PDA

View Full Version : Richie Sexson arrested for suspicion of DUI


Jabroni
02-12-2005, 02:11 AM
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.asp?leaguenum=&sport=MLB&id=5931Latest News Feb. 11, 2005 - 9:55 pm et

Richie Sexson was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence on Feb. 5 and arraigned in court on Wednesday.
Sexson pled not guilty. A breathalyzer test taken when Sexson was pulled over registered his blood-alcohol level at .070 percent, below Washington's legal limit of .080. Nevertheless, the Clark County Sheriff's office has proceeded with the case. Sexson's next appearance in court will be March 15.

Source: Tacoma News Tribune (http://www.thenewstribune.com/front/topstories/story/4550543p-4262899c.html)

MUsoxfan
02-12-2005, 02:37 AM
Could it be that he had one too many "Sexson's on the Beach"?:D:

D. TODD
02-12-2005, 03:03 AM
Please, he's below the legal limit, which is very low, to start with. Quit drilling athletes for what most people do on a weekly basis. If he drank he had a couple what an ass!

Cubbiesuck13
02-12-2005, 03:20 AM
I'm with you D Todd. I don't condone drunk driving but the legal limit in most states is too low. I'm pretty sure everyone who has a car and has ever been to a bar has driving legally drunk. In VA they lowered the limit. Have one beer and drive home and you are breaking the law now.

SOXintheBURGH
02-12-2005, 08:45 AM
Please, he's below the legal limit, which is very low, to start with. Quit drilling athletes for what most people do on a weekly basis. If he drank he had a couple what an ass!


Hold up there, Todd. Ever hear of Atlanta Thrashers forwards Dany Heatley and Dan Snyder? That's the first thing that came to my mind when I heard that news on the radio - "Please God, he didn't kill somebody." Then I found out that his BA was .07, and I was relieved. But you never know how messed up somebody really is when they get behind the wheel.

RedPinStripes
02-12-2005, 08:59 AM
He was below the legal limit. I dont see why they're trying to prosecute him. Pro Athlete's used to get away with stuff like this, now they're a target so cops can make a name for themselves.


He hasnt even played a game for the Mariners yet! LOL!

RedPinStripes
02-12-2005, 09:00 AM
Where's UICJason to tell me Sexon's a terrible person for even attempting to have a few drinks and I'm scum for defending him?

mikef1331
02-12-2005, 10:18 AM
This is such BS. I guess you can get arrested these days if someone thinks you might get drunk at some point in time.

TDog
02-12-2005, 04:34 PM
He was below the legal limit. I dont see why they're trying to prosecute him. Pro Athlete's used to get away with stuff like this, now they're a target so cops can make a name for themselves.


He hasnt even played a game for the Mariners yet! LOL!

The term "legal limit" is a misnomer. At .08 percent, in most states, there is a presumption of guilt. (In Northern Ireland, it's .045 percent.) If you're driving eratically with alcohol in your system, you can be found guilty of drunken driving. Ordinary people are are charged and convicted of drunken driving with a blood-alcohol level below the legal limit more often than celebrities. Usually they end up pleading to reckless driving, sometimes with a DUI-like penalty. Sometimes it depends on the skills of the defense attorney.

Drunken driving is a serious problem even when it's below the legal threshold.

HomeFish
02-12-2005, 04:36 PM
Where's UICJason to tell me Sexon's a terrible person for even attempting to have a few drinks and I'm scum for defending him?

He must be somewhere enjoying the Cubs's successful offseason.

RedPinStripes
02-12-2005, 04:41 PM
The term "legal limit" is a misnomer. At .08 percent, in most states, there is a presumption of guilt. (In Northern Ireland, it's .045 percent.) If you're driving eratically with alcohol in your system, you can be found guilty of drunken driving. Ordinary people are are charged and convicted of drunken driving with a blood-alcohol level below the legal limit more often than celebrities. Usually they end up pleading to reckless driving, sometimes with a DUI-like penalty. Sometimes it depends on the skills of the defense attorney.

Drunken driving is a serious problem even when it's below the legal threshold.

.08 is about 3 beers or less in an hour for an average person. below that is rediculous. charge him with wreckless driving if he was driving like an idiot.

