|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Yeah, but with the stadium gun’s inflated numbers, he was probably only really around 107 or so.
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (4088 - 5:29am, May 23)Last: BrianBriansonNewsblog: Chase Utley 'scared' by injury, could be headed to DL (5 - 5:24am, May 23)Last: you got a STEAGLES? you're gonna need a STEAGLES.Newsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1071 - 4:59am, May 23)Last: Arnett Mead (Arjun)Newsblog: Verducci: Offensive decline leads list of 10 early-season trends to watch (33 - 4:25am, May 23)Last: BrianBriansonNewsblog: Mitchell: Pedroia, Cano and Magical Thinking (14 - 3:23am, May 23)Last: Cooper NielsonNewsblog: Jose Canseco to join Ft. Worth Cats as player/coach... or maybe not. (3 - 3:13am, May 23)Last: Jim Wisinski Newsblog: ESPN: Forging bond with Pete Rose has helped fuel Joey Votto's desire to be great (37 - 1:22am, May 23)Last: Sunday silenceNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1187 - 12:54am, May 23)Last: tshipmanNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for MAY 22, 2013 (171 - 12:50am, May 23)Last: GutsNewsblog: Seamheads.com Adds 1928 Negro Leagues Data (3 - 12:41am, May 23)Last: OCFNewsblog: Arizona Diamondbacks broadcaster Bob Brenly says it’s time for robo-umps in baseball (32 - 12:33am, May 23)Last: Sunday silenceNewsblog: Posnanski: Jeff Francoeur and ANT (81 - 12:03am, May 23)Last: Steve TrederNewsblog: White Sox Ace Chris Sale Eats and Eats and Eats Without Gaining Any Weight (124 - 12:02am, May 23)Last: SquashNewsblog: Gonzales: No plans to dismantle White Sox (13 - 11:51pm, May 22)Last: asinwreckNewsblog: Sources: O's calling up Kevin Gausman (6 - 11:51pm, May 22)Last: Crispix Attacks 2: Swag Airlines
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Horrible..irresponsible..yeah,yeah...but this is funny.
It reminds me of a video I saw one time where a couple of cops are dealing with a drunk-out-of-his-mind guy. One of the cops hands the guy a breathalizer device, and tells him to blow into it. The drunk guy thinks it's a bottle, and tips it back to take a drink from it. The two cops just crack up laughing.
I am also familiar with this road he was driving on, having driven on it once or twice myself. Unless much has changed in the last few years, it's a straight four lane divided highway with generally nothing on either side, and light traffic. (Mostly just RSW traffic, I guess.) I'm sure it sees more than its share of speeding, but there's no excuse for this.
The debit card thing is pretty damned funny though.
...you mean before the curb-jumping, right?
Indeed. I don't think I've had the pleasure of driving down that particular dirt road. Though four lane divided dirt highway would be pretty cool.
This is right on, no? For every drunk that gets pulled over there are probably 10 more that evening that make it home safely. I've driven when I probably shouldn't have. It didn't make go 110 in a 45 and jump curbs.
Well, see, that's where you and Britton are different. He WAS driving a bit carefully. Shoot, sober, his normal commute home would be going 140 in a 25 and jumping entire small buildings.
Speak for yourself.
We had one of these threads just recently that covered availability of options and such. I believe it was the Helton thread where we all just concluded if you make like a gazillion dollars, just use a car service. Obviously not applicable here.
I'm with 17. Once I have more then 2 beers, that's it, I don't drive(or ride as I'm normally on the motorbike) I taxi, train or walk home. Fortunately in Sydney, the first two options are readily available at any hour.
i don't drive after anything over zero. Never have.
and...here...we...go!
In the criminal-defense business, we call this a "bad fact."
Best exchange ever, from a college road trip in a friend's '87 Cadillac:
"How fast are you going?"
"I don't know! The speedometer stops at 85!!!"
Was this just a case of an out of control cop picking on an out of town tourist?
Yep. It's the most common criminal charge in the US. Just not enough cold-hit murder cases to keep the lights on.
Curiosity right back to the group: why do so many people distinguish between "DUI" and "criminal" cases? It would never have occurred to me that you could be a criminal defense lawyer and NOT handle DUIs, but I get asked that question a lot. I also don't know any CDLs who refuse to handle DUIs, but many who've chosen to advertise themselves as some variation of "Criminal Defense and DUI Attorney."
