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

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?

 

Edit to my post (4th paragraph):

 

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.

 

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

 

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

​

​

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.

 

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=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=Justin+Blackmon+DWI&oq=Justin+Blackmon+DWI&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=2910l6043l0l6236l19l14l0l4l4l2l655l3521l1.2.5.1.1.2l16l0&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.2910l6043l0l6236l19l14l0l4l4l2l655l3521l1j2j5j1j1j2l16l0.frgbld.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f5f10ba442e5ddd8&biw=1024&bih=602

 

Oh, and lets not forget about this:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/OSU/article.aspx?subjectid=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:

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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).

 

this thread has gotten fftopic:

 

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

 

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)