NSSoxFan
02-12-2005, 06:20 PM
I can't believe that anyone is trying to defend or tone down what Sexson did. As someone that has lost three close people due to drunk drivers, it doesn't matter what your BAL is, if you are not able to drive 100% correctly, then you shouldn't be able to drive at all, period.

TDog
02-12-2005, 09:42 PM
.08 is about 3 beers or less in an hour for an average person. below that is rediculous. charge him with wreckless driving if he was driving like an idiot.

Defending people who drink -- even three beers -- and go out and drive is ridiculous. And drinking a few beers isn't the best way to avoid wreck-less driving.

Cubbiesuck13
02-13-2005, 12:43 AM
I can't believe that anyone is trying to defend or tone down what Sexson did. As someone that has lost three close people due to drunk drivers, it doesn't matter what your BAL is, if you are not able to drive 100% correctly, then you shouldn't be able to drive at all, period.

It's sad that you lost people due to drunk driving but if you want to talk about not being able to drive 100% then you need to avoid the radio, your cell phone, your kids or anything you may be thinking about other than driving. Drinking large amounts of Caffine can make you jittery and have more of an affect than a beer would. Most people drive at less than 100% all the time and it has nothing to do with alcohol. Fact is, BAL is too low in most states. I have never met anyone who was drunk after two beers in an hour.

NSSoxFan
02-13-2005, 03:53 AM
I have never met anyone who was drunk after two beers in an hour.

Ever meet any girls?

Cubbiesuck13
02-13-2005, 04:05 AM
Ever meet any girls?

The only girls that get drunk off of three beers are pretending to be drunk. My girlfriend can hold her own with me... for a little while, of course.

Palehose13
02-13-2005, 08:23 AM
Ever meet any girls?

I was going to tell you that I can probably drink you under the table, but then when I saw that you aren't even 20 yet....I know I can. :wink:

Look, it is a tragic that you lost so many people that you care about to drunk driving. I'm really sorry about your losses. The point of the whole story is that Sexson was below the legal limit and should not be charged with a damn thing.

TornLabrum
02-13-2005, 09:02 AM
I was going to tell you that I can probably drink you under the table, but then when I saw that you aren't even 20 yet....I know I can. :wink:

Look, it is a tragic that you lost so many people that you care about to drunk driving. I'm really sorry about your losses. The point of the whole story is that Sexson was below the legal limit and should not be charged with a damn thing.

Again, the legal limit only serves as a guideline. People can be intoxicated enough to be a danger to themselves and others on the road at levels well below 0.08%. And, yes, you can get drunk on three drinks in an hour. If I drank that much I'd probably have a serious accident because I would not have any control over my faculties.

I don't drink very often, and I can get enough of a buzz on a couple of beers that I wouldn't dare drive. Anyone who thinks 0.08% is too low a limit doesn't have a clue as to the body's response to alcohol.

One great thing about freedom of speech: It even allows people who don't know what the hell they are talking about to express an opinion.

Brian26
02-13-2005, 10:08 AM
The only girls that get drunk off of three beers are pretending to be drunk. My girlfriend can hold her own with me... for a little while, of course.

I think it depends on the ht/wt of the girl, don't you think?

RedPinStripes
02-13-2005, 10:12 AM
I can't believe that anyone is trying to defend or tone down what Sexson did. As someone that has lost three close people due to drunk drivers, it doesn't matter what your BAL is, if you are not able to drive 100% correctly, then you shouldn't be able to drive at all, period.

Do you understand what .07 means? It means you're not drunk. I've been pulled ov er after 3 beers in a little over an hour. Didnt blow .07, wasnt drunk, and didnt get a DUI. Also, didnt kill anyone. I guess it depends on the person. I used to drink A LOT.

I dont promote drunk driving. I just think they're making a bigger deal out of it. The Legal limit is .08 in Washington. Slap wreckless driving on him if he was driving like an idiot. That's not a slap on the wrist.

