# JJ Redick arrested



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

I just heard on ESPN radio JJ Redick was arrested for a DWI in Durham last night. As soon as I find a link I'll post it.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=4265345



> Eyewitness News has learned that former Duke men's basketball star, J.J. Redick was arrested for driving while impaired early Tuesday morning.
> 
> Also on abc11tv.comAccording to the police report obtained by Eyewitness News, the arrest occurred at 1:03 a.m. in the 100-block of McQueen Drive in Durham.
> The police report indicates Redick made an illegal U-turn to avoid a license checkpoint.
> ...


----------



## jsm27 (Jan 9, 2003)

ralaw said:


> I just heard on ESPN radio JJ Redick was arrested for a DUI in Durham last night. As soon as I find a link I'll post it.


Got one for you:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2006/news/story?id=2482061


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

jsm27 said:


> Got one for you:
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2006/news/story?id=2482061


Thanks. It will be interesting if this affects his draft status now. 

For a guy who has his detractors he just gave a few teams a reason/excuse not to draft him.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Interesting alternative to working out with the Magic:



> ORLANDO - Apparently J.J. Redick's feelings for the Orlando Magic have cooled.
> 
> Just two days after proclaiming the shooting guard-thin Magic were a good fit for him, Redick canceled a private workout with Orlando that was scheduled for Wednesday. Just Saturday, when Redick was at Disney World for his NBA-mandated physical and skills testing, he said "I've definitely circled that (Magic workout) on my calendar and I've looked forward to working out for them for a few weeks now."


http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060613/SPORTS/606130331/1002


----------



## ehh (May 5, 2006)

What an a-hole.

I wonder what Dookie V's thoughts on the situation are.


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

what an bum. it's funny how espn always told us he changed his life after drinking too much his freshman year. oops!

i hope this drops him to the 2nd round.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Typical thug...


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

he's going undrafted


lol


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

We need a new age limit. Next year, you shouldn't be eligible to be drafted until you're 25 years old.

These college kids are out of control! And most of them aren't that good anyway.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

If I was a GM I could care less if he gets busted for DWI. Everyone drinks and plenty of guys drive drunk they just never get caught. 

A shooter like that isn't going to drop below 20th in the first round. Driving drunk is stupid and irresponsible but there are lot worse things he could have done. I don't think it will change his draft stock any.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

He might drop, but definitely not out of the top 20. A DWI before the draft isn't good news in anyone's book, there's no way any of Duke or JJ's biggest supporters can turn this into positive news (although they might try, or negate that it'll have an impact).

He's still a great basketball player, it doesn't change anything on the court. However with the NBA's new appeal for a clean-cut image, you bet teams are watching this.

As for the cancelled workout with Orlando, he better come out with a good reason. By chance, did the DWI occur during the same day as the scheduled workout?


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

Rawse said:


> We need a new age limit. Next year, you shouldn't be eligible to be drafted until you're 25 years old.
> 
> These college kids are out of control! And most of them aren't that good anyway.






:rofl:


----------



## tha supes (Aug 12, 2003)

If it does affect his draft status, it won't affect it much. He will be taken sometime in the 1st, for sure.


----------



## md6655321 (Sep 19, 2004)

compsciguy78 said:


> Driving drunk is stupid and irresponsible but there are lot worse things he could have done.


Atleast he wasnt hanging out with his lacrosse team!


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Driving Drunk is one of the worst things a person can do. Too many innocent people have been murdered because some idiot drives drunk.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

People really shouldn't take pleasure in this. He obviously made a huge mistake and at a very bad time. He also put his own well being and others at risk. Hopefully this becomes a lesson for him and he refocuses on the things that are important to him (hopefully drinking in excess isn't important to him). For the rest of us non-Duke fans, we should not be all gitty about this. For the Duke-fans, this goes to show that everyone makes mistakes. So the next time you feel the need to harp on another player on another team who made a mistake, maybe now you will think twice


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

mugshot -


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

He still isn't dropping out of the lottery, Utah is the latest Redick goes. I don't think the cancelled workout with Orlando means Redick got a guarantee from Houston or Boston, he just doesn't want to play for a franchise that has done nothing for their players... and is still recovering from one of the worst GM's of All-time in Weisbrod.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

100 hundred bottles of beer on the wall one hundred bottles of beer take one down pass to JJ, 99 bottles of beer on the wall................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ............... 1 bottle of beer on the wall one bottle of beer take one down pass it to JJ, he drank all the bottles of beer on the wall. He drank all the beer on the wall he drank all the beer, leave the bar, go to you car, get in it and drive around Durham Drunk. Drive around, drive around Durham drunk, drive around Durham drunk. Hear the reeer reeer, hit the brakes, pull over you flake! Give the whole MVP to Adam Morrison you dunken stupid insuperior player. ***! AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAH


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

That's just plain ol' stupid. He isn't as invincible as he thought.


