fine, go to those phony classes and we'll see you in the second half of the Youngstown State game. Those things, along with all of the bover the top bad press the kid has received is more than enough lashings, IMHO. Anything more than that is overly punitive, IMHO.
Sorry, but I disagree. It's not about whether his driving is impaired. The issue is whether the LAW defines it as impaired. Now if you want to argue that the law doesn't make sense, I won't argue with you, but the fact remains that under the current law it's a crime and he's going to be punished. Period.
I could give 2 shits whether he's 20 and a half or 21 years old. I don't see the difference and I dont care what the hell the geniuses in Harrisburg decided on the matter either. He wasn't drunk. I'm willing to take my chances with someone having 2 drinks and driving. He didn't blow a .24 and drive the wrong way on the highway. This isn't a big issue to me.
Look, I agree that a .02 standard is arbitrary and a bit silly. All that being said, if you're a key guy on the team you've got to understand the potential impact of bad decisions. Tyler made a poor decision. Doesn't make him a bad kid but you simply can't drink ANYTHING and drive if you're underage. It's not that hard to understand. It may not be fair, but I suspect he's going to get at least a one game suspension.
The stop officer needs PC for the stop and then must observe indicators of impairment to arrest for DUI. Typically, these signs are: bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and odor of alcohol.
Best case scenario for Boyd is that the cop asked if he was drinking and Boyd said yes and blew slightly over .02.; that will likely be plead down to underage drinking/ reckless driving/ or be eligible for a diversion program. Worst case is that the impairment was not caused by alcohol and Tyler was weaving all over the road and stumbling during his FSE's. If the officer is a DRE, or drug recognition expert, or the commonwealth did a blood-draw there may be more to the story. Impairment need not be caused by alcohol.-- actual Pitt-loving criminal attorney and former prosecutor
Best case scenario for Boyd is that the cop asked if he was drinking and Boyd said yes and blew slightly over .02.; that will likely be plead down to underage drinking/ reckless driving/ or be eligible for a diversion program. Worst case is that the impairment was not caused by alcohol and Tyler was weaving all over the road and stumbling during his FSE's. If the officer is a DRE, or drug recognition expert, or the commonwealth did a blood-draw there may be more to the story. Impairment need not be caused by alcohol.-- actual Pitt-loving criminal attorney and former prosecutor
I was in college when the campaign to lower the voting age to 18 was running. A college prof summed it up, thusly...."Old enough to fight, old enough to vote??? OK, too old to fight, too old to vote!!" This is like legal pot....do we really need more intoxication?? At least there's a tiny bit of justification, the premise that "new" drinkers have lower tolerance.. Maybe we can mandate that 18-21 year olds only drink chick beer?? The folks at Coors & Miller would be happy.
When the speed limit is 55, do you ever drive 56? 57? That is breaking the law. 56 or 57 is speeding in a 55 mph zone. Same with 100. I'll let you determine what is more serious. Say TB was tested at a 0.04 BAC, while breaking the law for an underaged person (which is a joke of a law) the problem with drunk driving is not people who had a few drinks, it is those who are completely soused and many times 2 or 3 times the limit. One is defensible, the other is not.
Really, I dont even care what the law says. If he blew a number so low where he wasn't even drunk (but according to PA, he was), then as far as I'm concerned, he wasn't drunk driving. I'd imagine that anyone who has a drink at dinner would blow a 0.2 or 0.3. They're not drunk. The 2 issues are:
1. Underage drinking
2. Driving through Jefferson Hills at that time of night. Boyd should have known to avoid that area and taken an alternate route. Jefferson Hills at 2:35 AM is not the type of place Boyd should be driving through.
So, for me, if he blew a low number (but over 0.2), I'd base his suspension off of his underage drinking offense which would be extra morning sprints for a few days.
His mother is not happy.
Boyd's mother Tonya Payne said Monday the family is hiring an attorney, who she declined to identify. She said her son is being singled out “because of who he is.”
“I'm very irritated because if this was somebody average, this isn't how this would have went down,” she said. “You don't usually get a DUI charge until the lab work comes back.”
Read more: http://triblive.com/sports/college/pitt/8569036-74/roach-boyd-police#ixzz3dKJtOmT4
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook
Boyd's mother Tonya Payne said Monday the family is hiring an attorney, who she declined to identify. She said her son is being singled out “because of who he is.”
“I'm very irritated because if this was somebody average, this isn't how this would have went down,” she said. “You don't usually get a DUI charge until the lab work comes back.”
