Ravens' McNair arrested on DUI charge

[blackhawk]

By Jamison Hensley
Sun Reporter
Originally published May 10, 2007, 10:27 AM EDT
Ravens quarterback Steve McNair was arrested on driving under the influence charges late Wednesday in Nashville, police said this morning.

McNair was a passenger in his vehicle driven by a man identified as his brother-in-law, Capt. Richard Foley said.
Under Tennessee law, the owner of the vehicle can be charged if he or she is the passenger when the driver is arrested on DUI charges. The owner can be charged even if he or she is not intoxicated, Foley said. It was not clear whether McNair was impaired.

McNair's Dodge pickup was stopped just before midnight after police clocked it at 44 mph in a 30-mph zone five miles west of downtown Nashville. The vehicle was being driven by Jamie Cartwright, who identified himself to police as McNair's brother-in-law.

Both were arrested and taken downtown, but McNair was later released. Wearing a brown T-shirt and jeans, McNair did not talk to a television cameraman when leaving the police station.

Ravens officials are still waiting to talk to McNair but said they don't believe he has ever been convicted of any previous crime. The team could issue a statement later today.

"What we know [about last night's arrest] is just from media reports," said Kevin Byrne, the Ravens' senior vice president of public relations.

It is unknown whether McNair will face disciplinary action from the NFL. Commissioner Roger Goodell announced his crackdown on personal conduct this offseason.

This is the second DUI arrest for McNair, who guided the Ravens to a 13-3 record in his first season with the team.

In May 2003, McNair was arrested in Nashville on charges of driving under the influence and illegal gun possession. The charges were dismissed after a judge threw out the evidence, stating police did not have sufficient reason to pull him over.

McNair is also the second Raven to be charged with DUI in the past eight months. Return specialist B.J. Sams was arrested Oct. 3 after his car swerved and nearly struck another vehicle. He is scheduled to go to court next week.

[Donger]

Under Tennessee law, the owner of the vehicle can be charged if he or she is the passenger when the driver is arrested on DUI charges. The owner can be charged even if he or she is not intoxicated, Foley said.

That's an interesting law.

[Bowser]

Trade Green for their first and third next yearr.

[The Franchise]

So you're telling me that if my friend has 3-4 beers and is driving my car and gets busted......I can get a DUI? What in the hell....

[Mr. Laz]

what a fugged up law :shake:

[Phobia]

That's one of the dumbest laws I've ever heard.

[BigChiefFan]

Our country isn't about "we the people" anymore-it's about what can the government get from the people. This law is absurdly idiotic.

[chagrin]

messed up, so the Designated Driver does no good, wow :shake:

[HemiEd]

what a fugged up law :shake:

It sure is, they have gotten out of control with this shit.

[BigMeatballDave]

I am all about cracking down on drinking and driving, but this is asinine.

[Iowanian]

That law has got to be an example of what happens when someone's great grandparents, grandparents and parents all share the same DNA.

Thats the result of a double-helix ladder of dumbass.

[Donger]

messed up, so the Designated Driver does no good, wow :shake:

Well, it probably doesn't help when the DD is drunk.

[HMc]

may aswell charge the guy who sold him the car aswell.

[Bugeater]

So you're telling me that if my friend has 3-4 beers and is driving my car and gets busted......I can get a DUI? What in the hell....
Only if you're in it with him. I can see making the car owner take some responsibility for allowing someone who's drunk drive their car, but to charge them with a DUI is absurd.

[Ultra Peanut]

Well, it probably doesn't help when the DD is drunk.Damn you and your "reading comprehension."

[Soupnazi]

The anti-drunk driving lobby is out of frigging control. This may be an a-hole thing to say, but those nazis like MADD are responsible for legislation like this.

[chasedude]

Well, it probably doesn't help when the DD is drunk.

But that still doesn't account for the liability on the passenger though, this law is stupid.

[blackhawk]

moonshine?

[Ultra Peanut]

The anti-drunk driving lobby is out of frigging control. This may be an a-hole thing to say, but those nazis like MADD are responsible for legislation like this.Man **** THOSE NAZIS FIGHT THE POWER

They act like driving drunk or willfully riding along with someone who's driving drunk is a bad thing, or something!

But that still doesn't account for the liability on the passenger though, this law is stupid.If the passenger, who owns the car, doesn't mind a drunk person driving it, they deserve some of the blame. The liability comes from the fact that it's their car and they're clearly given an opportunity to stop the drunk driver from becoming one in the first place.

It's a weird law, but the outrage is a little misplaced.

[cdcox]

That's an interesting law.

Cue "Rocky Top".

[Bugeater]

But that still doesn't account for the liability on the passenger though, this law is stupid.
Hey, I'll let this drunk guy drive me home to protect my own ass! Who cares if he gets a DUI! The law is not stupid, the charge is.