----------



## BroadStBullies (Oct 2, 2005)

"POLICE SAY REDICK TOOK 21 SHOTS but only 5 went down"


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

compsciguy78 said:


> If I was a GM I could care less if he gets busted for DWI. Everyone drinks and plenty of guys drive drunk they just never get caught.
> 
> A shooter like that isn't going to drop below 20th in the first round. Driving drunk is stupid and irresponsible but there are lot worse things he could have done. I don't think it will change his draft stock any.


This is TOTALLY ****ed up! I mean, compsciguy is by no means alone in his opinion:



> When asked if he thought this would affect his draft position Tellem said, "absolutely not. Everyone knows his character and his body of work during his four years where he's been a great player and person at Duke. He has handled himself well on and off the court."


I think the sports leagues have it all wrong. Failing a marijuana test gets you suspended from play. Driving drunk is a FAR WORSE offence than smoking up. Driving drunk should get you suspended. I

In 2004, there were 17,000 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the USA.

BTW, I am not saying that JJ is a bum. I would like to know what his blood alcohol level was. But people make mistakes, especially younger people. One DUI doesn't make you a total loser. However, they should pay for their mistake.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Between Roethlisberger crashing his bike and his face with no helmet and no motorcycle license and Redick getting busted for drunk driving two weeks before becoming an instant millionaire...

...I don't know who's stupider.


----------



## WhoDaBest23 (Apr 16, 2003)

Right before the draft... What a fool. He'll pay for it when his stock starts to drop.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

BroadStBullies said:


> "POLICE SAY REDICK TOOK 21 SHOTS but only 5 went down"


If that's the case this must of happened sometime in March.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> He still isn't dropping out of the lottery, Utah is the latest Redick goes. I don't think the cancelled workout with Orlando means Redick got a guarantee from Houston or Boston, he just doesn't want to play for a franchise that has done nothing for their players... and is still recovering from one of the worst GM's of All-time in Weisbrod.


Say it again....I dare you. :clown: 

The Orlando Magic are going somewhere and that somewere is up! 
Go Magic!


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

I don't know wtf people blowing this off as no big deal are thinking about. At one of the biggest moments in his athletic life, he is out getting slizzard and driving on top of it. So if your team drafts him and his shot is off and it is game 7 remember it is no big deal. He has an alcohol problem. Ask Seattle fans (Shawn Kemp, Vin Baker) how players with alcohol problems can wreck your entire franchise.

I would not draft him in the 1st round for nothing in the world. There are better, more sober choices out there. Hey but I don't have to give him millions.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

Meh.

He blew .11, I have a hard time calling that "drunk driving". That's still in the buzzed region.

Still stupid, still impaired, but not exactly a rolling death machine.


----------



## DaCaliHustla50 (May 17, 2006)

Atleast he didn't cause an accident or do anything worse. Hopefully he has learned his lesson


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

Mike luvs KG said:


> Meh.
> 
> He blew .11, I have a hard time calling that "drunk driving". That's still in the buzzed region.
> 
> Still stupid, still impaired, but not exactly a rolling death machine.


Exactly. The GM's are going to take a look at this and consider the circumstances. 

That's the problem with being famous everything is highly scrutinized. My grandfather has been busted for drunk diving a few times and back in the day you would barely get an infraction. Drunk driving is a rite of passage in some parts of rural united states(not saying I agree with that...I shouldn't have said this because it makes me sound like it's ok to drink and drive). But overall, you could do a helluva lot worse then drunk driving. If he was totally **** faced then that's different. It depends on the alcohol level, how far he was driving, all the circumstances. I'm sure the GM's will take this into consideration. Actually, they probably care more about what the public thinks since that's how they will be selling tickets. 

Is JJ's rep ruined? I doubt it.


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

Ruined? No. 
Took a hit, Yep. 

This will drop him some, because the GM's don't want problem children. If he has an alcohol problem, that WILL be taken into account. One four letter word T-A-X-I would have saved him a lot of trouble. 
I'm just glad he didn't hurt anyone else, which is really the important thing to consider. 

As for Tellem saying he's handled himself well on and off the court, somebody just slap him. 
Yeah, he handled last night GREAT...... :raised_ey


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

I don't think GMs give a **** about a drunk driving arrest. It's not a severe enough charge that it affects his marketability significantly. People will forget about it before the season starts.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> I don't know wtf people blowing this off as no big deal are thinking about. At one of the biggest moments in his athletic life, he is out getting slizzard and driving on top of it. So if your team drafts him and his shot is off and it is game 7 remember it is no big deal. *He has an alcohol problem. Ask Seattle fans (Shawn Kemp, Vin Baker) how players with alcohol problems can wreck your entire franchise.*
> 
> I would not draft him in the 1st round for nothing in the world. There are better, more sober choices out there. Hey but I don't have to give him millions.


