Tony LaRussa DUI arrest

[Chocolate Milk]

And some sort of graduated punitive system should reflect these realities. A 0.093 should be punished differently than a 0.193.

 

None of this is to excuse what LaRussa allegedly did last night. He was absolutely in the wrong. But a relevant question to ask is, how far in the wrong was he? Or more specifically, how big of a risk did he pose out on the road last night?.

 

He was very far in the wrong and he posed a large risk to everyone around him. If you have had enough to drink that you would fall asleep in the amount of time it takes for the light to change to green, then you are signifigantly impaired.

 

You are getting too caught up in the BAC levels. If a .093 BAC is signifigant enough for TLR to pass out at the wheel, then it is a serious situation. He's actually lucky that things didn't turn out worse for him. He could have fallen asleep while driving, he could have been rearended by someone not expecting there to be a car parked at a green light, his foot could have slipped off the brake or slipped onto the gas pedal, any number of things could have happened. I don't really see how his BAC is signifigant in this situation.

[TruffleShuffle]

This is running pretty far afield of anything baseball related, but I have to disagree with you strongly here.

 

DUI is not, and should not, be treated as an absolute. Driving after one drink is different than driving after 6, which is different than driving after 16. Each step of the way, you increase the danger to yourself and everyone around you.

 

Anyone is capable of killing people on the road, even stone cold sober ones. The issue is that the sober ones are less likely to do so than the borderline drunk ones, and the borderline drunk ones are less likely to do so than the stumbling drunk ones.

 

And some sort of graduated punitive system should reflect these realities. A 0.093 should be punished differently than a 0.193.

 

None of this is to excuse what LaRussa allegedly did last night. He was absolutely in the wrong. But a relevant question to ask is, how far in the wrong was he? Or more specifically, how big of a risk did he pose out on the road last night?

 

I'm not sure why the "DUI is DUI" crowd is either unable or unwilling to consider this question.

 

I'd have to say that I agree with this post. I've driven drunk before. It's not something I'm proud of, and I've learned my lesson, fortunately without having hurt myself or anyone else, and without having had the police teach me the lesson. Now, when there's a doubt, I either sleep somewhere that doesn't require me to drive home, or I take a cab and go fetch my car the next day.

 

But, I'm certain that I've driven at a level close to .093 a few times, and I'm certain that at least one time I was probably close to 0.2. The difference is huge. When you're around .09, and you're not drinking for the first time, you can drive in a straight line and obey all traffic laws. The biggest difference is a loss in reaction time - so for example, if someone were to dart out from the curb in front of your car, or someone were to run a red line in front of you, there's a slightly greater chance that your foot wouldn't reach the brakes in time.

 

When you drive at 0.2 or higher, it's very hard or even impossible to drive in a straight line, your reaction time is very poor, and you're a much greater risk of going into another lane. That's when there's a significantly larger chance of you hurting or killing someone and being solely responsible for it (as opposed to mutually responsible, like if someone runs in front of your car or runs a red light and you can't stop in time).

 

So I'm not saying what La Russa did was right - he should've taken a cab - but I think he's guilty more of an error in judgement than he is of being a significant risk to other lives.

[wolf stansson]

You know Card's fans wouldn't pull any punches of Piniella got popped.

I honestly don't think anyone would care. There would be the token morons who think just because he is a Cub that he is a bad person and this is just more proof, but I doubt the majority would care. Much like how most people here don't really seem to care.

[wolf stansson]

More details: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0322071larussa1.html

[jaydee]

his BAC may have appeared low, but if it was enough to make him pass out at the wheel, then it was probably a pretty dangerous situation. and drinking red wine like a little girl is no excuse

[David]

I like how the officer reports the Cardinals LCS ring as an ALCS ring.

[MustangMike]

his BAC may have appeared low, but if it was enough to make him pass out at the wheel, then it was probably a pretty dangerous situation. and drinking red wine like a little girl is no excuse

 

I don't see why the level of BAC means a thing. .093 would effect me differently then it would the person next to me, you can't just go by "how drunk he was" on that number. The number is merely the law, and he broke the law. Why is it even a debate on how drunk he was? Who cares, he broke the law and he'll pay for it.

[TruffleShuffle]

his BAC may have appeared low, but if it was enough to make him pass out at the wheel, then it was probably a pretty dangerous situation. and drinking red wine like a little girl is no excuse

 

There are a lot of Italian men who drink like "little girls" then... whatever that means, since I don't know a lot of 8 year old girls who hit the sauce. It's not like he was drinking Zima Citrus or something.

[TruffleShuffle]

his BAC may have appeared low, but if it was enough to make him pass out at the wheel, then it was probably a pretty dangerous situation. and drinking red wine like a little girl is no excuse

 

I don't see why the level of BAC means a thing. .093 would effect me differently then it would the person next to me, you can't just go by "how drunk he was" on that number. The number is merely the law, and he broke the law. Why is it even a debate on how drunk he was? Who cares, he broke the law and he'll pay for it.

