Wirfs suspended one game

[HawkGold]

You just need to chill out. For one thing, for the average citizen .08 is super low.
#2 https://www.google.com/search?sourc...j1......0....1.......3..41j46i131.mrmcsUhOiBM

That means caffeine, cold medicine any perscription.
That means that technically 99% of people on the road right now are under the influence of something.
At least he wasn't flying a plane full of passengers drunk or being captain of an oil tanker.

there just needs to be more rational thought on drunk driving. Cold medicine isn't going to over blow a football player unless he is abusing it.

I'm not on a witch hunt. The flip side is the trivializing this needs to stop.

 

[HawkGold]

So being over the legal limit makes you unable to think rationally, in any way, whatsoever. That's your take? I've been over the legal limit plenty of times (I'm guessing because I've never blown over) and am still capable of rational thought - then again I'm a very logical and rational person. To simply make the claim that nobody with a BAC over .08% is capable of rational thought is a ludicrous and innacurate statement.

I would expect you'd talk about your own drinking training and ability. There is a reason that .08 has been chosen as the standard. It's not anecdotal.

 

[4thngoal]

there just needs to be more rational thought on drunk driving. Cold medicine isn't going to over blow a football player unless he is abusing it.

I'm not on a witch hunt. The flip side is the trivializing this needs to stop.

But you don't know that. Everyone reacts different to different substances and different amounts of said substances. Don't believe me? Feed a toddler some candy and watch them go. Feed the same amount to an adult and nothing.

 

[Adam]

Totally being irrational. Don't get on the forefathers hype. Besides, like it or not our forefathers were willing to use average people to protect their monetary/business interests. That's just history unless you want to only believe the mom and apple line. With the forefathers, the real truth is in the middle. Many of them lost money from the revolution and some their lives. But, it wasn't as altruistic as painted in history books.

The statement was made that 15 mph scooter can't/won't hurt anyone. They can do what they want on their own property, but again if he as driver wrecks and one of the passengers dies,he is liable. Laws are also about prevention maybe more than punishment.

You seem to confuse having fun with being drunk. I suppose you support smoking in restaurants where your children are?

You've got the high horse. I disagree with your premise and you don't like it.

With my usual disclaimer for Fry, we all come at this with our own experience. For me it was getting hit by a drunk uncle on a motorcycle driving at about 10 mph. I went flying. He hit my chest and legs. If I was smaller might have involved a head injury (let the smart assing begin).

First, No one is arguing that drinking and driving is ok. I doubt anyone thinks drunk people should be driving. The argument is focused around the circumstances surrounding Wirfs particular case. Sure he could have magnetically attracted a planet killer asteroid because of his drunkenness and particular planetary alignment of Jupiter and Venus, but that is not what happened. We don't punish people for what could have been. At the end of the day Wirfs drank, hopped on a scooter, and got caught. That is the extent of it. No matter how bad the situation could have been, that isn't what it was.

Second, you should simply be embarrassed of your perverse accounting of the sacrifice that the men who shaped the land of freedom made. I'm sure that you have the intestinal fortitude to start a war over your beliefs. One that will be fought on your soil and endanger the life of everyone that you have ever known or cared about.

Keep enjoying that freedom while you openly disrespect those who laid it all on the line for it.

 

[Ree4]

I would expect you'd talk about your own drinking training and ability.

Training? LOL. Right... here was me with my Booze Coach last night

There is a reason that .08 has been chosen as the standard. It's not anecdotal.

Sorry, I just don't have the same level of faith in the accuracy and reasonings of State and Federal government that you do.

 

[HawkGold]

First, No one is arguing that drinking and driving is ok. I doubt anyone thinks drunk people should be driving. The argument is focused around the circumstances surrounding Wirfs particular case. Sure he could have magnetically attracted a planet killer asteroid because of his drunkenness and particular planetary alignment of Jupiter and Venus, but that is not what happened. We don't punish people for what could have been. At the end of the day Wirfs drank, hopped on a scooter, and got caught. That is the extent of it. No matter how bad the situation could have been, that isn't what it was.

Second, you should simply be embarrassed of your perverse accounting of the sacrifice that the men who shaped the land of freedom made. I'm sure that you have the intestinal fortitude to start a war over your beliefs. One that will be fought on your soil and endanger the life of everyone that you have ever known or cared about.

Keep enjoying that freedom while you openly disrespect those who laid it all on the line for it.

Dude, you have no clue about your last statement. I'd say more, but I'd just upset Fry. You are painting a wide brush on the main topic and the vet thing. Using vets is a common tactic that those who are against evidence want to use to shut people up.. You shouldn't do that. Don't question me about respecting vets. It's an argument you'll lose. Though I'm pro vet, it doesn't mean history is always as it seems and you know that. To the subject, .08 was chosen for a reason. Those who argue that it's OK generally has a vested interest one way or another.