Are you kidding me? He was driving with a BAC of .11. He doesn't have an alcohol problem, he was just a college kid out at a pub for a few beers. 5 beers in two hours can probably do that to a lot of people.


----------



## TiMVP2 (Jun 19, 2003)

gangster


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Nimreitz said:


> Are you kidding me? He was driving with a BAC of .11. He doesn't have an alcohol problem, he was just a college kid out at a pub for a few beers. 5 beers in two hours can probably do that to a lot of people.


5 beers in 2 hours is too many for some people to be behind the wheel of a car............


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

.11

I'd only be concerned if that was his FG%.

It was a dumb thing to do, though. I mean, why would turn around to avoid a license check when you are barely over. It would have gone undetected, JJ!!


----------



## TManiAC (Dec 19, 2004)

I think his stock may have risen. The fact that he was a pothead at one point should help, too. 

JJ to the Blazers!


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

.11 is DWI range, much worse than DUI.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

Nimreitz said:


> Are you kidding me? He was driving with a BAC of .11. He doesn't have an alcohol problem, he was just a college kid out at a pub for a few beers. 5 beers in two hours can probably do that to a lot of people.


How do you know he doesn't have an alcohol problem because his BAC was .11? What if his BAC is .11 every day. You have no idea if this is an isolated incident or a serious problem for him. Also, he is no longer a college kid (and even if he was, that doesn't make it an excuse).


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> .11 is DWI range, much worse than DUI.


Not sure what you mean...DUI and DWI can both mean the same thing, it just depends on where you live.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

And his stock continues to tumble...

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1341


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

sov82 said:


> And his stock continues to tumble...
> 
> http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1341



Ouch ... that is sad. The DWI and reported back issues could lead him to fall out of the draft, depending on what the back issues are. Bad day to be JJ.


----------



## Funkyzeit mit Matt (Jun 25, 2005)

JNice said:


> Bad day to be JJ.


He doesnt look that upset.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

sov82 said:


> How do you know he doesn't have an alcohol problem because his BAC was .11? What if his BAC is .11 every day. You have no idea if this is an isolated incident or a serious problem for him. Also, he is no longer a college kid (and even if he was, that doesn't make it an excuse).


Oh give me a break. Yeah he's no longer a college kid just like I'm no longer a college kid. But I'm still living in my college apartment with my college friends, and drinking like a college kid. It's been a month since graduation, give him a break.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I personally know someone who killed an off-duty police officer and is now serving life in prison for it (drunk driving). I don't have a high tolerance for anyone who does it because you can take innocent lives.


----------



## Funkyzeit mit Matt (Jun 25, 2005)

HKF said:


> I personally know someone who killed an off-duty police officer and is now serving life in prison for it (drunk driving). I don't have a high tolerance for anyone who does it because you can take innocent lives.


Ummm did he get his sentence increased because it was a policeman???


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

Nimreitz said:


> Oh give me a break. Yeah he's no longer a college kid just like I'm no longer a college kid. But I'm still living in my college apartment with my college friends, and drinking like a college kid. It's been a month since graduation, give him a break.


I'm not judging him. I'm just saying that simply because you are a college kid doesn't mean its OK. Its unfortunate that you've graduated from college and still think laws don't apply if you're in school. Perhaps when someone you know dies or is seriously injured by a drunk driver you'll think differently.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

One on One said:


> .11
> 
> I'd only be concerned if that was his FG%.
> 
> It was a dumb thing to do, though. I mean, why would turn around to avoid a license check when you are barely over. It would have gone undetected, JJ!!


Not to mention that he's JJ Redick in Durham, NC. The cops might have just let him pass.

Don't be a total fool and pull a U-turn right in front of them.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Funkyzeit mit Matt said:


> Ummm did he get his sentence increased because it was a policeman???


Not sure but he was a from a semi-wealthy and he was still charged with a homocide. His BAC was 3 times the limit and he was driving on the wrong side of the road.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

sov82 said:


> I'm not judging him. I'm just saying that simply because you are a college kid doesn't mean its OK. Its unfortunate that you've graduated from college and still think laws don't apply if you're in school. Perhaps when someone you know dies or is seriously injured by a drunk driver you'll think differently.


No no no, I'm not trying to justify his drunk driving at all. I'm justifying his drinking, sure, but drinking and driving is not cool. I have tried to downplay it because his BAC was so low relative to serious drunk drivers (in Wisconsin before we had to lower it because of the feds, it used to be .10), but even so it's a stupid thing to do. As someone who has drank and drove in the past I can definitely say that it's a stupid thing to do and no one should do it. Just leave your car where it is, and take a taxi as someone said earlier.