Which leaves me from 7pm Friday to 8am Sunday if I actually decide I want alcohol.
Two things:
Modern cars are built a lot more safely than they ever have been, so you can probably go faster than you reasonably could in older cars (from say, 30 to 40 years back. Nobody is driving a car from the 80's anymore, for instance. The oldest cars on the road today are from the early to mid 90s). And 2nd, the people who built roads and the people who decide speed limits are clearly not talking to each other since speed limits are comically under what the road will allow. You can drive most freeways in Southern California at around 75-80, and at some stretches up to 85 comfortably. Yet, the 'speed' limit is set at 65 MPH, and at 55 MPH on some roads. That's just the start of dumb traffic laws in the state.
Forget the sales tax, prop 13, same sex marriage, or whatever issue you deeply believe in. Whomever can tell me that they will reform the inane traffic laws in California will get my vote. Even if they're a Randian #######.
I haven't.
It was extraordinarily stupid and I have regretted it ever since.
It must be darn near impossible to get your license revoked. In the rehab class I had to attend, one of the participants was on DUI #6. How he's not confined to prison, much less behind a wheel again, is beyond me.
My convertible can do 110+ in a few seconds from freeway speeds. It's not a very expensive car, nor rare, and the manufacturer rates top speed at 165.
Of course, given my respect for America's great legal system, I've never driven it faster than 125, no matter how much it begs.
So, a Yaris can do it with a tailwind. I'm guessing just about any recent model can do 111. Maybe not much more, and many cars/trucks won't be safe/handle at all well at such speeds, but they can probably hit it.
Can't speak for an SUV, which is what Britton was driving. Those SOB'ss are pretty heavy. But I can attest that every car I have driven since I got my license in 01 could get to 111 easily enough.
So the 45 mph thing is some kind of speed trap? It being Florida, I would not be surprised. Otherwise, I find it hard to understand why the limit would be so low on the type of road you describe.
And I'm reasonably sure that my car actually could do 111, contrary to what I posted above. I doubt I'll test that, though.
The roads are well built. The cars are safer.
People remain morons who greatly overestimate their skills at all things, including driving skill.
I don't know. I'm not sure what section of the road he was on, and it's been a few years since I've been there. I'm actually more familiar with the road after it becomes Treeline, and goes past RSW airport to Daniels, and I gather Britton was south of there.
And what then became clear was just how long it takes to slow down when you're going 100+ MPH. You take the foot off the gas and coast, just let her ride, and after several minutes you think you're down to a reasonable speed, and you look down, and you're still doing 90. When you get down to 75 or 80, you feel as though you're creeping.
Yes. As a general rule, people are bad drivers. All of us. Yes, I see you back in the corner, you are a bad driver too.
But only one of us is a bad poster.
I'm driving the best I can while trying to post.
Is the defense to a DUI charge straightforward--as in, are there ten things on a checklist you look for, and in the absence of any of those ten things showing substantial mitigation, you advise a plea?
To answer your question, I guess in my case I don't automatically think of DUI's as criminal cases because when I grew up driving drunk was treated primarily as fodder for comedians. The connection came later and as a result it's like learning a foreign language as an adult. I can do it, but the connections are no longer automatic.
I don't think this is true, but I do think I'm one of the bad drivers, which probably makes me a safer driver than I would be without that awareness. I'm also aware at how utterly shitty many drivers are, which makes me the guy on the road who is farthest from other cars.
Your personal safety is only half of the reason for speed limits. The other half of it is the safety of the guy you're going to be running into, and from his perspective, getting hit by something doing 80 is going to suck no matter how many air bags or crumple zones it has.
A girl from my freshman dorm hit a tortoise on a lonely Arizona road like that one in the summer between junior and senior year. She wasn't doing 111, but she still rolled a kajillion times, and I heard they buried her closed-casket because she didn't have much of a head left.
Stay safe out there, everybody.
Kind of, but the lists are a lot longer than 10 things: there are MANY things that can be wrong if the evidence is a breath test, or a blood test, or "field sobriety tests," or manner of driving. And it's incredibly frustrating to defend against, because once anybody involved (DA, judge, jury) hears that high number, it's hard to get them to hear anything else.
