GatewayRedbirds.com

ghostrunner wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote: FWIW, I think it's a bit tacky for a lawyer to go on air handing out advice for how to wiggle out of DUI convictions. People shouldn't be trying to skirt the system.

But if we are handing out advice, I also recommend that if you do take a breathilizer, always request to rinse out your mouth with water before taking the test. On my friend's breathilizer, that can affect the readings up to 0.20.

--P--

He's a DUI lawyer, so the tackiness kind of goes with the territory.

ghostrunner wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote: FWIW, I think it's a bit tacky for a lawyer to go on air handing out advice for how to wiggle out of DUI convictions. People shouldn't be trying to skirt the system.

But if we are handing out advice, I also recommend that if you do take a breathilizer, always request to rinse out your mouth with water before taking the test. On my friend's breathilizer, that can affect the readings up to 0.20.

--P--

He's a DUI lawyer, so the tackiness kind of goes with the territory.

haltz wrote:I would recommend not getting a portable breathalyzer, those things are the devil.

Who is Vic Damon?

Popeye_Card wrote:

haltz wrote:I would recommend not getting a portable breathalyzer, those things are the devil.

Who is Vic Damon?

I think he's a hired agent of Ozzie Smith's, ordered to slip roofies into LaRussa's wine.

--P--

Popeye_Card wrote:I like the ad for the divorce lawyers where they act like you should patch things up with your wife, but if that's not possible, "Let's take her to the cleaners! I mean, protect your assets so that you and your children can have a stable future, far away from that scheming, gold-digging prostitute. I mean, your beautiful and smart ex-wife, that you just happen to not love as much as you should anymore."

--P--

Popeye_Card wrote:

I_Bleed_Red wrote: WHen we start defending drinking and driving there is a bigger issue at hand. Saying .093 is no big deal, well my goodness it is a big deal. It impairs your vision and refelxes. He could have killed someone.

I'm not defending drinking and driving. But I recognize that people driving at a 0.093 level is an every day occurance.

Personally, I think anyone driving while talking on a cell phone (or even worse, text messaging) is more distracted than a person who is at a 0.093 blood alcohol level. They could kill someone too. Heck, a stone cold sober person who looks down to change radio stations could rear-end someone and kill them. Any person driving at 12am is probably tired and has about the same level of impaired reflexes. Cars are dangerous devices.

Should he have driven? Obviously not based on the letter of the law. But given all the good things that LaRussa does for charity, I'm willing to let the most minor of DUI's go. It was a mistake in judgement.

--P--

BW23 wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

I_Bleed_Red wrote: WHen we start defending drinking and driving there is a bigger issue at hand. Saying .093 is no big deal, well my goodness it is a big deal. It impairs your vision and refelxes. He could have killed someone.

I'm not defending drinking and driving. But I recognize that people driving at a 0.093 level is an every day occurance.

Personally, I think anyone driving while talking on a cell phone (or even worse, text messaging) is more distracted than a person who is at a 0.093 blood alcohol level. They could kill someone too. Heck, a stone cold sober person who looks down to change radio stations could rear-end someone and kill them. Any person driving at 12am is probably tired and has about the same level of impaired reflexes. Cars are dangerous devices.

Should he have driven? Obviously not based on the letter of the law. But given all the good things that LaRussa does for charity, I'm willing to let the most minor of DUI's go. It was a mistake in judgement.

--P--

I don't think many people pass out or fall asleep just talking on the phone.