.079 BAC in ATL. Driving 66 in a 45. Damn. I thought he was a clean dude. http://www.ajc.com/sports/georgia-tech/former-tech-star-jarrett-847134.html
LOL, this will get dropped quickly. As for the "clean dude" comment, It sounds like he was barely at the limit when pulled over, and for all we know, he coul dhave stopped drinking hours beforehand and tried to do the right thing, thinking he was ok by then.
"Clean dude" probably wasn't the right way to put it. I wanted to say a smart man of high character, who knows how to do what's right. This is out of character for him, I'd say.
how does he gut "hit" with a DUI when he measured barely UNDER the limit? seems like he will barely escape this, non event
I wonder how many beers that is? I know in the past I have had 3 or 4 pints then gone home. Does anybody know about this?
Depends on how long he was there, but I seem to remember that it takes 4 beers in an hour to get a 200 lb man legally drunk.
If you are unable to talk clearly, walk straight, and perform basic motor skills you can still get a DUI if your blood alcohol content is below .08
If the law allows for extrapolating blood-alcohol levels (.02 grams per hour dissipation) then that combined with him going 20 MPH over the limit (which I've read can be charged as reckless driving or even a felony in some places) won't look too good. I don't know what legal repercussions he'd face, but he was hardly innocently minding his own business and got hit by a technicality.
That would just be for domestic brews....the amazing micros we have in the NW would be much fewer. Bottom line is that an officer can cite you for DUII even if you blow a .06, all he has to determine is that your motor skills are impaired. I don't consider single DUII offenders bad people as good people can make a bad decision. Repeat DUI offenders are a different story.
He's kept his nose clean before. I consider this to be an aberration. Everyone makes mistakes. I know I've driven home the night before only to realize the next morning it was a REALLY bad idea.
You'd think he would be good at a field sobriety test........ in Portland all he did was step on the out of bounds line!
Even when you finally come up with a good joke, you mess up the phrasing. "...all he did was step on the out of bounds line" is so awkward. Here, I'll fix it for you: "You'd think he would be good at a field sobriety test........ in Portland all he did was step on the line!" You can't overexplain your joke. Either people will get it, and it'll be a good joke, or they won't get it, which is the risk you run. By trying to ensure they get it, you just spoil it. Free advice.
Actually, yours was better because the out of bounds line is linear, and appropriate to relate it to a DUI field test. Minstrel's was too vague. What line did Jack always step upon? The line between good and evil? The line between sanity and insanity? The line between sobriety and insobriety? The line between average and good (or bad)? The FT line? The 3-point line? It's confusing... Just my two cents, though.
PapaG just likes to disagree with me, because he thinks one day he'll get me angry and I'll flip out. He's been waiting for that for years. Waiting, waiting, ever so sure it will happen one day. Anyway, it's pretty obvious what line, what with Jack being a basketball player and the constant criticism of him by Portland fans being that he stepped on the out of bounds line constantly. It's just that SAYING "out of bounds line" is both awkwardly long and makes it no longer fit the drunk test part of the joke.