[Soupnazi]

Man **** THOSE NAZIS FIGHT THE POWER

They act like driving drunk or willfully riding along with someone who's driving drunk is a bad thing, or something!

Seems to me that DUI implies Driving Under the Influence. Was McNair driving? It's ridiculous.

I know my neighbor smokes weed, so if I don't run to the cops and rat him out, should I be arrested?

[Ultra Peanut]

Hey, I'll let this drunk guy drive me home to protect my own ass! Who cares if he gets a DUI! The law is not stupid, the charge is.Contributing to the Delinquency of a Drunk?

[Braincase]

4 game suspension... trade Trent to the Ravens for a 5th round pick now!

[Donger]

But that still doesn't account for the liability on the passenger though, this law is stupid.

I know and agree.

[chasedude]

Seems to me that DUI implies Driving Under the Influence. Was McNair driving? It's ridiculous.

I agree, there's no law against Riding under the influence RUI!

[Soupnazi]

If the passenger, who owns the car, doesn't mind a drunk person driving it, they deserve some of the blame. The liability comes from the fact that it's their car and they're clearly given an opportunity to stop the drunk driver from becoming one in the first place.

It's a weird law, but the outrage is a little misplaced.

Bullshit. The law is based upon responsibility of the operator, not everyone else associated with their activity. Should we jail the bartender that sold him the drinks, the gas station that enabled his drunkedness by selling him beer, blah blah blah.

It's yet another bullshit tactic used by legislators in concert with the anti-drunk driving lobby to squeeze revenue from citizens.

[Mr. Laz]

Hey, I'll let this drunk guy drive me home to protect my own ass! Who cares if he gets a DUI! The law is not stupid, the charge is.
so now the passenger of every car has to carry around a breathalyzer machine to check the driver before he gets a ride?

[Bugeater]

Bullshit. The law is based upon responsibility of the operator, not everyone else associated with their activity. Should we jail the bartender that sold him the drinks, the gas station that enabled his drunkedness by selling him beer, blah blah blah.

It's yet another bullshit tactic used by legislators in concert with the anti-drunk driving lobby to squeeze revenue from citizens.
Oh good lord...

[Ultra Peanut]

Bullshit. The law is based upon responsibility of the operator, not everyone else associated with their activity. Should we jail the bartender that sold him the drinks, the gas station that enabled his drunkedness by selling him beer, blah blah blah. Yeah, that's exactly the same as the owner being present for and approving of the actions of the driver.

Letting someone drive your car with you in it = legal. Letting someone driver your car with you in it while they're drunk = illegal.

Really complicated, there.

[Bugeater]

so now the passenger of every car has to carry around a breathalyzer machine to check the driver before he gets a ride?
Read the article again, this applies to the OWNER OF THE CAR only.

[jspchief]

For the record, the article is wrong. McNair won't get charged with DUI, he'll get charged with a misdemeanor that's basically "riding in your car while the driver is drunk".

As for the stupidity of the law, my problem with it lies in the same place as my problem with all DUI laws. They require the average citizen to guesstimate something that trained professionals can't get right without high tech equipment... blood alcohol level. It's like imposing speed limits when no one has speedometers.

This one just takes it step further because it requires an intoxicated person to guesstimate the BAL of someone else.

[Soupnazi]

Yeah, that's exactly the same as the owner being present for and approving of the actions of the driver.

Letting someone drive your car with you in it = legal. Letting someone driver your car with you in it while they're drunk = illegal.

Really complicated, there.

If you're drunk, you probably don't possess the judgement to determine if someone else is sober enough to drive your car. Impaired judgement is the reason why you're not supposed to get behind the wheel when drunk.

I guess you're comfortable living in a society where you're responsible for the actions of others.

[jspchief]

If you're drunk, you probably don't possess the judgement to determine if someone else is sober enough to drive your car. Impaired judgement is the reason why you're not supposed to get behind the wheel when drunk.

I guess you're comfortable living in a society where you're responsible for the actions of others.Exactly.

"You're too drunk to operate a vehicle, but we expect you to be sober enough to determine something that the trained police force determines with tests and equipment."

[Bugeater]

Exactly.

"You're too drunk to operate a vehicle, but we expect you to be sober enough to determine something that the trained police force determines with tests and equipment."
Then maybe you should stick to designated drivers who haven't been drinking at all.

[Mr. Laz]

Read the article again, this applies to the OWNER OF THE CAR only.
so ..... they are still saying that you are responsible for the judgement of others.


how is the passenger supposed to know how much the other guy had to drink?


McNair says "hey man, i've had too much to drink. Let's call a cab"

other guy says "it's cool, i can drive ... i'm fine"

McNair says "you sure?"

other guy says "ya man ... i stopped drinking awhile ago"

McNair says "cool ... ok, here's the keys"


cops says "Mr. McNair, you're under arrest for letting the other guy drive drunk"


complete crap

[eazyb81]

Then maybe you should stick to designated drivers who haven't been drinking at all.