 

So if you're playing with a gun and it accidentally goes off and kills someone, you should be punished the same way as if you walk into someone's house and blow their head off?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

his BAC may have appeared low, but if it was enough to make him pass out at the wheel, then it was probably a pretty dangerous situation. and drinking red wine like a little girl is no excuse

 

I don't see why the level of BAC means a thing. .093 would effect me differently then it would the person next to me, you can't just go by "how drunk he was" on that number. The number is merely the law, and he broke the law. Why is it even a debate on how drunk he was? Who cares, he broke the law and he'll pay for it.

 

So if you're playing with a gun and it accidentally goes off and kills someone, you should be punished the same way as if you walk into someone's house and blow their head off?

 

There would be 2 different interpretations of the law in your scenario, no? Not so much with DUI.

[TruffleShuffle]

his BAC may have appeared low, but if it was enough to make him pass out at the wheel, then it was probably a pretty dangerous situation. and drinking red wine like a little girl is no excuse

 

I don't see why the level of BAC means a thing. .093 would effect me differently then it would the person next to me, you can't just go by "how drunk he was" on that number. The number is merely the law, and he broke the law. Why is it even a debate on how drunk he was? Who cares, he broke the law and he'll pay for it.

 

So if you're playing with a gun and it accidentally goes off and kills someone, you should be punished the same way as if you walk into someone's house and blow their head off?

 

There would be 2 different interpretations of the law in your scenario, no? Not so much with DUI.

 

Why not, though? We punish people differently based on whether they have an ounce of pot, or a Nate Newton-sized stash in their trunk. I'm not saying LaRussa shouldn't be punished, but being as somebody with a BAC of 0.25 is a much greater danger to others than somebody with a 0.09, why shouldn't the punishment be more severe for those who put other lives in greater risk?

[MustangMike]

So if you're playing with a gun and it accidentally goes off and kills someone, you should be punished the same way as if you walk into someone's house and blow their head off?

 

 

A 62 year old adult man chooses to drink and get into his automobile its at the risk of himself and the public. He drank enough to 1) be over the legal limit 2) have enough to fall asleep in a car.

 

I don't know why you would equate these two scenarios. What part of his actions were accidental? If he fell asleep and ran over a kid, you think the fact that his BAC was .093 and not .2 would make a lick of difference?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

his BAC may have appeared low, but if it was enough to make him pass out at the wheel, then it was probably a pretty dangerous situation. and drinking red wine like a little girl is no excuse

 

I don't see why the level of BAC means a thing. .093 would effect me differently then it would the person next to me, you can't just go by "how drunk he was" on that number. The number is merely the law, and he broke the law. Why is it even a debate on how drunk he was? Who cares, he broke the law and he'll pay for it.

 

So if you're playing with a gun and it accidentally goes off and kills someone, you should be punished the same way as if you walk into someone's house and blow their head off?

 

There would be 2 different interpretations of the law in your scenario, no? Not so much with DUI.

 

Why not, though? We punish people differently based on whether they have an ounce of pot, or a Nate Newton-sized stash in their trunk. I'm not saying LaRussa shouldn't be punished, but being as somebody with a BAC of 0.25 is a much greater danger to others than somebody with a 0.09, why shouldn't the punishment be more severe for those who put other lives in greater risk?

 

I don't disagree.

[MustangMike]

his BAC may have appeared low, but if it was enough to make him pass out at the wheel, then it was probably a pretty dangerous situation. and drinking red wine like a little girl is no excuse

 

I don't see why the level of BAC means a thing. .093 would effect me differently then it would the person next to me, you can't just go by "how drunk he was" on that number. The number is merely the law, and he broke the law. Why is it even a debate on how drunk he was? Who cares, he broke the law and he'll pay for it.

 

So if you're playing with a gun and it accidentally goes off and kills someone, you should be punished the same way as if you walk into someone's house and blow their head off?

 

There would be 2 different interpretations of the law in your scenario, no? Not so much with DUI.

 

Why not, though? We punish people differently based on whether they have an ounce of pot, or a Nate Newton-sized stash in their trunk. I'm not saying LaRussa shouldn't be punished, but being as somebody with a BAC of 0.25 is a much greater danger to others than somebody with a 0.09, why shouldn't the punishment be more severe for those who put other lives in greater risk?

 

Drug laws are different because the amounts start brining in aspects of selling it or just personal use. SElling it is obviously much more severe of a punishment. An alcohol level is a different situation because the law is a set minimum amount. Now wheather that level is a good idea, that's a different story.

[TruffleShuffle]

Drug laws are different because the amounts start brining in aspects of selling it or just personal use. SElling it is obviously much more severe of a punishment. An alcohol level is a different situation because the law is a set minimum amount. Now wheather that level is a good idea, that's a different story.

 

I don't have a problem with .08; I do have a problem if they punish a .09 and a .30 with the same severity. A .09 should be fined, have to go to one of those classes, and maybe have a short license suspension. A .30 should be punished with a long license suspension and a larger fine.