Read more: http://triblive.com/sports/college/pitt/8569036-74/roach-boyd-police#ixzz3dKJtOmT4
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook
He screwed up. At worst, he gets some minimal, look what we did, team punishment, does the ARD thing, gets drafted in the first round, has, at the very least, a good NFL career, and then one day donates something to the Jefferson Hills PD and has the token, cathartic photo opp.
It would be deemed a refusal, and it would carry an additional year license suspension and you would be charged with DUI as if you blew in the highest category. Also, those that violate implied consent typically are not offered ARD for first time offenses. The police choose which court admissible test they want to utilize on a DUI suspect. That said, the DUI suspect does have the right to independent testing. So you can request a independent blood test after taking a breathalyzer if you desired (the police can subpoena those results to use against you though). You can fight breathalyzer results more easily than blood test results in my opinion, so personally, I would be happy with just breathalyzer results.
You can and should refuse field sobriety tests (if you think you are over the limit). Be cordial about it though. You can refuse the portable breathalyzer (handheld one they carry in cars). Again be cordial about it. You cannot refuse the big breathalyzer (size of table) at the police station or in a mobile DUI trailer without violating implied consent laws and facing increased penalties.
I'm not a DUI lawyer, but probably put my DUI lawyer's kid through a year of college with my stupidity.
If you want to punish the kid, make him wear a Ron Cook mask for a few days. That would solve alot of problems.
Pitt just needs to start acting like a big time football factory, that puts winning above all else. Max punishment for a DUI should be miss the 1st series vs. YSU.
Who are the people that really care to see a punishment handed out? People who post on the internet and that's about it. 99% of the people who show up at the game will do so not even knowing it happened.
What is the reason to add extra punishment about what the state gives him? Nothing really. It's to do PR, to stand up on a high horse, or should from a mountain top... LOOK AT ME, I AM MORAL!!!
I'd rather just pay to win! Probably half the students at the game got a DUI or an underage drinking in their time in college, WITHOUT any extra punishment from the school.
If you win something, like an ACC title, people will remember forever, even if the whole team got DUIs that year, if you remain a loser with MORAL VALUES and punish everybody, they'll forget about your great "values" and keep complaining that you're still a LOSER.
Who are the people that really care to see a punishment handed out? People who post on the internet and that's about it. 99% of the people who show up at the game will do so not even knowing it happened.
What is the reason to add extra punishment about what the state gives him? Nothing really. It's to do PR, to stand up on a high horse, or should from a mountain top... LOOK AT ME, I AM MORAL!!!
I'd rather just pay to win! Probably half the students at the game got a DUI or an underage drinking in their time in college, WITHOUT any extra punishment from the school.
If you win something, like an ACC title, people will remember forever, even if the whole team got DUIs that year, if you remain a loser with MORAL VALUES and punish everybody, they'll forget about your great "values" and keep complaining that you're still a LOSER.
Just a little more to the story......
http://www.cardiachill.com/2015/6/1...rgh-panthers-pat-narduzzi-discipline-acc-2015
http://www.cardiachill.com/2015/6/1...rgh-panthers-pat-narduzzi-discipline-acc-2015
Sounds like a good idea. At least then politicians wouldn't feel the need to pander to old people like, well, you!
Always swinging that axe, huh?? I pay taxes.....deserve attention from politicians. And respect from the inexperienced. Do you hassle your Daddy??? " Happy Father's Day, Dad....you're old."Sounds like a good idea. At least then politicians wouldn't feel the need to pander to old people like, well, you!
First, let me say that my opinion has nothing to do with Tyler Boyd. He is just a symbol for a much larger conversation. None of us has any idea what actually happened in Jefferson Hills that night so it is beyond speculative to be talking about the temperament of the officer, the level of Boyd's intoxication, the quality of his driving, his behavior after being pulled over, etc. None of us has any idea about any of those things and it is foolish and disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
I guess I just can't wrap my mind around why a BAL content threshold should be different for a 20-year-old that it would be a 21-year-old? Intellectually, that makes no sense to me. It feels like a cash grab by the state and the Jefferson Hills Police Department.
As I said, this is not a pro drunk driving opinion and should not be misconstrued as such. Also, please do not consider this a defense of Tyler Boyd because that is not my intent either.
I just need to see some actual data proving that a 20-year-old is more drunk at .05 than would be a 21-year-old at the same BAL. That seems hard to believe but I am not a blood work expert or a scientist and I am open to persuasion. However, I would need to see some actual data.
Finally, if the point of having such a strict standard is deterrence, do we have any data proving that is working? It is my understanding that Pennsylvania has among the strictest DUI and underage drinking laws in the country. That's fine, but what are the results of such stern laws?
