Sooners are going to start bringing in more "character" guys.....or not

[CrazySooner]

Actually you're the first person I've ever heard say you can't get a DWI for the smell of alcohol coming from the vehicle. He may have smelled alcohol on Blackmon's breath, but unless you have the arrest report saying he smelled it on his breath I'll stick with what I've heard about the incident since it happened.

No matter what, Sooners calling it a DUI is disingenuous at best.

I know it is hard to understand...but a DWI stands for DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED....meaning that Alcohol of any level would have to be in your system (as in you have had to consume it).

Meaning, one must have consumed (you know drank at least one beer or alcoholic drink) some alcohol.

You cannot be intoxicated simply because the smell is coming from a vehicle. However you are considered intoxicated after one drink. hence the term driving while intoxicated (DWI) and that in Texas one can go to jail and ticketed for being less than drunk according to their 0.08% BAC. Anything that high or higher is considered Driving Under the Influence (DUI).

Your way of thinking, would essentially mean any designated driver (DD) could be ticketed and arrested for a DWI even without consuming a drop of alcohol, just cause their passenger(s) were drunk or have been drinking.

I mean, you do know that the smell of alcohol can fill a small space, such as the cab of a truck or car, simply by a person, that has been drinking, breathing, right?

Jesus dude...you cannot honestly believe that Blackmon would get a DWI for being a DD and not having a single drink of beer or alcohol, do you?

So basically, the law states, there has to be evidence that a person has drank some alcohol in order to be given a DWI. And for an under aged driver, if the smell of alcohol is coming from the person, not the vehicle, they can be given a DWI....

Let me guess, beer got spilled on him?

Naive much bro?

 

[CrazySooner]

Edit to my post (4th paragraph):

Your way of thinking, would essentially mean any designated driver (DD) could be ticketed and arrested for a DWI even without consuming a drop of alcohol, just cause their passenger(s) were drunk or have been drinking and the smell of alcohol was in the vehicle.

 

[PC_cowboy33]

I do think it's possible the cop came up and smelled a lot of alcohol, saw blackmon was underage, had him do field sobriety tests and gave him a DWI. He probably asked him if he had had anything to drink at some point and blackmon probably said yes. The fact is you and I have no real clue what actually went down.

I've said at least 4 times now that I'm sure he had something to drink at some point during the evening. Try reading, jackass.

I'm merely taking issue that sooner fans want to make Blackmon out to be some belligerent drunk driving moron to make themselves feel better about the fact that he's a stud and he went to lowly Oklahoma State.

Maybe you all don't want to admit the actual difference between a DWI and DUI because you want some reason to dislike the guy off the field after missing out on him coming out of high school. Maybe you're just looking for something negative to talk about with OSU because you got your ass whipped at bedlam. I don't know or care. All I wanted to do was correct the misinformed or intentionally hyperbolic squats claiming his offense was on par with a DUI. It wasn't, and it's time to get over it.

 

[Boomer.....]

I told you to not get into the "he didn't drink" issue.

 

[Rob B.]

I know it is hard to understand...but a DWI stands for DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED....meaning that Alcohol of any level would have to be in your system (as in you have had to consume it).

Meaning, one must have consumed (you know drank at least one beer or alcoholic drink) some alcohol.

You cannot be intoxicated simply because the smell is coming from a vehicle. However you are considered intoxicated after one drink. hence the term driving while intoxicated (DWI) and that in Texas one can go to jail and ticketed for being less than drunk according to their 0.08% BAC. Anything that high or higher is considered Driving Under the Influence (DUI).

Your way of thinking, would essentially mean any designated driver (DD) could be ticketed and arrested for a DWI even without consuming a drop of alcohol, just cause their passenger(s) were drunk or have been drinking.

I mean, you do know that the smell of alcohol can fill a small space, such as the cab of a truck or car, simply by a person, that has been drinking, breathing, right?

Jesus dude...you cannot honestly believe that Blackmon would get a DWI for being a DD and not having a single drink of beer or alcohol, do you?

So basically, the law states, there has to be evidence that a person has drank some alcohol in order to be given a DWI. And for an under aged driver, if the smell of alcohol is coming from the person, not the vehicle, they can be given a DWI....

Let me guess, beer got spilled on him?

Naive much bro?

This post made you look really dumb. In the state of Texas, a DWI is issued when a driver is underage and the odor of alcohol is detected by the officer. No BA test of any kind need be taken.

 

[CrazySooner]

This post made you look really dumb. In the state of Texas, a DWI is issued when a driver is underage and the odor of alcohol is detected by the officer. No BA test of any kind need be taken.

When doing a search of Justin Blackmon it comes back as a DUI, not a DWI....google it to find more...so...