But it's possible, though. I think it's worth fighting much more than it actually gets fought.
Not either of our family cars. However my motorbike does 265kph(about 160mph). This I know as fact as I was at the track and hit that on the radar gun. No, I had not been drinking beforehand.
I disagree. As someone who rides a motorbike, I see all sorts of stupidity, however most people are pretty good. All I ever ask is that you indicate when turning/changing lanes, stay off the phone(both call and text) and just pay attention to the road. It's really not that hard to be a decent driver.
I create web advertising for new clients of Google, and I can say there are a lot of attorneys who specialize in DUI or closely related stuff (and it's a selling point for them in our ads). But not all DUI attorneys specialize. I would say a greater percentage of law firms I work with in large metro areas specialize than for smaller areas, which I suppose makes sense. For that matter, attorneys from tiny towns often don't specialize even in criminal law - they handle whatever legal stuff comes their way.
I'm guessing that the lawyer you met was from at least a mid-sized area.
With the normal population, people partying in TJ and coming back over the border, and all the young military going out for nights on the town, there are definitely enough drunk drivers there to support a LOT of specialist DUI attorneys.
I find relatively few generalists who handle DUI also in large areas like that. I suppose there's enough other crimes to support them, and the competition from specialists probably prevents the ones who would take DUI cases as sidelines from really advertising about it, since pay per click ads for DUI attorneys are quite expensive.
Edit: By quite expensive, I'd guess the average cost per click in San Diego for DUI attorney is in the $30 to $40 range at the very least. And not everybody who clicks would actually call.
I've heard in places too numerous to mention that this means an automatic arrest and suspension of one's driver's license. Is that incorrect? Or is the theory that, if you're drunk, the consequences of failing a breathalyzer are as bad or worse than simply refusing one?
@50: I have to disagree with your disagreement. It's impossible not to notice that almost no one follows traffic rules, particularly important ones, the ones that lead to the most accidents (not including drunkenness): following too closely, and either failing to signal or signaling too late. Those are ubiquitous.
It varies state by state. Here in CA I'm pretty sure the guy on DUI #6 would at the very least have his license revoked, possibly even permanently, and would probably be in jail. I have a friend who got two DUIs and the next one would have resulted in him losing his license for 5 years with some jail time (probably one of those "checked in Wednesday afternoon, released Thursday morning due to overcrowding" type deals, but jail time nonetheless). Or something along those lines - all I know is he now will not take a drink and drive unless it is several hours later, which is a good thing.
It probably also varies in terms of how long it is between DUIs. I imagine you're treated differently if you get three in three months than if you have three spread over 20 years.
This is pretty common on CDL business cards, to have the back saying something like "THE PERSON ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS CARD IS MY ATTORNEY. I DO NOT WANT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I WANT TO TALK TO MY ATTORNEY. I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCH" etc. It's a nice idea, although I've never heard of it actually helping anybody in the moment.
Again: most-charged crime in the US. And DA offices do tend to treat these cases as total cookie-cutters (staffing those courtrooms with their newest attorneys, and literally giving them scripts to read for each of their witnesses). Makes it a little easier for a defense lawyer to specialize, and occasionally whup 'em on merit.
I think you're confusing refusal of the BREATH test with refusing ANY test.
Your state may vary, but... in CA, you can refuse a breath test, but then you have to go give blood. Blood is much more likely to be accurate, for the good and bad of that.
If you refuse any test then, yes, license suspension, arrest, all that. (And depending on how the officer's feeling that day, "No... well, OK" can be a "refusal.")
One bit of free legal advice:
You have 10 days (again, CA) from arrest to request a DMV hearing. DO IT. Even if you waive the hearing later, at least you preserve the option. In the meantime, you can get the suspension stayed - make arrangements for your commute, etc.
http://www.allstatenewsroom.com/channels/News-Releases/releases/new-allstate-survey-shows-americans-think-they-are-great-drivers-habits-tell-a-different-story
just like we all think we have a better-than-avg sense of humor, and we all believe we are worse than avg at remembering names. amazing ability to self-deceive.