----------



## bigbabyjesus (Mar 1, 2003)

SlamJam said:


> mugshot -


wassssteeedddd


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Drinking problems are a right of passage at Duke, just ask Chris Duhon. Stupidity with motor vehicles is also a right of passage at Duke, just ask Jay Williams.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

The road block he was trying to avoid was illegal and violates the Constitution of the United States of America!



> Amendment IV
> The right of the people to be *secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated*, and no warrants shall issue, but upon *probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized*.


Now I'd be willing to submit to a road block if there were reasonable circumstances (like searching for escaped convicts) but unless a crisis exists, that road block violates the rights of every American citizen and is a slap in the face of every person who has died throughout history defending the principals and ideals of this nation. 

And it's a sad state of affairs when we citizens allow tyrannical governments to trample the rights and freedoms that out ancestors paid so dearly to preserve. May God help us all!!!!!!


As for J.J., *NO PERSON SHOULD DRIVE WHILE INTOXICATED, PERIOD! *I'm glad he got a DWI. The stupid fool could have gotten D.O.A.!


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

Bulls4Life said:


> Now I'd be willing to submit to a road block if there were reasonable circumstances (like searching for escaped convicts) but unless a crisis exists, that road block violates the rights of every American citizen and is a slap in the face of every person who has died throughout history defending the principals and ideals of this nation.
> 
> And it's a sad state of affairs when we citizens allow tyrannical governments to trample the rights and freedoms that out ancestors paid so dearly to preserve. May God help us all!!!!!!
> 
> ...


Sorry for destroying your legal ambitions, but the road block was on the Duke campus, which is PRIVATE PROPERTY. Duke has a right to know who is comming onto its campus. It's not like they were pulling everyone over and searching their trunks, they were just checking student IDs.


----------



## goNBAjayhawks (May 3, 2003)

Why is the dude drinkin anyways, he's trying to get drafted as high as he can by being in the best of shape and being sharp mentally and physically and he cant stay away from a party or bar for a month-ish. His "sore back" is probably a.k.a HANG OVER that made him cancel his workouts, lol, ok that was a joke , but it could happen


----------



## AK-47 (Jul 7, 2005)

goNBAjayhawks said:


> Why is the dude drinkin anyways, he's trying to get drafted as high as he can by being in the best of shape and being sharp mentally and physically and he cant stay away from a party or bar for a month-ish. His "sore back" is probably a.k.a HANG OVER that made him cancel his workouts, lol, ok that was a joke , but it could happen


His back is going to put him out for a few months, I mean think of it this way. He worked his *** off all those years and was less than a month away from his dreams coming true and him making millions, and you find out that you need surgery on your back. I dont blame him for getting drunk for that reason, but for driving while drinking... that is stupid.


----------



## jsm27 (Jan 9, 2003)

HKF said:


> I personally know someone who killed an off-duty police officer and is now serving life in prison for it (drunk driving). I don't have a high tolerance for anyone who does it because you can take innocent lives.


I agree. I have never lost anyone from a drunk driving accident, but a neighbor of my family was in an accident which killed a passneger in the car. It was not near my parents house, thankfully, but theoretically, she could have made it that far.

To me, there is very little difference between driving a car while drunk and firing a loaded gun at someone. In each case, you run the risk of taking someone's life.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

If Redick was out "drowning his sorrows" because of the back injury, and he only clocked in at .11, the last thing he has is a drinking problem.


----------



## jsm27 (Jan 9, 2003)

Mike luvs KG said:


> If Redick was out "drowning his sorrows" because of the back injury, and he only clocked in at .11, the last thing he has is a drinking problem.


I'm sorry, but this is bordering on ignorance. In all honesty, anyone who drinks and drives has some sort of problem, whether it is ego, stupidity, or something else. Obviously, he knew he was impaired or he would not have made the illegal U-turn to avoid the police. Defending him for "only" having a BAC of .11 is ludicrous. Anyone can drink however much they want, but once you put yourself into position to affect other people, you lose any defense of your actions.


----------



## Pasha The Great (Apr 9, 2005)

Hes going to become an alcoholic if he cant learn to handle his problems.. "oh no i missed the game winning shot" *takes a swig* i bet you he will end up having a drinking problem at some point in his career. Especially if as somebody said earlier he had a problem drinking too much as a freshman.


