Tweet
Re: Dominic Rhodes Under Arrest
So that's what they mean when they call someone "**** drunk"
So that's what they mean when they call someone "**** drunk"
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
-
Re: Dominic Rhodes Under Arrest
He peed on himself? Well, at least now we know why he was driving so fast.
Yikes.The poster formerly known as RimfireComment
-
Re: Dominic Rhodes Under Arrest
Just so you guys know.... It is nearly impossible to 'pass' FST's since the pass/fail grade is fairly subjective. Also, the 'grade' is handed out only after the arrest has been made and the paperwork filed.
Am I saying a police officer would lie? No....
I'm saying what he might call a failure would not be called a failure by anyone watching the tests. The perception is that a failure is someone staggering down the straight line, missing their nose entirely with their index finger (or pinky), falling over, etc..
If the policeman is asked (via deposition or on the stand (tho it would be stupid to ask it on the stand in trial unless you had video tape or the deposition in your arsenal as a defense atty)) to actually describe the test and performance, what he rates as the reason for the failure can be arguably fairly insignificant (especially to a jury).
An example, in the 'walk and turn' test you're expected to keep your hands at your side. If at any point, including the turn, your hands don't remain RIGIDLY at your side the officer could deem that a failure even if you walked the line perfectly. His paperwork won't say you walked the line perfectly, it'll just mention your inability to keep your hands at your side as requested and a mark of 'fail'.
Another example would be the 'one legged stand'. The officer could instruct you to count (as you hold one leg off the ground) "1000-1, 1000-2, 1000-3..."
And you raise your leg and count "1-1000, 2-1000, 3-1000...." He can call that a failure even if you maintained your balance perfectly fine (you didn't count EXACTLY as he'd instructed).
And of course none of this stuff is exactly easy in the first place. It's typically late, dark, you're nervous (whether you've had a drink or not), embarassed, you're not on level ground, there could be wind, an old injury, tiredness, etc all at play.
Most attys will tell you that the FST's aren't so much to prove your sobriety as just give the officer more evidence against you. By the time you're taking the FST's the officer has a pretty good idea that he's going to be making an arrest or else he wouldn't be asking you to do them in the first place. So obviously his opinion on a subjective pass/fail will skew toward fail. And he doesn't have to give you the grade right then, it'll only be after the PBT and if that is a fail (or close) then after you take the breathalyzer at the station (and if that is a fail) only then will he actually put his grades into writing.
Now, one of the failed FST's could've been the eye test. We'll need a doctor or doctor of optometry to speak to that.
And in the 'never do that' category- When Rhodes said he'd had '2 or 3 alcoholic drinks'. A prosecutor can make hay with that all day long. "Is it 2 or is it 3? You don't know? Then it could be 4 couldn't it... afterall you don't know... 2...3...4... maybe 5. You weren't counting were you?"
Of course another question is whether once he was in custody he kept talking or requested an atty.
At .09 the margin of error can be a big factor here (I'd expect that breathalyzer (if in fact that is what was used) to have its records thoroughly checked and I'd expect an expert to be lined up who will speak to the effects of raw alcohol and other false positive scenarios should this go to trial. And there's certain procedures that must be followed in regards to the breathalyzer so you can rest assured those will be taken into account.
I wouldn't convict him just yet on what little we've heard. Hearing he failed a couple of FST's without hearing the FST performance described in detail really means nothing to us on the outside looking in.
And this- "GMC Yukon drive onto the shoulder briefly" isn't exactly 'bad'. He could've said swerving, driving erratic, etc if he'd really observed anything too bad.
Of course there's still the 82 in a 55.
I'm not defending drunken driving... just explaining how the system might work and what his atty will be looking at.
Maybe Skaut or Marion Deputy can add or correct anything if I've got anything wrong or maybe need more elaboration from the State's side of things.
-BballNuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
Re: Dominic Rhodes Under Arrest
Dude, he pissed himself and "Later" blew a .09, which means it was higher, possibly much higher while he was driving.Originally posted by Bball View Post
This makes me sick. The guy is dead to rights, and you're sitting there defending him like he's a choir boy. Just make sure you defend Jamaal and Marquis this vehemently the next time they get in trouble. After all, that would be their 2nd arrest, which Dom has already matched or even exceeded.Comment
-
Re: Dominic Rhodes Under Arrest
I said:Originally posted by Eindar View Post
"I'm not defending drunken driving... just explaining how the system might work and what his atty will be looking at."
And as far as that .09 being on the way down... There's no way to know that from the facts that are presented. It could be going up... it could be going down.... and it could be wrong.
But, since you missed it the first time: I'm not making a position one way or the other I am just explaining how this might play out legally IF they choose to fight it. Which doesn't mean he'll get any traction at all. And he might agree that he was 'dead to rights' and just plead guilty.
Jamaal and Quis could've just walked away and there's no case. If they did that, or if they tried and had to fight their way out for fear of their lives, then I'll be glad to defend them.
But then again, I'm not defending Dom... I'm explaining what his atty would most likely be looking at IF they chose to fight this.
-BballNuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
Re: Dominic Rhodes Under Arrest
Sir, I gotta go.....
PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731Comment
-
Re: Dominic Rhodes Under Arrest
Dominic had no problems with this stuff until he spent a day at Disney World with that Mickey Mouse guy. It has to be MM's influence that turned DR to the dark side.
Peeing on himself is bad. Maybe he was just nervous and has a weak bladder. After all he took a pounding in Miami just days prior to this speeding incident.
82 mph at 3:00 am is normal for Indy. Even in the daytime if you don't drive 80 you could get run over by the fast traffic. If you drive around 465 in the home of the Indy 500 you had better be fast.Comment
-
Re: Dominic Rhodes Under Arrest
He's either an extreme light weight, which I doubt, or he really had to go.
There's no way he was "**** drunk" at .09. At .09 I'm just catching a buzz, and he outweighs me by over 10lbs.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
The poster formerly known as RimfireComment
-
Re: Dominic Rhodes Under Arrest
Flawed logic. Invalid argument.Originally posted by Since86 View PostComment
-
Re: Dominic Rhodes Under Arrest
You don't lose control of bodily functions at .09.
Up until 2002, .10 was the legal driving limit. Do you really think that it would have even been that if at .09 you lose control of bodily functions?
I seriously doubt he was "**** drunk." I'm not defending his actions, he should be punished if he was driving while intoxicated.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Dominic Rhodes Under Arrest
Not a smart move for a free agent.
If you asking yourself Cato or Dom, does this change your choice?
I sure do like the 2 running back approach.
Who knows? I do think Polian & Dungy will make the right call.1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.
Comment
-
Re: Dominic Rhodes Under Arrest
Not a smart move for a free agent.
If you asking yourself Cato or Dom, does this change your choice?
I sure do like the 2 running back approach.
Who knows? I do think Polian & Dungy will make the right call.
They always say how they want a team that did things the right way.1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.
Comment
-
Re: Dominic Rhodes Under Arrest
Colts' Rhodes will keep license for now
A Marion County judge allowed Indianapolis Colts running back Dominic Rhodes to keep his driver?s license Monday after a defense attorney argued there were inconsistencies between two police documents filed in the drunken driving case.
Superior Court Judge Barbara Collins sided with Rhodes? lawyers and took the unusual step of reinstating the license of an accused drunken driver while he awaits trial. A license suspension is typically automatic, but in this case, the judge found that the arresting officer failed to properly file his paperwork.
?The court did not suspend the driver?s license because the affidavits were inconsistent,? defense attorney James Voyles said.
The ruling only postpones the suspension of Rhodes? license, said David Wyser, the Marion County prosecutor?s chief trial deputy.
?You can?t change the fact that he blew a .09 (blood-alcohol level),? Wyser said. ?We only have to prove he blew a .08 or higher.?
On Feb 20, Indiana State Police Trooper Ahmad I. Hafez stopped Rhodes in a silver GMC at 3:02 a.m. on northbound I-65 near 71st Street. Rhodes was driving 81 mph in a 55-mph zone and briefly swerved onto the shoulder of the road, according to court records.
Rhodes, 28, was charged with misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.If convicted Rhodes could receive up to a one-year sentence. A conviction on a first-time offense typically results in probation, a fine and treatment.
His contract with the Colts expires this week ? and a game-high 113 yards rushing in the Colts? Super Bowl victory over Chicago had given him a chance for a contract windfall when the NFL?s free agent signing period begins Friday.
Rhodes started all 16 regular-season games in 2006, rushing for 641 yards and five touchdowns while sharing running back duties with rookie Joseph Addai. The six-year veteran has rushed for 2,274 yards in his career.
IndyStar*com
Why Not Us ?
Comment
-
Re: Dominic Rhodes Under Arrest
Colts' Rhodes will keep license for now
By Vic Ryckaert
vic.ryckaert@indystar.com
February 26, 2007
A Marion County judge allowed Indianapolis Colts running back Dominic Rhodes to keep his driver?s license Monday after a defense attorney argued there were inconsistencies between two police documents filed in the drunken driving case.
Superior Court Judge Barbara Collins sided with Rhodes' lawyers and took the unusual step of reinstating the license of an accused drunken driver while he awaits trial. A license suspension is typically automatic, but in this case, the judge found that the arresting officer failed to properly file his paperwork.
The court did not suspend the driver's license because the affidavits were inconsistent, defense attorney James Voyles said.
The ruling only postpones the suspension of Rhodes? license, said David Wyser, the Marion County prosecutor's chief trial deputy.
You can't change the fact that he blew a .09 (blood-alcohol level), Wyser said. We only have to prove he blew a .08 or higher.
On Feb 20, Indiana State Police Trooper Ahmad I. Hafez stopped Rhodes in a silver GMC at 3:02 a.m. on northbound I-65 near 71st Street. Rhodes was driving 81 mph in a 55-mph zone and briefly swerved onto the shoulder of the road, according to court records.
Rhodes, 28, was charged with misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.If convicted Rhodes could receive up to a one-year sentence. A conviction on a first-time offense typically results in probation, a fine and treatment.
His contract with the Colts expires this week and a game-high 113 yards rushing in the Colts? Super Bowl victory over Chicago had given him a chance for a contract windfall when the NFL's free agent signing period begins Friday.
Indy*Star
Why Not Us ?
Comment
Comment