 

[HawkGold]

Training? LOL. Right... here was me with my Booze Coach last night

Sorry, I just don't have the same level of faith in the accuracy and reasonings of State and Federal government that you do.

We actually agree about part of that. However, the .08, that one I disagree on.

 

[Adam]

Dude, you have no clue about your last statement. I'd say more, but I'd just upset Fry. You are painting a wide brush on the main topic and the vet thing. Using vets is a common tactic that those who are against evidence want to use to shut people up.. You shouldn't do that. Don't question me about respecting vets. It's an argument you'll lose. Though I'm pro vet, it doesn't mean history is always as it seems and you know that. To the subject, .08 was chosen for a reason. Those who argue that it's OK generally has a vested interest one way or another.

Sure you "support the troops". How woke you are. We aren't talking about veterans man. We are talking about the people that you defame as war profiteers. The men with true bravery and action to stand up against injustice. I would take the time to teach you some history, but I'm sure you already have a doctorate in socialist revisionist history.

 

[HawkGold]

Sure you "support the troops". How woke you are. We aren't talking about veterans man. We are talking about the people that you defame as war profiteers. The men with true bravery and action to stand up against injustice. I would take the time to teach you some history, but I'm sure you already have a doctorate in socialist revisionist history.

We're sounding like Fry and Dean. Dude, where have I said anything about the soldiers. Seriously you don't know what you are talking about. I get heckled by some about my Dr Phil mode, but there is a reason for (not I'm not a counselor), but I do work with vets and am well appreciated thank you very much. I'm actually attending an upcoming Division Banquet as a guest of a vet I've worked with. Let it go.

Let me give you an example on how history is changed. 101 Division at Bastogne. General Says NUTS! to the Germans. What he really said was, "aw nuts" when he found out he was completely surrounded low on supplies and the Germsn were saying give up or lose your whole division and many civilians. What's funny is that the Germans actually punctured tanks into Bastogne, but the Division Commander was hit by a shell and his higher up said to pull back without full information to attack the next day.

History isn't always what it seems. There is a scientific reason for ..08 though regardless of anecdotal evidence of he men being able to be totally aware at .08 in their legend.

As I said, we aren't going to sold drunk driving. Drunk driving should be a reason for a major suspension in some opinions. Mine included. The public intox is about right for a first time. Being on the team is a privilege and players should act accordingly. It's possible to have fun w/o getting drunk. It's a personal choice in your own home. Outside it isn't. Team rules are another issue and being legal has nothing to do with any of it. There should be a clear concise policy and evenly distributed even to your own kids as coach. The season is about to start. This isn't a high school team. This isn't a club team.

 

[Ree4]

There is a scientific reason for ..08 though regardless of anecdotal evidence of he men being able to be totally aware at .08 in their legend.

Show me a scientific study that shows nobody is capable of reason if they blow above .08 because we all know that breathalyzers are generally inadmissible in court. I assume you know that because you know everything. Many studies show that a PBT has a 50% margin of error...

Drunk driving should be a reason for a major suspension in some opinions.

In some opinions, but not those that matter. Kirk disagrees with you.

It's possible to have fun w/o getting drunk.

Duh.

It's a personal choice in your own home. Outside it isn't.

Wrong.

Look I understand you have an emotional connection to alcohol - tragedies and near death experiences could do that to anyone. I won't judge you for not drinking as you seem to judge those of us that do.

 

[HawkGold]

Show me a scientific study that shows nobody is capable of reason if they blow above .08 because we all know that breathalyzers are generally inadmissible in court. I assume you know that because you know everything. Many studies show that a PBT has a 50% margin of error...

In some opinions, but not those that matter. Kirk disagrees with you.

Duh.

Wrong.

Look I understand you have an emotional connection to alcohol - tragedies and near death experiences could do that to anyone. I won't judge you for not drinking as you seem to judge those of us that do.

In part I can't disagree. However, it also works in reverse. About the test, of course. But the 08 is from studies. How it's admined is a different story. Falling down, getting into a police car, stuff like that doesn't help.

The tests would be like soil tests. You can take the same sample to the same lab and have 2 different people do the test and have differing results. I get that. Generally I've seen enough to be skeptical of police claims.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

New info for the board: Gold was on hand during the Fascist American Revolution...

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

Just...wow.

 

[PCHawk]

I would expect you'd talk about your own drinking training and ability. There is a reason that .08 has been chosen as the standard. It's not anecdotal.

Saying they chose .08 because that is the level where everyone becomes dangerous is like saying children's Tylenol chose their dosages because kids might die if you go slightly over. What .08 means is that it's likely there are some people out there who might lose a tiny bit of reaction time and motor skills once they hit that level.