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

WTF...dude went out and had a few beers. .11 is not a problem at all. People think the maniac drunk driving in the wrong way in the wrong lane is everyone. JJ at .11 was no threat to anyone. just more MADDness. This is ludicrous saying he was drinking and driving. What kind of effects is a 6'4" 190 lb. athlete gonna feel at .11...yea he knew he had some beers so he didn't wanna get in trouble obviously, but to say he was a danger is ludicrous.

And the guy who said the roadblock was illegal...I wish it was, but lawmakers have been stomping all over the consitutition for the last decade. There was a case where they somehow decided that as long as you stop people completely at random (every 5th car, every red car, etc. rather than every other black person) then it is legal. Whatever, but this is the "free" world, right.


----------



## jsm27 (Jan 9, 2003)

One on One said:


> WTF...dude went out and had a few beers. .11 is not a problem at all. People think the maniac drunk driving in the wrong way in the wrong lane is everyone. JJ at .11 was no threat to anyone. just more MADDness. This is ludicrous saying he was drinking and driving. What kind of effects is a 6'4" 190 lb. athlete gonna feel at .11...yea he knew he had some beers so he didn't wanna get in trouble obviously, but to say he was a danger is ludicrous.


Again, more blatant ignorance. The limits are there for a reason. If it was nothing and he was "no threat", why do the illegal U-turn? If you are drunk, you are drunk. Some people might handle it better than others, but that does not make it right. Like I have said before, anyone is entitled to a few beers when they want them, how hard is it to be responsible and not get behind the wheel?

If you lost someone close to you, but the drunk driver was "just over" the legal limit, would you defend the driver? Hopefully, you never will, but I bet your reaction would be a lot different if you were personally affected by a "just over the limit" drunk driver.


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

jsm27 said:


> Again, more blatant ignorance. The limits are there for a reason. If it was nothing and he was "no threat", why do the illegal U-turn? If you are drunk, you are drunk. Some people might handle it better than others, but that does not make it right. Like I have said before, anyone is entitled to a few beers when they want them, how hard is it to be responsible and not get behind the wheel?
> 
> If you lost someone close to you, but the drunk driver was "just over" the legal limit, would you defend the driver? Hopefully, you never will, but I bet your reaction would be a lot different if you were personally affected by a "just over the limit" drunk driver.


The illegal U-turn was obviously done to avoid getting caught. I don't know why that's a question here. 

The bottom line is if you were to look at the statistics....first time offenders & under .15 are $$$$$$$ to the governments, lawyers, etc. It's the repeat offenders and guys who are wasted who the laws should be concerned with. The new DUI laws are straight up extortion. Of course driving with any alcohol is dumb, but people do a lot of dumb things behind the wheel...talking on a cell is a lot more risky than driving with .11.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

jsm27 said:


> Again, more blatant ignorance. The limits are there for a reason. If it was nothing and he was "no threat", why do the illegal U-turn? If you are drunk, you are drunk. Some people might handle it better than others, but that does not make it right. Like I have said before, anyone is entitled to a few beers when they want them, how hard is it to be responsible and not get behind the wheel?
> 
> If you lost someone close to you, but the drunk driver was "just over" the legal limit, would you defend the driver? Hopefully, you never will, but I bet your reaction would be a lot different if you were personally affected by a "just over the limit" drunk driver.


If you are drunk, you are drunk? Who's being ignorant?

For myself, I would never consider .11 to be "drunk". It's certainly impaired, but plenty of people drive like they are impaired no matter what the situation is. I'd wager most people could not tell the difference between .8 and .11 in themselves. 

I'm not saying the legal limit should be raised or anything like that, but for somebody who gets pulled over and blows a .11 to be stigmatized in the same way as somebody who blows 2x the legal limit or more isn't right. 

I'm not trying to defend drinking and driving, I just don't think doing it makes someone a bad person or means there is something fundamentally wrong with them, it's just poor judgement.

And I certainly don't think coming home from the bar or party or whatever with a .11 BAC means somebody has a drinking problem. That's pretty modest.


----------



## jskudera (Dec 2, 2004)

One on One said:


> WTF...dude went out and had a few beers. .11 is not a problem at all. People think the maniac drunk driving in the wrong way in the wrong lane is everyone. JJ at .11 was no threat to anyone. just more MADDness. This is ludicrous saying he was drinking and driving. What kind of effects is a 6'4" 190 lb. athlete gonna feel at .11...yea he knew he had some beers so he didn't wanna get in trouble obviously, but to say he was a danger is ludicrous.
> 
> And the guy who said the roadblock was illegal...I wish it was, but lawmakers have been stomping all over the consitutition for the last decade. There was a case where they somehow decided that as long as you stop people completely at random (every 5th car, every red car, etc. rather than every other black person) then it is legal. Whatever, but this is the "free" world, right.



