quote:I think it's great that he's stepping up and facing the charges as opposed to using his influence to make the situation disappear.
He drifts through a stop. The cops pull him out for a sobriety test, and he blows 0.088 into a breathalyzer. Can't be said that he's only opting to face the charges: he had no option to make this situation disappear, CEO or no.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He blew a .073 something, then twenty minutes later blew the .088. A competent lawyer will get this reduced to DWI, a less serious offense, because he was not driving with a .08.
quote:In one breath test, he registered a blood alcohol level of 0.073 percent. In a second, 20 minutes later, he registered 0.088. In Colorado a blood alcohol count of 0.05 results in a driving while impaired charge, while a count of 0.08 results in driving under the influence.
Legal analyst Scott Robinson said drivers with no previous alcohol convictions are usually held to have driven while impaired, rather than the more serious driving while under the influence. A DWI finding can result in a loss of driving privileges for 90 days; DUI can result in suspension for a year.
posted
I'd say so, if the person is "acting" more impaired than their numbers would seem to indicate.
They also have the option of requiring a blood draw for a drug test (in addition to an alcohol test, of course).
But, if they can "get him" on a DUI it carries the same penalty and is a lot cheaper. Drug tests cost a lot of money and chew up a lot of officer time taking the person down for a blood draw, waiting for results, and so on.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Colorado might have redefined their offense to be driving while any test shows a given level w/in two hours. If that's the case, they probably took it to get the higher reading, because BAC often rises for a while after drinking.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And, to be frank, considering drunk driving as someone "being only human" is setting back traffic safety in this country at least 40 years.
We've worked hard to keep people from driving drunk. Why? Becuase that single behavior was implicated in about 50% of all fatalities on our roads.
This isn't "just human" it's a collosally stupid thing to do and anyone who doesn't know that by now shouldn't have a driver's license, at all.
And if any of you drive drunk: KNOCK IT OFF.
No Bob, what is being human is making mistakes.
Perhaps I wasn't explicit in my earlier post, but I was objecting to the fact that his drunken driving charge was being made into a statement. It’s not a statement, he didn’t go and do this to show us, look what happened to me, don’t you go do this. He wasn't representing the Coors Brewery when he was pulled over. He just made a mistake, and now will pay for it. Just, as was pointed out with some awe before, like the rest of us would if we made this mistake.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, he didn't just "make a mistake" he made a choice to drive under the influence.
If you drink, don't drive.
It may be sad that he'll get more publicity than someone who doesn't own a brewery and/or run ads about drinking responsibly, but that's a different issue. That just means he has more at stake, not that he's any less stupid for having made this choice.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you look at it from a 'no-one’s-immune-to-the repercussions-of-drinking-and-driving' standpoint - it could turn out to be a good thing. As long as it wakes up a person or two to the stupidity of dd.
Posts: 1355 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you look at it from a 'no-one’s-immune-to-the repercussions-of-drinking-and-driving' standpoint - it could turn out to be a good thing. As long as it wakes up a person or two to the stupidity of dd.
I'm not happy about anyone's personal tragedies. I can see your point, BUT...in the meantime we have someone who screwed up and has to face up to their own problem.
If I take your view of it, a part of me would be glad that there are alcoholic skid row bums 'cuz they might serve as an object lesson to others.
Nah, I'm not really able to like that kind of trade-off. I'd rather there were no alcoholic skid row bums.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pete Coors is the only individual whose political candidacy I have ever spent time opposing. I logged a lot of volunteer hours working against him. Picketing. Flyers. I was actually, for once, that straaaaange dude who goes around and says 'excuse me sir!!' and comes idling towards you, brandishing pamphlets. Yes, it's as weird as it looks.
It's such a strange state of affairs, but Pete was worth it. He was just too duplicitous. He emphasized every trait I loathe about politics.
This whole incident is strangely cathartic to me, since it essentially seals his political career forever. It's an epilogue to my life's first real political activism.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My cousin was killed by a drunk driver. As a result, I have some pretty strong feelings about people driving while impaired. Despite that, I'll take any media that puts it into the spotlight as a foolish action. I just hope Pete Coors does more than to say, essentially, I was stupid - don't do what I did.
Posts: 1355 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You would think the president of one of the largest breweries in the world would have the sense and resources to call for a ride home. Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would venture that the time to decide you're not going to drive is before you start drinking. I've seen some drunk people, and they're not really in the best frame of mind to be able to make the decision that they can't drive. So they should admit to themselves that they're going to drink enough to be impaired, give up their keys early, and have either a ride home or a place to stay--before they start drinking. And a friend who stays sober to make sure that they don't drive.
Seems that if this guy had followed those rules, this never would have happened. It's a major flaw in planning, too. Not driving drunk is more than just being able to make a hazy decision not to drive when you're already wasted or buzzed.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One problem is that it's still called "drunk driving."
Most people are legally impaired and under the influence well before they would call themselves drunk. It might seem minor, but someone who thinks of it as "drunk driving" is going to evaluate whether he should drive based on the question, "Am I drunk?"
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
CO does indeed have a two-hour window law. That was news to me. It says that the person has to be tested within two hours or the officer has to rely on probable cause (and those cases are almost tossed out as a matter of routine).
BUT... a trooper told me that they would test 2x only if they were concerned about a felony case and wanted to be able to show whether the BAC was trending up or down at the time of the actual arrest.
Given that, they may have done it in this case because the guy is a celeb? Not sure.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