That's where the gray area is. If I could take law out of the equation and had to decide who could more safely drive my kids between me at .08 and an old lady sober, I'm picking me every time and frankly it's not even close. You don't go from perfectly fine at .07 to a menace to society at .08. They just have to draw a line somewhere. And of course that line is going to error on the side of caution (like children's medication) and more than likely continue to go down.

 

[PCHawk]

And don't get my started on driving a boat drunk. There is already a law that says you can't get within 100 feet of another boat. How drunk do you need to be to accidently get within 100 feet and end up hitting someone? Especially when everyone in both boats would have to not see you coming too.

In a car you see someone coming from a mile away and you know you have to pass within 5 feet eventually. One quick mistake can cause an accident. You don't have the luxury of having a passenger tell you to change your course of direction 1 degree so you miss them by 100 feet. Or the luxury of the other driver seeing you from a mile away and changing his course of direction to miss by 100 feet.

All the impairments that alcohol cause have nothing to do with what it takes to not crash a boat. Up until a ridiculously drunk point at least. Yet the alcohol level is the exact same as in a car. It makes literally no sense at all.

If they want to prevent boating accidents there are way better laws to make. Make people get a boating license. That's a no brainer but you don't need one in Iowa . A drunk experienced boater is 100 times safer than a sober novice one.

The best law they should make is make it illegal to drive with a wake if you're drunk. Let people coast their boat back legally and they will lower the chances of death to exactly 0%. That's the only law they need. If they want to go over the top they could say no driving a boat drunk after sunset like jet skis. Driving at night is already dangerous so don't let it be legal to add to that danger by being drunk. That is at least better than what they have now.

Sorry for the long rant.

 

[Ree4]

And don't get my started on driving a boat drunk. There is already a law that says you can't get within 100 feet of another boat. How drunk do you need to be to accidently get within 100 feet and end up hitting someone? Especially when everyone in both boats would have to not see you coming too.

In a car you see someone coming from a mile away and you know you have to pass within 5 feet eventually. One quick mistake can cause an accident. You don't have the luxury of having a passenger tell you to change your course of direction 1 degree so you miss them by 100 feet. Or the luxury of the other driver seeing you from a mile away and changing his course of direction to miss by 100 feet.

All the impairments that alcohol cause have nothing to do with what it takes to not crash a boat. Up until a ridiculously drunk point at least. Yet the alcohol level is the exact same as in a car. It makes literally no sense at all.

If they want to prevent boating accidents there are way better laws to make. Make people get a boating license. That's a no brainer but you don't need one in Iowa . A drunk experienced boater is 100 times safer than a sober novice one.

The best law they should make is make it illegal to drive with a wake if you're drunk. Let people coast their boat back legally and they will lower the chances of death to exactly 0%. That's the only law they need. If they want to go over the top they could say no driving a boat drunk after sunset like jet skis. Driving at night is already dangerous so don't let it be legal to add to that danger by being drunk. That is at least better than what they have now.

Sorry for the long rant.

I totally agree about boating, the DNR hassle everyone at the Coralville Lake, I go out several times every year. We always have one person who doesn't drink at all because they will stop you for no reason whatsoever. I think my friend has taken over a dozen sobriety tests. One of them he failed (they made him take his sunglasses off and basically stare into the sun) so they breathalyzed him - he passed easily but they still wouldn't let him drive the boat back to the docks - just ridiculous. When driving a boat especially at a slow speed you literally have to change course/make a decision maybe once every two minutes.

 

[Adam]

We're sounding like Fry and Dean. Dude, where have I said anything about the soldiers. Seriously you don't know what you are talking about. I get heckled by some about my Dr Phil mode, but there is a reason for (not I'm not a counselor), but I do work with vets and am well appreciated thank you very much. I'm actually attending an upcoming Division Banquet as a guest of a vet I've worked with. Let it go.

Let me give you an example on how history is changed. 101 Division at Bastogne. General Says NUTS! to the Germans. What he really said was, "aw nuts" when he found out he was completely surrounded low on supplies and the Germsn were saying give up or lose your whole division and many civilians. What's funny is that the Germans actually punctured tanks into Bastogne, but the Division Commander was hit by a shell and his higher up said to pull back without full information to attack the next day.

History isn't always what it seems. There is a scientific reason for ..08 though regardless of anecdotal evidence of he men being able to be totally aware at .08 in their legend.

As I said, we aren't going to sold drunk driving. Drunk driving should be a reason for a major suspension in some opinions. Mine included. The public intox is about right for a first time. Being on the team is a privilege and players should act accordingly. It's possible to have fun w/o getting drunk. It's a personal choice in your own home. Outside it isn't. Team rules are another issue and being legal has nothing to do with any of it. There should be a clear concise policy and evenly distributed even to your own kids as coach. The season is about to start. This isn't a high school team. This isn't a club team.