TornLabrum
02-13-2005, 10:39 AM
Do you understand what .07 means? It means you're not drunk. I've been pulled ov er after 3 beers in a little over an hour. Didnt blow .07, wasnt drunk, and didnt get a DUI. Also, didnt kill anyone. I guess it depends on the person. I used to drink A LOT.

I dont promote drunk driving. I just think they're making a bigger deal out of it. The Legal limit is .08 in Washington. Slap wreckless driving on him if he was driving like an idiot. That's not a slap on the wrist.

I'm sure if you asked an MD, they would tell you that your assertion that 0.07% means you are not drunk is ********. It is a legal limit, not a medical limit.

Furthermore, the police have a right to pull you over if you are driving erratically and test your blood alcohol level. If you fail the field sobriety test, you're probably going to get ticketed for DUI or reckless driving regardless of your blood alcohol level because you are obviously impaired. I would think that if he failed a field sobriety test, the charge would still be DUI.

RedPinStripes
02-13-2005, 10:54 AM
I'm sure if you asked an MD, they would tell you that your assertion that 0.07% means you are not drunk is ********. It is a legal limit, not a medical limit.

Furthermore, the police have a right to pull you over if you are driving erratically and test your blood alcohol level. If you fail the field sobriety test, you're probably going to get ticketed for DUI or reckless driving regardless of your blood alcohol level because you are obviously impaired. I would think that if he failed a field sobriety test, the charge would still be DUI.

I'd be lucky to pass that sobriety test sober. :redneck If he had a hard time with the sobriety test, fine, but if they're giving him a dui over blowing .07 that's bull****.

voodoochile
02-13-2005, 10:55 AM
The problem lies in that the police don't test for other drugs and there aren't reliable tests available to them without drawing blood.

So he had a low alcohol content. Who knows what else he might have been on that caused him to be intoxicated even though he wasn't "drunk".

I agree with the perception that legally drunk levels are low by most people's standards. Most people won't consider themselves "drunk" until they are pushing a .15 or higher. For serious regular drinkers that number comes closer to .22. Seeing double starts to occur for most regular drinkers at close to the higher number there and drunks won't experience it until they are closer to .3.

RedPinStripes
02-13-2005, 11:09 AM
The problem lies in that the police don't test for other drugs and there aren't reliable tests available to them without drawing blood.

So he had a low alcohol content. Who knows what else he might have been on that caused him to be intoxicated even though he wasn't "drunk".

I agree with the perception that legally drunk levels are low by most people's standards. Most people won't consider themselves "drunk" until they are pushing a .15 or higher. For serious regular drinkers that number comes closer to .22. Seeing double starts to occur for most regular drinkers at close to the higher number there and drunks won't experience it until they are closer to .3.

That's where I'm coming from. We played a little game at my buddy's house who is a cop and has all the bac toys. I drank 6 beers in about 2 hours and i was .087. And by the end of the night i was .18 after about a 12 pack and a few shots. Yeah, I was tanked up and no i didnt drive.

The people who talk of "zero tollerance" are people who dont drink or cant handle liquor. To me , .08 or over should result in a dui because that's the legal limit. I'm just starting to feel a buzz at .08 if I drink beer. If i drink Jack and coke, i dont attempt to drive because i never have just 2.

Sexon could have been high too. Who knows? .07 doesnt sound drunk to me for a young mlb player who probably drinks a bit.

Ol' No. 2
02-13-2005, 11:12 AM
I'm sure if you asked an MD, they would tell you that your assertion that 0.07% means you are not drunk is ********. It is a legal limit, not a medical limit.

Furthermore, the police have a right to pull you over if you are driving erratically and test your blood alcohol level. If you fail the field sobriety test, you're probably going to get ticketed for DUI or reckless driving regardless of your blood alcohol level because you are obviously impaired. I would think that if he failed a field sobriety test, the charge would still be DUI.It's a legal limit, all right, but we're talking about a legal issue. If he's driving erratically or recklessly, there are other, more appropriate things he could be charged with. What's the point of having a legal limit if you can be charged anyway if you're under it? Can you charge someone with speeding if they're under the speed limit?

TDog
02-13-2005, 12:16 PM
It's a legal limit, all right, but we're talking about a legal issue. If he's driving erratically or recklessly, there are other, more appropriate things he could be charged with. What's the point of having a legal limit if you can be charged anyway if you're under it? Can you charge someone with speeding if they're under the speed limit?