The drivers who are good defensively believe defensive driving skills arethe most impt, so they think they are good drivers. The non-speeders think the speeders are bad drivers, so they themselves are the good ones. The ones will fine motor skills and adaptive to Mario-Andretti-conditions think THEY are the best drivers. Lake Woebegone, here we are!
In my time traveling in Thailand, I saw some horrendous accidents with alarming frequency.
KT, I'm guessing a Mustang GT or equivalent Camaro. 165 sounds a bit high, even for that car.
Cars are safer these days, but roads are much more crowded than in the old days. Driver skill is probably about the same, but the power and handling of high performance, or even medium performance, cars can lead someone who happened to have enough cash to buy an M3 to believe they're Michael Schumacher or even Danica Patrick. They aren't.
A while ago I had a fast car and would drive fast on relatively isolated country roads, but it's a bad idea. If you have a Ferrari, 911, what have you, sign up for track time.
* Three. Two resulted in major highway accidents; no deaths but lots of serious injuries. In the third I noticed the driver having difficulty staying awake, so I started asking him questions that forced him to engage in conversation. For a while I wasn't even listening to his answers; I was frantically trying to come up with another engaging question, just to keep his mind going. It worked well enough to get to our destination.
For some reason, just a couple of hours ago I was recalling my move back to Arkansas from Phoenix back in 5/84. My wife & I drove our respective cars, & I was accompanied by a friend of ours who (a) couldn't drive & (b) was very close-mouthed. How useless can someone be on a 1,200-mile trip? Answer: pretty damned useless.
Most cars today have an electronically limited top speed of something around 110 MPH, note that this does not apply to performance models such as a Mustang GT or high end imports such as BMW's, Mercedes and the like. The reason for this has nothing to do with the actual speed potential of the car but instead is a result of the car companies putting on cheap, speed-limited tires as original equipment. If you have a car (such as my six cylinder Mustang) that is speed-limited, it is relatively easy to "correct" this by reflashing or replacing the ECM chip. This allows the car to achieve whatever maximum speed it is capable of. Also, drunk driving is stupid, take a cab or walk home, or something. Whatever speed you are driving, do so while drunk is just not a smart thing to do.
If you think every time you've gotten in a car you've been 100% focused, alert and ready to drive that car, you're lying to yourself.
That doesn't excuse any of it - it certainly doesn't excuse the guy in this story - but I'd rather a guy have a couple of beers with dinner and drive home than someone who has just pulled an all-nighter at work or study drive home. A couple of drinks over a couple of hours with food is, obviously, different than 111 in a 45 and then not being able to distinguish your licence from your debit card.
Don't people who drink and drive add any alcohol impairment to the other usual distractions and inattentiveness?
Why are we grading on a curve?
Not a whole lot of DUI cases on Perry Mason or Law and Order.
If you are a twitter user and don't mind get updated on ridiculous stories like this one, I recommend following @_FloridaMan - he linked to a recent story about a dude who flashed a taco as identification.
Oh the other hand, I've had a bus t-bone me after running a stop sign. I was glad I was driving a car at that moment, but that was the second most earnest attempt to kill me in my driving history.
You don't hear about them at all in law school, either, which is too bad: in a completely ordinary misdemeanor DUI case (no priors, no injury, no accident) you get at least two and as many as six witnesses - cop 1, cop 2, phlebotomist, govt expert, defense expert, defendant - all of whom raise distinct issues for preparation and questioning. But, yeah, it's not sexy like Miss Scarlet in the library with a candlestick, or whatever.
OK, off to - guess what? - arraign a DUI!
1964.5 4.3L V8 Ford Mustang: 164hp
1980 4.9L V8 Ford Mustang: 140hp
2012 2.0L I4 Ford Focus (base): 160hp.
Even little 3-door sub-$15,000 cars like a Mazda 2 or Yaris get 100hp. A friggin' Hyundai Accent has 138!
Computer-controlled engines are totally uncool, but they're amazing.
doesn't reconcile well with
But I can attest that every car I have driven since I got my license in 01 could get to 111 easily enough.
You'll forgive me if I still don't trust your judgement. When drunk you're always the idiot, but at 111 anyone else on the road doing anything you don't clearly expect makes you an idiot, sober or not. You're driving a car in a position where you can't react to anything. You may as well be drunk at 65.