Does Pennsylvania have among the fewest incidents of drunk driving or underage drinking arrests? If the answer to that question is yes then maybe it is time for me to reconsider my opinion on the subject? If the answer to those questions is no then perhaps it is time for the state to reconsider its approach?
Right now, the .02 BAL for an adult who has not yet celebrated his or her 21st birthday feels to me like a ludicrously punitive standard to hold anyone to and never should've been passed into law and it should be repealed at once.
I guess I just can't wrap my mind around why a BAL content threshold should be different for a 20-year-old that it would be a 21-year-old? Intellectually, that makes no sense to me. It feels like a cash grab by the state and the Jefferson Hills Police Department.
As I said, this is not a pro drunk driving opinion and should not be misconstrued as such. Also, please do not consider this a defense of Tyler Boyd because that is not my intent either.
I just need to see some actual data proving that a 20-year-old is more drunk at .05 than would be a 21-year-old at the same BAL. That seems hard to believe but I am not a blood work expert or a scientist and I am open to persuasion. However, I would need to see some actual data.
Finally, if the point of having such a strict standard is deterrence, do we have any data proving that is working? It is my understanding that Pennsylvania has among the strictest DUI and underage drinking laws in the country. That's fine, but what are the results of such stern laws?
Does Pennsylvania have among the fewest incidents of drunk driving or underage drinking arrests? If the answer to that question is yes then maybe it is time for me to reconsider my opinion on the subject? If the answer to those questions is no then perhaps it is time for the state to reconsider its approach?
Right now, the .02 BAL for an adult who has not yet celebrated his or her 21st birthday feels to me like a ludicrously punitive standard to hold anyone to and never should've been passed into law and it should be repealed at once.
I drive this road on a daily basis. It is a dangerous intersection. Boyd is driving southbound on this road a road that parallels Route 51. You're driving down a steep hill, a 4-lane highway with a turning lane which converges into a 2-lane highway with a turning lane at the intersection light. You then climb a steep hill with limited visibility.
Apparently Boyd is attempting to pass another vehicle after passing the intersection in a non-passing lane with limited visibility. A dangerous move and an obvious traffic violation. Thank goodness for good police work.
I wonder how many people who consider this a no big deal, if a member of their family was coming the other way resulting in a head-on collision. They probably would still blame the police.
Apparently Boyd is attempting to pass another vehicle after passing the intersection in a non-passing lane with limited visibility. A dangerous move and an obvious traffic violation. Thank goodness for good police work.
I wonder how many people who consider this a no big deal, if a member of their family was coming the other way resulting in a head-on collision. They probably would still blame the police.
The issue is less about the legal issues, whatever their reality, and more about whether the University should "pile on" with additional punishments beyond what the civil authorities impose. If it turns out he wasn't really drunk (or even close) by the standard for a 21 year old adult (rather than by the 0.02 artificially low standard applied to all under age drivers irrespective of whether they are 16 years and 1 day or 1 day short of 21) once the BAL results are known; then, IMHO, the University should butt out and not add anything to whatever the civil penalties may be. Conversely, if the BAL results put him close to the 0.08 standard for an adult; then I will not have heartburn if the University decides to "pile on." Note: I would feel the same if it were a walk-on bench warmer involved.
Ummm.......at 2:35 AM, you might get 5 cars per hour on that road, its not rush hour traffic. And what Boyd, did (according to the report) was what we ALL DO. Car is probably going super slow in front of him (probably drunk also) so as it begins to make a right onto Wray Large Rd, Boyd passes it. I know I have gotten frustrated with cars going very slowly in front of me and passed it as it begins to turn. Traffic violation, yes, but I wouldn't call that "reckless driving."
As for what Doc was saying, I agree 100%. .08 for a DUI, fine. But, I cant understand how a 20.5 year old is too drunk to drive at 0.2 but a 21 year old is not. Boyd should not have been drinking. While a joke in and of itself, an underage drinking citation would have been warranted but he more than likely was nowhere near being "too drunk to drive," which is why they took him for the blood test, hoping to get a higher number. Probably a PSU/TJ fan cop.
This whole thing is a joke. If this happens in State College, Morgantown, Columbus, Tuscaloosa, etc, Narduzzi gets called, Boyd gets underage drinking and a minor traffic violation (maybe) and runs some sprints. Since Pitt is not a cult school here, people make a big deal out of it when its anything but. We even have Pitt fans calling for his suspension.
Let the courts decide his fines. Boyd was driving a car while not being drunk. That doesn't deserve a suspension. In the future, I hope he avoids driving through Jefferson Hills and Pleasant Hills.
