Andrew Butcher underage drinking

#202
#202
No one should have told Mr. Butcher that UT was playing on "the road" this week BECAUSE he doesn't seem to GET IT!!!

I am glad he was arrested and thankful he wasn't killed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#203
#203
Vol logic said:
Neither as I live out of state but the current facts presented don't make a whole lot of sense. If he got hammered and decided to "run" on 40 then yes that is very poor judgement, but neither you or I know the circumstances. KPD nor KNS show no favoritism towards our team for certain and I have seen police blunder many a report. That is all I am saying.
Click to expand...

I don't know the circumstances and am only working off the facts given by the KPD. I have a 17 year old son and the idea that he would be found drunk walking or running or whatever on an interstate at 1:30 in the morning scares the hell out of me. The kid could've been killed or could've potentially caused an accident.

I'm not condemning the kid, not passing judgment on the kid. Last year Jalen Hurd was cited for underage drinking and most everybody, myself included, pretty dismissed it because he was on campus and was not driving when it happened. Pretty much no harm no foul. But the circumstances given at this point about Andrew are considerably more concerning. Perhaps it goes away and there was actually nothing to it. However, if the facts of what's been reported right now are true, it's a pretty serious situation because of where they found him drunk.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#204
#204
volfanbill said:
The troll strikes again.
Click to expand...
you'd think after all this time on a message board you might understand what trolling was. Maybe one day you'll figure out that having an opinion is not trolling. Really not a difficult concept

But continue to follow me around the board. It's cute in a creepy stalkerish kind of way
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#205
#205
utvolpj said:
If that's true then why had it changed and is still being pushed to change. Are our tolerances getting lower? Is science just that much more advanced now? Can our blood just not handle the hard stuff anymore?

I never said anything about "a number not sounding whole enough" in any of my posts. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

You said why . 08?

Well, why not . 1?. 05?. 5?

The limit has to be somewhere. Being . 08 isn't somehow proof of anything. Edit. OK, assuming there is a limit, there has to be a limit somewhere.

To your first set of questions...

I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but of course it's dynamic. Our ability to measure sensory impairment is better than it used to be. We have more ability to model massive amounts of data and draw more accurate conclusions than in the past.

Don't take my word for it. The people pushing for these changes have massive amounts of published research pushing these laws through. Read it. Read their conclusions, draw your own.

The link I just posted shows a statistically significant decrease in fatalities in states with a . 08 BAC limit.
 
#207
#207
Ten_Titans said:
You said why . 08?

Well, why not . 1?. 05?. 5?

The limit has to be somewhere. Being . 08 isn't somehow proof of anything. Edit. OK, assuming there is a limit, there has to be a limit somewhere.

To your first set of questions...

I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but of course it's dynamic. Our ability to measure sensory impairment is better than it used to be. We have more ability to model massive amounts of data and draw more accurate conclusions than in the past.

Don't take my word for it. The people pushing for these changes have massive amounts of published research pushing these laws through. Read it. Read their conclusions, draw your own.

The link I just posted shows a statistically significant decrease in fatalities in states with a . 08 BAC limit.
Click to expand...

My statement was never about the actual number but why it was set there. You claiming it was a singular study?

The people pushing for these changes have serious dollars at stake. They increase the penalties while also increasing the number that qualify. Any law like this is simply about revenue since they can't criminalize the root cause of the issue which is alcohol. Of course they can with other drugs since their lobbying arm simply can't compete

Torture numbers enough and they'll confess to anything.
 
#208
#208
utvolpj said:
The people pushing for these changes have serious dollars at stake. They increase the penalties while increasing the number that qualify. Any law like this is simply about revenue since they can't criminalize the root cause of the issue which is alcohol. Of course they can with other drugs since their lobbying arm simply can't compete
Click to expand...

So if I came up with a pill that cured cancer, and published the research that proved it, would you write off the pill and the research simply because myself and those funding me have billions of dollars at stake?

Bad analogy, I know.

But I'm saying the research is valid, or it isn't.

If you write off research because those pushing it stand to profit, literally no advancement or changes would ever happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#209
#209
Deputy Fife said:
If the US regressed to an absolute monarchy tomorrow and you found yourself the king, would you merely elevate the BAC necessary for a DUI from .08 or abolish the entire concept?
Click to expand...

utvolpj said:
Done away with entirely.
Click to expand...

You can't possibly be serious!! You think we should not have a law limiting the amount of alcohol people can have in their systems while driving? You think that it's okay to have a bunch of drunks on the road? Because there would be a lot more people pushing their limit and going well beyond what is safe for themselves or for others.
 
#210
#210
utvolpj said:
Torture numbers enough and they'll confess to anything.
Click to expand...

That is just a cop out.

If there is a flaw in a methodology, then you have to point it out.

Saying there is a flaw because the numbers say what I want them to is a complete fallacy.
 
#211
#211
Meh.......I did a whole lot worse when I was in college. Even as a Freshman. Something like this would've probably passed for a regular night.

Irony of Ironies......I'm a College Professor and Program Director now. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#213
#213
Wait....you mean underage kids actually drink alcohol in college??? No way!

Blue font.
 
#214
#214
If this was at Ohio St. Florida or Bama The "no big deal" crowd would be incoherent with laughter and finger pointing.
 
#215
#215
Once again, a big thank you to the local media for their vigilantism. Those UT football players can't sneak anything past them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#216
#216
KBVol said:
I don't know the circumstances and am only working off the facts given by the KPD. I have a 17 year old son and the idea that he would be found drunk walking or running or whatever on an interstate at 1:30 in the morning scares the hell out of me. The kid could've been killed or could've potentially caused an accident.

I'm not condemning the kid, not passing judgment on the kid. Last year Jalen Hurd was cited for underage drinking and most everybody, myself included, pretty dismissed it because he was on campus and was not driving when it happened. Pretty much no harm no foul. But the circumstances given at this point about Andrew are considerably more concerning. Perhaps it goes away and there was actually nothing to it. However, if the facts of what's been reported right now are true, it's a pretty serious situation because of where they found him drunk.
Click to expand...

And if you remember the story that was published was he was in his car with a kid passed out in the back. And the real story came out that he was in his room and someone had borrowed his car.

I'd say there's more to this story. I'm not saying he wasn't drunk but running around on an interstate? That would be highly unusual if true
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#217
#217
This -- running around on I-40 -- was never considered as something the kids would do back in the 1950's; this likely started with the generation of the late '60's/early 70's. Glad he wasn't injured.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#225
#225
utvolpj said:
You make such a compelling argument :ermm:

You do understand how a discussion works right? Offering zero in the way of evidence and then declaring victory is like a bammer national title claim
Click to expand...

Your argument about the gov trying to make revenue off of setting the BAC limit low is ridiculous. I would understand your argument if you were referring to fines for MJ possession or something that does not directly impact people's lives, but the BAC limit is for the safety of drunk people and innocent other people on the road that aren't drunk driving. Alcohol effects everyone differently, a .08 BAC for some people may not effect them in the slightest, while someone who hasn't drank in years may have their reactions and awareness significantly impaired. I agree that some laws are put in place 100% for the benefit of the government, but drunk driving alcohol limits is not one of them. Your conspiracy theory about BAC limits is laughable and you are lucky there is not a law against people with low IQ's using the internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top