One of my buddy's first cases ever as a public defender was a guy arrested for being drunk while riding a bicycle. That's a thing I guess.
One of my friends was riding home mind-obliteratily drunk at 4am once, and fell off his bike and passed out in the middle of the right lane. A couple of cops came across him shortly after, put him in the back seat and drove him home. Even brought his bike in the trunk. He, at least, doesn't drink and ride anymore.
Awesome. How far back (or ahead, for that matter) did you go?
I remember covering what memory tells me was the very first jury trial ever by Little Rock's city attorney back in the late '80s. He wound up losing it because he hadn't ever entered into evidence the kind of car being driven by the accused, or something basic like that, so it never actually got to the jury.
A few years later, he was the county's prosecuting attorney. And now he's LR mayor. So I guess he survived the setback.
Guys also think that driving stoned is just perfectly fine.
Another one I like to tell in party conversation was the farmer whose driver's license was suspended or revoked because of repetitive DUI's. At that time, my state did not include tractors and combines as vehicles and thus did not require you have a driver's license to drive them on public roads. Yep, he'd go to bars in tractor--sometimes in a rice combine. What do libertarians say about that?
We generally advise that you plant your crops between him and his favorite bar.
When I was 23 or 24 years old (I don't remember the specific summer), there was a time when I was driving home from a friend's house late at night (1:30am) on a divided highway.
I was going about 100km/h (60mph for our American friends) which was right on the speed limit. I was in the right lane, and it was a straight line for a good 10 or 15 km.
I felt kind of tired, but I was pretty sure I wouldn't fall asleep at the wheel because "I wouldn't let that happen." I had the radio on loud, I had a can of Coke to drink, and the window rolled down a bit to let cold air blow in my face. I was fine.
5 seconds later (or maybe much longer), I snapped awake and found myself only inches away from grinding the left side of my car into the guard rail.
Thankfully, that adrenaline rush kept me awake for another few minutes, which was enough time to get me home.
I have NEVER since tried to drive my car late at night if I felt that I might be even the SLIGHTEST bit tired.
Bicycles were regulated vehicles practically before their were cars.
This is true.
And there's the old saying: "you only crash once at 100."
I don't think I'm a great driver, but I do drive defensively (follow the speed limit, maintain a safe distance, actually STOP at stop signs), which I admit makes other drivers bananas.
A park cop once gave me a wrong way ticket for riding my bike (bicycle) the other way down a 150-foot one way street alongside the park with literally no one else on it. He was very enthusiastic about it too - chased me in his car with the sirens on and everything.
5 seconds later (or maybe much longer), I snapped awake and found myself only inches away from grinding the left side of my car into the guard rail.
I've almost fell asleep twice while driving (about ten years apart) - both in the same, very innocuous manner where your mind starts wandering and suddenly you're dozing. They were both on long 5+ hour drives - those can get dangerous near the end.
Please, I wasn't even breaking the speed limit at the time.
Have you ever gone 110? Cause it seriously sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about.
I think I'm a good driver because I've never been cited for a moving violation or involved in any kind of accident despite having driven a half a million miles including four 12000+ mile roadtrips.
I think I'm good, not great, because a whole bunch of the above sentence is luck rather than design.
He's 23 years old trying for a job in major league baseball. That's old enough and accomplished enough to not be a stupid #######.
I can get to 105-110 at like two-thirds of the accelerator pedal, what would happen if I floored it for a few minutes?
My current job involves a lot of driving with my brother, and he insists that conversation(or singing) is the best way to stay awake. He points out that he read someplace that when you are talking it increases the blood flow to your brain, keeping you awake, that is why when he goes on trips, he makes sure to have music that he knows to sing along with it.
Absolutely agree. I know too many of all three types and all insists on their own skills as being proper, and yet they all constantly make mistakes or take risks that just seems a little to far to me. You can't be overly cautious, as other drivers are driving with assumption of your actions, and if your actions take too long, it creates a hazard. Same with the Andretti types. Pilots have a saying "A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations that would require the use of his superior skills." If more drivers thought that way, driving would be a lot less hazardous.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main