On icy and snowy roads, people are charged and convicted with speeding on occasions where they are driving under the speed limit at speeds considered unsafe for conditions. I see it frequently this time of year.

The whole idea of a "legal limit" that you can be "this intoxicated" and still be able to legally drive is not just blatantly false. It gets people killed. The BAC standard for pilots is 0.00 percent. Pilots are supposed to go "eight hours between the bottle and throttle." Maybe if you're riding a bus, you wouldn't mind the driver having a BAC of .068 or even .034, but I would have a problem with sharing the roads with such drivers.

Typically, when someone agrees to get rid of a below .08-percent-DUI charge in exchange for a guilty plea to reckless driving, you will see a DUI penalty. Where I live that includes at least three days in jail and a three-month license revocation.

RedPinStripes
02-13-2005, 12:20 PM
On icy and snowy roads, people are charged and convicted with speeding on occasions where they are driving under the speed limit at speeds considered unsafe for conditions. I see it frequently this time of year.

The whole idea of a "legal limit" that you can be "this intoxicated" and still be able to legally drive is not just blatantly false. It gets people killed. The BAC standard for pilots is 0.00 percent. Pilots are supposed to go "eight hours between the bottle and throttle." Maybe if you're riding a bus, you wouldn't mind the driver having a BAC of .68 or even .34, but I would have a problem with sharing the roads with such drivers.

Typically, when someone agrees to get rid of a below .08-percent-DUI charge in exchange for a guilty plea to reckless driving, you will see a DUI penalty. Where I live that includes at least three days in jail and a three-month license revocation.

I wouldnt want a bus driver at .01. There is zero tollerance for Commercial vehicles. Again, That would be over the legal limit. And ice and snow dont even compare because sober people are just as bad in those conditions.

Ol' No. 2
02-13-2005, 12:23 PM
On icy and snowy roads, people are charged and convicted with speeding on occasions where they are driving under the speed limit at speeds considered unsafe for conditions. I see it frequently this time of year.

The whole idea of a "legal limit" that you can be "this intoxicated" and still be able to legally drive is not just blatantly false. It gets people killed. The BAC standard for pilots is 0.00 percent. Pilots are supposed to go "eight hours between the bottle and throttle." Maybe if you're riding a bus, you wouldn't mind the driver having a BAC of .68 or even .34, but I would have a problem with sharing the roads with such drivers.

Typically, when someone agrees to get rid of a below .08-percent-DUI charge in exchange for a guilty plea to reckless driving, you will see a DUI penalty. Where I live that includes at least three days in jail and a three-month license revocation.Driving too fast for conditions is not the same thing. No question that being under the .08 limit does not guarantee that you will be OK to drive. But then just abolish the limit altogether. It makes no sense to me to have a limit, and then charge people even though they're under it.

RedPinStripes
02-13-2005, 12:26 PM
Driving too fast for conditions is not the same thing. No question that being under the .08 limit does not guarantee that you will be OK to drive. But then just abolish the limit altogether. It makes no sense to me to have a limit, and then charge people even though they're under it.

Might as well build other businesses on tavern parking lots. No use for parking lots if people cant drink 2 beers and drive home.
:reinsy
I did it!

voodoochile
02-13-2005, 12:54 PM
On icy and snowy roads, people are charged and convicted with speeding on occasions where they are driving under the speed limit at speeds considered unsafe for conditions. I see it frequently this time of year.

The whole idea of a "legal limit" that you can be "this intoxicated" and still be able to legally drive is not just blatantly false. It gets people killed. The BAC standard for pilots is 0.00 percent. Pilots are supposed to go "eight hours between the bottle and throttle." Maybe if you're riding a bus, you wouldn't mind the driver having a BAC of .68 or even .34, but I would have a problem with sharing the roads with such drivers.

Typically, when someone agrees to get rid of a below .08-percent-DUI charge in exchange for a guilty plea to reckless driving, you will see a DUI penalty. Where I live that includes at least three days in jail and a three-month license revocation.

Just to be clear...