Look man I will end this senseless debate with this: You're human. That means you're flawed. Be humble. Be slow to judge and be even slower to condemn.

Drunk drivers are not monsters. They are humans with easily recognized flaws. Most have them have a full range of redeemable qualities. A small percentage are lost causes. Don't be so quick to condemn a young man for his first publicized flaw. It's just not a good look. It's fine to state how much you detest drinking and driving. It's fine to state that you believe the punishment should be worse. Just keep the self righteous judgement to yourself and I personally will have no qualms.

P.S. I still feel strongly that you should reconsider your opinions of revolutionary history. The men that signed our Declaration of Independence risked life and limb for freedom from oppression. They literally risked all of that wealth and stature they had accrued. Beating the British Empire was anything but a foregone conclusion. You should once again be humble and stand in awe of the inspiring bravery that must have taken. After all without that bravery there is some serious doubt that enlightened, free speaking HawkGold even exists today. All I'm saying is pay homage.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Look man I will end this senseless debate with this: You're human. That means you're flawed. Be humble. Be slow to judge and be even slower to condemn.

Drunk drivers are not monsters. They are humans with easily recognized flaws. Most have them have a full range of redeemable qualities. A small percentage are lost causes. Don't be so quick to condemn a young man for his first publicized flaw. It's just not a good look. It's fine to state how much you detest drinking and driving. It's fine to state that you believe the punishment should be worse. Just keep the self righteous judgement to yourself and I personally will have no qualms.

P.S. I still feel strongly that you should reconsider your opinions of revolutionary history. The men that signed our Declaration of Independence risked life and limb for freedom from oppression. They literally risked all of that wealth and stature they had accrued. Beating the British Empire was anything but a foregone conclusion. You should once again be humble and stand in awe of the inspiring bravery that must have taken. After all without that bravery there is some serious doubt that enlightened, free speaking HawkGold even exists today. All I'm saying is pay homage.

Many gave up or lost their families, as well. Some literally had no homes, families, businesses, etc., to return to. They ended up persevering/prospering in spite of their losses, not because of "oppressing" others.

It turns my stomach to see what revisionist history gets put forward nowadays.

 

[HawkGold]

Look man I will end this senseless debate with this: You're human. That means you're flawed. Be humble. Be slow to judge and be even slower to condemn.

Drunk drivers are not monsters. They are humans with easily recognized flaws. Most have them have a full range of redeemable qualities. A small percentage are lost causes. Don't be so quick to condemn a young man for his first publicized flaw. It's just not a good look. It's fine to state how much you detest drinking and driving. It's fine to state that you believe the punishment should be worse. Just keep the self righteous judgement to yourself and I personally will have no qualms.

P.S. I still feel strongly that you should reconsider your opinions of revolutionary history. The men that signed our Declaration of Independence risked life and limb for freedom from oppression. They literally risked all of that wealth and stature they had accrued. Beating the British Empire was anything but a foregone conclusion. You should once again be humble and stand in awe of the inspiring bravery that must have taken. After all without that bravery there is some serious doubt that enlightened, free speaking HawkGold even exists today. All I'm saying is pay homage.

Senseless? You don't stop and aren't humble I never condemned anyone. For a OWI, the minimum penalty should be 3 games. 2nd offense gone. For public intoxication, the penalty was about right, but do it again 3 games and off the team on the 3rd even if your the son of the HC.

Drunk drivers are people like everyone else. Life is messy. You seem to confuse having an opinion with self righteous judgement. I suspect we both have reasons why we feel the way we do. Rev History? Come on. History is never as the sanitized version. The founding fathers were actually quite revolutionary on rights with the Pre Amble to the Const in how they worded thing. As far as we wouldn't have freedoms is a bit disingenuous as British people seem to be able to post quite well today. You sound a bit like the America Love it or Leave it crowd. You really should apply critical thinking in looking at history.

Without people taking a shot at questioning things, there wouldn't be an Adam posting on HN. You should look at Nixon and how he interacted with the Post and the Times.

Interestingly the reporter breaking the OSU story is an unaffiliated reporter.

 

[Hawknigh]

Actually (sorry Fry), I know someone who was on the Quantus flight that blew a door in flight. The guy next to him held on to the armrest and the armrest broke and out went the guy. This guy was an airline mech in Indy and yes he quit flying.

Personally I love to fly, but flying Cathay Pacific to Hong Kong is brutal. Yes I would be terrified to do that again. Limited English movies and small seats. Al Italia is terrifying too. The head rests aren't in the right position for me and the flight attendants have big noses. Scares me.

Easy solution. Get upgraded.