You also have to realize that he was pulled over an hour after his "illegal u-turn". He probably had been driving from anywhere between 15 and 30 minutes before he got to the road block. That's about an hour and a half worth of sobering up he did also. It was definately higher than .11. Regardless, HE DROVE OVER THE LEGAL LIMIT. It shouldn't matter who the **** you are, if you are doing something illegal... PAY FOR IT. Plain and simple. Too many celebs get away with **** and I'm glad he got fined. He's a douche bag anyway.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

He's a moron. But if you think this will greatly affect where he goes in the draft, then you're a moron. On the other hand, he'll drop, but it'll be because of his back.

By the way, I also found it interesting that they're reporting the police didn't give him the breathalizer for 90minutes. Imagine what his BAC was when they first stopped him.


----------



## jsm27 (Jan 9, 2003)

Mike luvs KG said:


> If you are drunk, you are drunk? Who's being ignorant?
> 
> For myself, I would never consider .11 to be "drunk". It's certainly impaired, but plenty of people drive like they are impaired no matter what the situation is. I'd wager most people could not tell the difference between .8 and .11 in themselves.
> 
> ...


I am not saying it makes him a bad person, but it shows exceptionally poor judgment. Regardless of whether you consider .11 to be "drunk", he still drove a car with enough alcohol to exceed the legal limit. There may be very little difference between a .08 and a .11 BAC, but that is a ridiculous defense.

Personally, I do not drink much, but if I am with people who are drinking, if there is any question of their ability to drive, the question is answered, and someone who has not been drinking drives.

Again, does this make him a bad person? No. Do I begrudge him the right to drink? Of course not. Let me ask you this, if he had hit someone, would we be having this conversation? Just because he did not hit someone or something does not give him a free pass. A person who drives drunk and makes it home is lucky. I equate it to shooting a loaded gun and missing. In both cases, your actions could realistically hurt someone (if not worse). 

I asked this before, and I will ask it again. If he got into an accident with someone important to you, but he "only" had a BAC of .11, would you say that is okay?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Nimreitz said:


> Are you kidding me? He was driving with a BAC of .11. He doesn't have an alcohol problem, he was just a college kid out at a pub for a few beers. 5 beers in two hours can probably do that to a lot of people.


Thank you.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

jsm27 said:


> Again, more blatant ignorance. The limits are there for a reason. If it was nothing and he was "no threat", why do the illegal U-turn? If you are drunk, you are drunk. Some people might handle it better than others, but that does not make it right. Like I have said before, anyone is entitled to a few beers when they want them, how hard is it to be responsible and not get behind the wheel?
> 
> If you lost someone close to you, but the drunk driver was "just over" the legal limit, would you defend the driver? Hopefully, you never will, but I bet your reaction would be a lot different if you were personally affected by a "just over the limit" drunk driver.


Ignorance? 



> If you are drunk, you are drunk.


So you're telling me there's no difference between a .11 BAC and a .24 BAC? Give me a break.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

not making good decisions for sure but dont broad brush everyone that has a beer and gets behind the wheel. most people that go to nba or mlb games take it easy after they've had a couple of beers and some then pass judgement on the one's that get caught. jj and the rest of these guys should keep their noses clean till after the draft then they can start acting like pros.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

jsm27 said:


> I'm sorry, but this is bordering on ignorance. In all honesty, anyone who drinks and drives has some sort of problem, whether it is ego, stupidity, or something else. Obviously, he knew he was impaired or he would not have made the illegal U-turn to avoid the police. Defending him for "only" having a BAC of .11 is ludicrous. Anyone can drink however much they want, but once you put yourself into position to affect other people, you lose any defense of your actions.


Nah, that's not true. There's a difference between realizing that you're impaired and realizing that while you can drive without a problem, you will probably blow over a .08.

But the better question I agree, is why is JJ Redick drinking at all? He should be working his *** off to get as high in the draft as possible, he should be getting in the best shape of his life, and alcohol is not going to help him do that.

But everyone thinking he has a drinking problem, come on get that mess outta here.


----------



## jsm27 (Jan 9, 2003)

The Truth said:


> So you're telling me there's no difference between a .11 BAC and a .24 BAC? Give me a break.


Yes, there is a difference. That does not change the fact that driving with either BAC is wrong.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

jsm27 said:


> There may be very little difference between a .08 and a .11 BAC, but that is a ridiculous defense.


I'm not trying to defend anything, I'm just saying it's an understandable mistake. I hadn't heard they didn't breathalize him for 90 minutes after they pulled him over, I think that makes a big difference. If he had 90 minutes to sober up and still blew .11 then he was certainly much worse off. According to you though, that shouldn't make a difference.



> I asked this before, and I will ask it again. If he got into an accident with someone important to you, but he "only" had a BAC of .11, would you say that is okay?