First, lets get one thing straight. He was arrested for a DUI, not a DWI.

In Texas a DUI can only be given to a minor (under 21). DWI can be given to anyone.

A DUI is given to any minor only if the officer believes the minor has any amount of alcohol in his system.

And since you think my post may have made myself look dumb....let me help you look flat out ignorant and stupid on this issue....

http://www.dwitexaslawyer.com/FAQs-DWI-Texas.htm#4

What is the difference between DWI and DUI in Texas?

Under Texas law intoxication includes the introduction of alcohol, or a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, or any combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body. In other words, Driving While Intoxicated includes all substances including alcohol. While “Driving Under the Influence” or DUI in Texas is an offense that involves minors. To be arrested in Texas for DUI, the person arrested must be a minor (anyone under the age of twenty-one) who operates a motor vehicle in a public place while having any detectable amount of alcohol in the minor’s system. The key words are, “any detectable amount of alcohol.” Generally, an offense under this section is a Class C Misdemeanor. That is the difference between DUI and DWI in Texas. However, there are other states that use these terms differently than we do.​

​

​

Texas Zero Toleracance for Underage Drinking and Driving laws.

http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/laws/underage_drinking_laws.asp

As mentioned before, and you absolutely fail at understanding or comprehending what is written...so I''ll post again....maybe this time, you will UNDERSTAND IT....doubt it though.

In Texas it is illegal for a person under 21 to operate a motor vehicle in a public place while having ANY detectable amount of alcohol in their system. On September 1, 2009, this law was expanded to include watercraft in addition to motor vehicles.

 

[Rob B.]

They never did a BA test, thus it wasn't a DUI. But keep going, it's funny.

 

[CrazySooner]

They never did a BA test, thus it wasn't a DUI. But keep going, it's funny.

Jeez...not you too.

So you saying you cannot detect the presence of alcohol by smell?

I mean, the guy (or gal) that I have been going back and forth with has stated that it stems from the smell in the vehicle....think about that for a moment....

You can smell alcohol on breath. If an underage driver has the smell of alcohol on his/her breath it can be deemed to be in their system, then the officer can arrest them or ticket them for a DUI....Now, if they downgraded the DUI to a DWI when going to court, that could be...but all reports of his arrest are for DUI, not DWI....

I know the words and structure are foreign, but it is written in pretty plain grammar and english.

ANY detectable amount of alcohol in their system.

This does not suggest how it has to be detected.

Here is the google search of "Justin Blackmon arrested"....have fun!

http://www.google.com/search?q=Justin Blackmon arrested&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

Google search of "Justin Blackmon dwi"...
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=o....,cf.osb&fp=f5f10ba442e5ddd8&biw=1024&bih=602

 

[CrazySooner]

Oh, and lets not forget about this:

“There were field sobriety tests given on the side of the road,” said Dustin Bartram, the public information officer for the Carrollton Police Department. “The officer determined that there was a detectable amount (of alcohol) on (Blackmon).”

...

Bartram said Blackmon has until Nov. 23 to contact the Carrollton municipal court in regards to both the speeding citation and the DUI (defined in Denton County, Texas, as a Class C misdemeanor). Ultimately, Blackmon can contest the DUI charge or pay a $375 fine.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...ectid=93&articleid=20101026_93_0_ACarro324261[/QUOTE]

Oh, and a DWI is actually worse than a DUI....so I was incorrect on that part....couldnt plead down....so here is another excerpt for that TW article:

Blackmon was not subjected to Breathalyzer testing or blood testing, Bartram explained, because there was no suspicion of the more serious infraction of DWI (driving while intoxicated).

 

[Rob B.]

You are correct and I am wrong about DUI and DWI in Texas. In Oklahoma. DWI is driving while impaired. It was still never proven that there was ANY alcohol in his system. The media and gooner fans like yourself made it a bigger deal than it was.

 

[colb]

This whole argument is dumb.


Blackmon was charged with driving under the influence. Not driving while intoxicated. He received a lesser charge. There was alcohol in the car. He was not given any type of sobriety test (field, BAC, or breath). So no one can say he was sober, and nobody can say he was drunk.

However, Blackmon accepted the charge, apologized and took his punishment. Then he moved on. That's what everyone else here should be doing. Moving on...

 

[CrazySooner]

You are correct and I am wrong about DUI and DWI in Texas. In Oklahoma. DWI is driving while impaired. It was still never proven that there was ANY alcohol in his system. The media and gooner fans like yourself made it a bigger deal than it was.

Actually, I have been trying to explain to you that there was a difference...and to not throw stones.

How we ended here is beyond me.