Any BAC over .30 is VERY dangerous and probably deadly. It would be impossible to have a blood alcohol content of .68 and still be alive. Even at .34 anyone but serious hard core drunks is out cold and in desperate need of having their stomach pumped and even the hard core drunks (read: alcoholic street bums who wake up with a bottle to cure the shakes) are probably in big trouble.

RedPinStripes
02-13-2005, 12:57 PM
Just to be clear...

Any BAC over .30 is VERY dangerous and probably deadly. It would be impossible to have a blood alcohol content of .68 and still be alive. Even at .34 anyone but serious hard core drunks is out cold and in desperate need of having their stomach pumped and even the hard core drunks (read: alcoholic street bums who wake up with a bottle to cure the shakes) are probably in big trouble.

HA! Anyone over.25 is toast. That's a lot of boozin.

SOXintheBURGH
02-13-2005, 01:22 PM
Just to be clear...

Any BAC over .30 is VERY dangerous and probably deadly. It would be impossible to have a blood alcohol content of .68 and still be alive. Even at .34 anyone but serious hard core drunks is out cold and in desperate need of having their stomach pumped and even the hard core drunks (read: alcoholic street bums who wake up with a bottle to cure the shakes) are probably in big trouble.

I was once at a hospital with a BAC of .52.... and no, I wasn't driving.

TDog
02-13-2005, 02:35 PM
Just to be clear...

Any BAC over .30 is VERY dangerous and probably deadly. It would be impossible to have a blood alcohol content of .68 and still be alive. Even at .34 anyone but serious hard core drunks is out cold and in desperate need of having their stomach pumped and even the hard core drunks (read: alcoholic street bums who wake up with a bottle to cure the shakes) are probably in big trouble.

I've never seen a BAC higher than .466 (The judge questioned the defendant how it was possible for him to have slugged a nurse in his condition.) After re-reading my post, I saw I put the decimal in the wrong place and I've since edited. I once saw a television program where an actor portraying a prosecutor said the defendant had a BAC exceeding 1.0. I'm embarrassed to have made a similar mistake.

If there is zero tolerance for commercial drivers as a matter of law, not of employment, why isn't there zero tolerance for other motor-vehicle operators as well? Because the risk is acceptable?

Drunken driving is a criminal offense in most states, not a traffic offense.

RedPinStripes
02-13-2005, 02:55 PM
I've never seen a BAC higher than .466 (The judge questioned the defendant how it was possible for him to have slugged a nurse in his condition.) After re-reading my post, I saw I put the decimal in the wrong place and I've since edited. I once saw a television program where an actor portraying a prosecutor said the defendant had a BAC exceeding 1.0. I'm embarrassed to have made a similar mistake.

If there is zero tolerance for commercial drivers as a matter of law, not of employment, why isn't there zero tolerance for other motor-vehicle operators as well? Because the risk is acceptable?

Drunken driving is a criminal offense in most states, not a traffic offense.

Lets just build on every bar parking lot if this is where we're headed. Why do we need parking lots? If someone wants to stop for a beer after work , i doubt they have a designated driver.

Palehose13
02-13-2005, 05:00 PM
Lets just build on every bar parking lot if this is where we're headed. Why do we need parking lots? If someone wants to stop for a beer after work , i doubt they have a designated driver.

Well, why not bring back prohibition? :wink:

Since we are going to build on the parking lots, may I suggest some 4-hour naps. However, they need to be for 4-hour naps and not "naps". :wink:

RedPinStripes
02-13-2005, 07:07 PM
Well, why not bring back prohibition? :wink:

Since we are going to build on the parking lots, may I suggest some 4-hour naps. However, they need to be for 4-hour naps and not "naps". :wink:


Well, what fun is that?:wink:

sox7235
02-14-2005, 05:31 AM
Speaking from experience. I'm going to assume that since Sexson did not take a BAC test until an hour after the stop the cops are most likely going to try and prove that he was above the legal limit at the time of the stop. Sexson was probably a bit over .08 when he was initially stopped and all the roadside tests performed, however he was on the way down which resulted in the .07. Waiting an hour to perform BAC will do that unless someone is bombed.