I didn't say it was "OK" to drink and drive and not get in an accident. I'm saying comparing driving with a .11 BAC to shooting a loaded gun at someone is ridiculous, it's not a smart thing to do by any means, it can turn a good driver into a bad driver and a bad driver into a terrible driver. 

But bad drivers kill people every day, and they usually don't need alcohol to do it. When you lose someone close to you you are going to be upset, no matter the circumstances.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Mike luvs KG said:


> I'm not trying to defend anything, I'm just saying it's an understandable mistake. I hadn't heard they didn't breathalize him for 90 minutes after they pulled him over, I think that makes a big difference. If he had 90 minutes to sober up and still blew .11 then he was certainly much worse off. According to you though, that shouldn't make a difference.


Shoot, 90 minutes could make considerable difference. Officer must have been a Duke fan.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

Why was he drinking at all. Isn't he the fitness guru?


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

TM said:


> Shoot, 90 minutes could make considerable difference. Officer must have been a Duke fan.


Some states don't consider the breathalyzer admissible in court because it can be beaten apparantly, although I'm not sure what happened in this case.

90 minutes would send a BAC down roughly .03 I think. So yeah, that does make a difference. While the difference between .08 and .11 is marginal, and likewise the difference between .11 and .14 is marginal, the difference between .08 and .14 is significant.


----------



## jsm27 (Jan 9, 2003)

Mike luvs KG said:


> I'm not trying to defend anything, I'm just saying it's an understandable mistake. I hadn't heard they didn't breathalize him for 90 minutes after they pulled him over, I think that makes a big difference. If he had 90 minutes to sober up and still blew .11 then he was certainly much worse off. According to you though, that shouldn't make a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree that it is an "understandable mistake". Everyone should know by now the affects of alcohol and what could possibly happen, so how is it understandable to put yourself and others at risk?

The reason I ask about how it would be different if it were someone close to you is this: If you obviously would feel a certain way if it were someone close to you, why is it any different if those affected have nothing to do with you? A drunk driver should be viewed the same regardless of who is personally affected by it.

Someone said earlier that it is the repeat offenders that should be a bigger concern. Why not try to prevent possible repeat offenders? Yes, you hear all the time about a drunk drivers who has multiple arrests for drunk driving, but they all started with one.


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

A 90 minute delay is pretty standard. They can't give him the official test until they get back to the station and you know how slow cops are, probably stopped at the donut shop. It's probably 60 minutes on average so I wouldn't say JJ got a break.

.11 is a lot less dangerous than driving while talking on your cell, but of course everybody does that anyways.


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

jsm27 said:


> Why not try to prevent possible repeat offenders?


This is my point. They should try to prevent repeat offenders, not brandish a first time offender as a criminal. I mean, honestly is a good kid like JJ who gets 1 DUI at .11 a criminal? That's what the law makes him. It's totally unfair. The reason I say most first time offenders aren't a problem is that they don't have a drinking problem...they just need a wake-up call which you can accomplish with a large fine (of course a large fine wouldn't affect JJ, but getting caught would wake him up). If you look at the average citizen, say some middle aged guy with a good job...say he is barely over the limit after a dinner party, gets a DUI. Okay, what happens to him? He loses his license for a few months so he might lose his job if he can't get to work and there's even possible JAIL TIME, not to mention the night he already spent in jail. And now he's gotta have someone drive him to his AA classes cause the law says he's a drunk and can't drive. His insurance goes through the roof. He can't feed his family. His wife leaves him. He commits suicide. It's all way overboard.


----------



## jsm27 (Jan 9, 2003)

One on One said:


> This is my point. They should try to prevent repeat offenders, not brandish a first time offender as a criminal. I mean, honestly is a good kid like JJ who gets 1 DUI at .11 a criminal? That's what the law makes him. It's totally unfair. The reason I say most first time offenders aren't a problem is that they don't have a drinking problem...they just need a wake-up call which you can accomplish with a large fine (of course a large fine wouldn't affect JJ, but getting caught would wake him up). If you look at the average citizen, say some middle aged guy with a good job...say he is barely over the limit after a dinner party, gets a DUI. Okay, what happens to him? He loses his license for a few months so he might lose his job if he can't get to work and there's even possible JAIL TIME, not to mention the night he already spent in jail. And now he's gotta have someone drive him to his AA classes cause the law says he's a drunk and can't drive. His insurance goes through the roof. He can't feed his family. His wife leaves him. He commits suicide. It's all way overboard.