[goonys evil twin]

The excuse making is getting ridiculous. It really shows why DUIs are still such a huge problem, because so many are so willing to laugh them off. Pathetic really. I know that prior to the big campaigns in the 80's and early 90's DUI wasn't really thought of all that much, but it's amazing that it's 2007 and people still think driving "a little drunk" isn't something worth making a big deal about.

 

DUI at .09 is a big deal. DUI at .30 may be bigger, but that doesn't justify the ridiculous responses people are making over such a "small offense".

 

The dude freaking passed out driving.

[TruffleShuffle]

The excuse making is getting ridiculous. It really shows why DUIs are still such a huge problem, because so many are so willing to laugh them off. Pathetic really.

 

Who's making excuses for what he did?

[MustangMike]

Drug laws are different because the amounts start brining in aspects of selling it or just personal use. SElling it is obviously much more severe of a punishment. An alcohol level is a different situation because the law is a set minimum amount. Now wheather that level is a good idea, that's a different story.

 

I don't have a problem with .08; I do have a problem if they punish a .09 and a .30 with the same severity. A .09 should be fined, have to go to one of those classes, and maybe have a short license suspension. A .30 should be punished with a long license suspension and a larger fine.

 

Its hard to measure it period. Like I said, the numbers effect people differently. My wife has one glass of wine and is one the floor, I can drink far too much and be ok...its strange. But they have to make the law based on some number.

 

You bring up an interesting point. If you speed, you get a fine, if you are over 20+ over the speed limit, dont' you get excessive fines?

[TruffleShuffle]

Drug laws are different because the amounts start brining in aspects of selling it or just personal use. SElling it is obviously much more severe of a punishment. An alcohol level is a different situation because the law is a set minimum amount. Now wheather that level is a good idea, that's a different story.

 

I don't have a problem with .08; I do have a problem if they punish a .09 and a .30 with the same severity. A .09 should be fined, have to go to one of those classes, and maybe have a short license suspension. A .30 should be punished with a long license suspension and a larger fine.

 

Its hard to measure it period. Like I said, the numbers effect people differently. My wife has one glass of wine and is one the floor, I can drink far too much and be ok...its strange. But they have to make the law based on some number.

 

You bring up an interesting point. If you speed, you get a fine, if you are over 20+ over the speed limit, dont' you get excessive fines?

 

Yes, unfortunately I can vouch for that.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I don't see why there should be a slap on the wrist just because TLR was at .093 as opposed to some higher BAC. He was asleep, the engine running, at a traffic light. He's very lucky something horrible didn't happen. Just because he wasn't at 0.2 BAC doesn't mean he couldn't have done something dangerous given his altered state.

[TruffleShuffle]

I don't see why there should be a slap on the wrist just because TLR was at .093 as opposed to some higher BAC. He was asleep, the engine running, at a traffic light. He's very lucky something horrible didn't happen. Just because he wasn't at 0.2 BAC doesn't mean he couldn't have done something dangerous given his altered state.

 

what's your definition of a slap on the wrist? Any monetary fine they give him will be a joke, given what he earns in a year. If they suspend his license for a month, for most people that's a lot more than a slap on the wrist. It sure would be an inconvenience for me, having to take a cab or mooch off friends to get to work or go out anywhere.

[MustangMike]

I don't see why there should be a slap on the wrist just because TLR was at .093 as opposed to some higher BAC. He was asleep, the engine running, at a traffic light. He's very lucky something horrible didn't happen. Just because he wasn't at 0.2 BAC doesn't mean he couldn't have done something dangerous given his altered state.

 

what's your definition of a slap on the wrist? Any monetary fine they give him will be a joke, given what he earns in a year. If they suspend his license for a month, for most people that's a lot more than a slap on the wrist. It sure would be an inconvenience for me, having to take a cab or mooch off friends to get to work or go out anywhere.

 

You can't base the punishment on the fact he makes more than most and then say a fine would not hurt...because if a fine was the normal punishment, that would bother the average joe. However since driving is a priveledge, you should have that priviledge revoked for these offenses imo.

[ToupeeOnFire]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0322071larussa1.html

 

For example, when asked to recite the alphabet, LaRussa stumbled after "n." He claimed, according to a report, that the letter was followed by "i, z, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, v, z, t, u, v..........x,y,z with a pause."

 

I know this is probably wrong of me, but BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[bc2k]

DUI is nothing to joke about. A 62 year old man should know better. Tony could of killed someone.

 

"Could of"? :roll:

 

Maybe "could have."

[bc2k]

I think people are just becoming desensitized to DUI offenses. Inevitably the argument always comes up, "Well, he didn't do anything nobody else has ever done." Not EVERYONE has.

 

I'm rather sensitive to this recently though. The school I teach at had a student killed recently, a junior, after being hit by a drunk driver. The real sad part is that the person that hit him also went to the same school, they were a senior.

 

There was more than one person behind the wheel? That sounds like the problem, not the intoxication level of the drivers.