In searching in the media stories about the Blackmon issue, have never once found an article saying that there was alcohol in the car. Instead I have read where the officer did field soberity tests and found that there was enough evidence to say he had been drinking...may not have been all that recent, but he was indeed intoxicated. And if there was something in any of the news articles about them finding alcohol in the vehicle, then I must have overlooked it or scrolled too far down in an article.

Anyway...doesn't matter. I think Blackmon is a very good kid, from the stuff I have read about him. HIs getting pulled over and arrested for a DUI was a mistake and he has seemed (for now anyway) that he has learned from it. He definitely seems to have a good head on his shoulders.

That said, who is to say that Gardner doesnt? Who is to say this was his one time mistake that all kids will eventually make?

oh well...both fan bases live in a glass house together...so we shouldn't be throwing stones...and that is what I originally came to this thread to say.

 

[OSUCowboy787]

So what is the likelihood of him getting all the bells and whistles thrown at him by his good friend Dez and being at a Cowboy game without drinking?

What is the likelihood that he did not drink even one beer or one shot of whiskey?

I would say it was very unlikely. And considering the offense took place well after the game was over... If memory serves me correctly, around 2 AM...the likelihood that Blackmon had no alcohol to drink is minimal at best.

One of your brethren, brought up the statement that the car smelled like the odor of Marijuana. Does this mean he smoked it?

What if he didnt? I mean, afterall, Blackmon didnt drink or wasn't drunk...LOL

Just remember, if it sounds like a duck and it looks like a duck, it is likely a duck!

So you're saying an illegal substance is on the same level as a legal one? I don't think a guy smoking pot vs a guy drinking a beer is anywhere near comparable.

 

[CrazySooner]

So you're saying an illegal substance is on the same level as a legal one? I don't think a guy smoking pot vs a guy drinking a beer is anywhere near comparable.

You're correct, they are not comparable...especially since Gardner was not arrested for drug use or having drugs in his possession.

However, when you commit a crime, you commit a crime.

 

[jobob85]

What happened here? This thread is about OU's thugs and/or future thugs.

 

[Midnight Toker]

Do you not understand that fighting the citation on the grounds that you weren't drinking would get you nowhere? The arresting officer gave him a DWI because he could.

The cop didn't give him a breathalyzer because Blackmon was sober and he didn't need it. If the cop smelled alcohol then the ticket stands, so arguing for your innocence on the grounds of your sobriety won't change the basis for the ticket (the odor of alcohol + an underage driver doing 90+mph).

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? You all have no proof that Blackmon had any alcohol in his system. Nothing. Just admit that you *think* Blackmon *probably* had some alcohol at some point, but you don't actually *know* it to be true. What I do know...Blackmon didn't play the "I'm a Biletnikoff Award winner and a D1 athlete" card.

It's like you ignored the part of my post where I said I understand the law. This is why we have judges, and why we plea our cases to judges. I also never said I thought he had been drinking. In fact, I actually would take his side in this case as I believe the law (as you stated it) to be an unjustified law.I do not personally believe one should be convicted of Driving While Intoxicated when there was no evidence that the accused was intoxicated. An officer sensing the odor of alcohol is hearsay, not a slam dunk case. Unless there is proof, actual proof that he was intoxicated other than an officer saying he believes he smelled the odor of alcohol somewhere in the car, you will have a very good case to present in front of a judge.

 

[CrazySooner]

Midnight, good thing he was not charged or convicted on a DWI. He was charged and convicted of the lesser charge of DUI (something only minors can get in Texas).

 

[L-Town Poke]

this thread has gotten fftopic:

 

[WyomingCowboy86]

It's like you ignored the part of my post where I said I understand the law. This is why we have judges, and why we plea our cases to judges. I also never said I thought he had been drinking. In fact, I actually would take his side in this case as I believe the law (as you stated it) to be an unjustified law.I do not personally believe one should be convicted of Driving While Intoxicated when there was no evidence that the accused was intoxicated. An officer sensing the odor of alcohol is hearsay, not a slam dunk case. Unless there is proof, actual proof that he was intoxicated other than an officer saying he believes he smelled the odor of alcohol somewhere in the car, you will have a very good case to present in front of a judge.

Going the Legal route now huh? Hard to take anyone serious or law abiding when his Avatar and signature promotes smoking dope.

 

[stated]

The ALJ in this case determined that the DWI was not warranted. I can tell you that was not done if there was the slightest possiblity that he was in fact driving while impaired or under the influence. Texas statutes conerning DUI/DWI give little room for judges or lawyers to manuever. The only reason, the only reason this was even taken to the judge was because Blackmon was under 21.

Was Blackmon drunk or impaired ? NO (but he was under 21= against the law)
Had Blackmon been drinking ? The officer should/would have required a BAC test. Why he didn't is in the report. (It didn't matter, he was underage, alcohol in the car = against the law)