I think the scenario you played out is a little overboard. I think the problem is though that the punishments are a little lenient. Maybe a first time offender should only receive a fine and possibly community service or something. I will give you that. However, the clamps should really come down on a second offense. By now, everyone should know doing it once is wrong, so once you do it twice, there should be far greater punishment. At that point, you have ignored everything anyone is ever taught about driving drunk, as well as the "warning" of the punishment for your first offense. Those people should absolutely be taken off the streets.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

jsm27 said:


> I think the scenario you played out is a little overboard. I think the problem is though that the punishments are a little lenient. Maybe a first time offender should only receive a fine and possibly community service or something. I will give you that. However, the clamps should really come down on a second offense. By now, everyone should know doing it once is wrong, so once you do it twice, there should be far greater punishment. At that point, you have ignored everything anyone is ever taught about driving drunk, as well as the "warning" of the punishment for your first offense. Those people should absolutely be taken off the streets.


It's no more overboard than saying driving with .11 is like shooting a loaded gun at somebody.

And if you have a job that requires you to drive a company owned vehicle and they find out about a DUI, to say you could lose your job is definately not a stretch. And if you have one on your record already don't even think about applying to one of these places.

Because, you know, if you drive home from the bar a couple points over the limit on a Friday night, you have a drinking problem and will probably get drunk on your lunch break at work.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

This needs to be moved to the EBB board


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

One on One said:


> This is my point. They should try to prevent repeat offenders, not brandish a first time offender as a criminal. I mean, honestly is a good kid like JJ who gets 1 DUI at .11 a criminal? That's what the law makes him. It's totally unfair. The reason I say most first time offenders aren't a problem is that they don't have a drinking problem...they just need a wake-up call which you can accomplish with a large fine (of course a large fine wouldn't affect JJ, but getting caught would wake him up). If you look at the average citizen, say some middle aged guy with a good job...say he is barely over the limit after a dinner party, gets a DUI. Okay, what happens to him? He loses his license for a few months so he might lose his job if he can't get to work and there's even possible JAIL TIME, not to mention the night he already spent in jail. And now he's gotta have someone drive him to his AA classes cause the law says he's a drunk and can't drive. His insurance goes through the roof. He can't feed his family. His wife leaves him. He commits suicide. It's all way overboard.



Just because this was the first time he was caught, doesn't mean it wasn't the first time he had done it.


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

jsm27 said:


> I think the scenario you played out is a little overboard. I think the problem is though that the punishments are a little lenient. Maybe a first time offender should only receive a fine and possibly community service or something. I will give you that. However, the clamps should really come down on a second offense. By now, everyone should know doing it once is wrong, so once you do it twice, there should be far greater punishment. At that point, you have ignored everything anyone is ever taught about driving drunk, as well as the "warning" of the punishment for your first offense. Those people should absolutely be taken off the streets.


I agree a second offense should be punished harshly. First time offense are punished too harshly though. It could really ruin someone's life who doesn't have a financial cushion and like the guy below you said, it can prevent you from getting a job. Some job applications will ask about misdemeanors.


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

sov82 said:


> Just because this was the first time he was caught, doesn't mean it wasn't the first time he had done it.


Obviously. Most college kids have driven over the limit a couple of times, but that certainly doesn't mean they'll keep doing it if they get caught. This is why a first time offense shouldn't be a crime. It's not like the guy is thinking "hey I'm gonna go drive drunk, yeah!" That's not your mindset. There is no intent. It's something where if you get caught once, that's when you realize maybe it's not such a good idea even if you are .11.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

He blew a .11? Thats nothing. My buddy got brethalized by his parents and blew a .2 from a foot away. Intense.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i'm not going to move this to EBB, _yet._

whatever his level, he was stupid to drink and drive. that was _stupid_.

but teams are going to take a much closer look at the back injury (how serious) over the arrest (is it a one time thing, or a possible problem?) in terms of where he might get taken and by whom.

i mean, when the story broke (about the back and that he'd failed the physical) they were speculating about surgery. now he's just "resting" and could resume workouts next week.

he's scheduled to work out on monday for the bulls, with adam morrison and rudy gay (wow. should be a good one!), but i wouldn't be at all surprised if he pulls out.




_so lets keep this thread on the topic of jj and his draft status - due to the arrest, due to the bad back, but not debate on whether .11 is a lot to drink, or whatever._

then i will move it.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

One on One said:


> Obviously. Most college kids have driven over the limit a couple of times, but that certainly doesn't mean they'll keep doing it if they get caught. This is why a first time offense shouldn't be a crime. It's not like the guy is thinking "hey I'm gonna go drive drunk, yeah!" That's not your mindset. There is no intent. It's something where if you get caught once, that's when you realize maybe it's not such a good idea even if you are .11.



I got a great idea. Lets go into an internet chat room, find you a nice would-be sex offender and get you molested. Then you report him to the police so he learns his lesson. Then we can release him! Genious!


----------