Where's the fun in that?

I'm getting ready to move to Tennessee - glad I found this out now.

[Ultra Peanut]

Then maybe you should stick to designated drivers who haven't been drinking at all.NAZI

[Brock]

It'll never stick.

[Bugeater]

how is the passenger supposed to know how much the other guy had to drink?

This was probably someone he was hanging out with and probably had some idea how much he had to drink. Nevertheless, he KNEW he had been drinking.

[Mr. Laz]

This was probably someone he was hanging out with and probably had some idea how much he had to drink. Nevertheless, he KNEW he had been drinking.
"probably" ... "probably" ... "some idea"

how'd he know ... did he follow the other guy around and count?




since when is a law of guilt based on conjecture and assumptions?

[Bugeater]

"probably" ... "probably" ... "some idea"

how'd he know ... did he follow the other guy around and count?




since when is a law of guilt based on conjecture and assumptions?
Yes, that's an assumption based on the fact that the driver was his brother-in-law. It also isn't exactly a big leap to think that someone who is in a bar may have been drinking. If he didn't know how much the guy had to drink, he shouldn't have let him drive his car.

[DaneMcCloud]

The law may be dumb, but McNair's dumber. He's a 32 year old multimillionaire athlete. He can afford a professional driver or a cab. What a moron.

Want to avoid situations like this? It's easy. If you drink, DON'T DRIVE.

That's pretty simple, isn't it?

[Mr. Laz]

Yes, that's an assumption based on the fact that the driver was his brother-in-law. It also isn't exactly a big leap to think that someone who is in a bar may have been drinking. If he didn't know how much the guy had to drink, he shouldn't have let him drive his car.
we just disagree then




i've always like the idea that the courts had to actually Prove it not just take it's best guess.

[Mr. Laz]

The law may be dumb, but McNair's dumber. He's a 32 year old multimillionaire athlete. He can afford a professional driver or a cab. What a moron.

Want to avoid situations like this? It's easy. If you drink, DON'T DRIVE.

That's pretty simple, isn't it?
isn't that what McNair did?

he drank so he didn't drive

[StcChief]

Again McNair makes how much $$$$. No cabs in Nashville.

Both over limit..... bad law worse judgement on McNair.

[L.A. Chieffan]

How about this one? McNair is sitting at home relaxing having a couple of beers and his brother in law comes over to the house and says:
"Hey Bro, lets go down to the market and get some snacks. I like snacks."
"I like snacks too bro. But YOU should drive as I have been sitting here relaxing, drinking, without any snacks."
"Ok, snacks here we come!"

5 minutes later:

"Uh hey bro you think they got snacks at the station?"
"You dumb mother****er."

[Bugeater]

we just disagree then




i've always like the idea that the courts had to actually Prove it not just take it's best guess.
Just for the record, I don't agree with McNair getting charged with a DUI. I could see a reckless endangerment charge of some type. If you caught jAZ's "how many drinks" thread, a common answer was "if I've been drinking, I don't drive". I don't see why the same logic can't be applied to who you let drive your car, especially when there's a law like this on the books. As far as proof, all the courts have to prove is that McNair allowed this guy to drive his vehicle, which is a slam-dunk considering the fact that he was behind the wheel with McNair sitting next to him.

[Otis99]

I don't see why the same logic can't be applied to who you let drive your car

Do you drink? Frequently? How much? Do you often meet people at bars or sporting events or concerts in which alcohol is consumed, and then travel with that same group of people afterwards to different locations where more alcohol is consumed? If you have never been a part of a group of people going out on the weekends doing things where alcohol is involved, you would quickly see that logic has no place in Saturday night shenanigans. I love how people that don't drink think it's oh-so-easy to decide HOW dangerous certain kinds of alcohol-related behavior is.

Bottom line, McNair should be charged with no crime and the law is moronic. If you have never had someone drive your drunk ass home after you had too much and the other guy only had a little, you wouldn't understand.

[Phobia]

I would say that Bugeater has been known to drink a beer or 30. Heh.

[Mr. Laz]

How about this one? McNair is sitting at home relaxing having a couple of beers and his brother in law comes over to the house and says:
"Hey Bro, lets go down to the market and get some snacks. I like snacks."
"I like snacks too bro. But YOU should drive as I have been sitting here relaxing, drinking, without any snacks."
"Ok, snacks here we come!"

5 minutes later:

"Uh hey bro you think they got snacks at the station?"
"You dumb mother****er."
exactly ....... how in the hell can you charge somebody for another person's crime?!!?

[Bugeater]

Do you drink? Frequently? How much?
Yes, I drink nearly every day. Usually just a few, but occasionally I drink a lot.

Do you often meet people at bars or sporting events or concerts in which alcohol is consumed, and then travel with that same group of people afterwards to different locations where more alcohol is consumed?
Rarely, if ever. I don't like to drink and drive, and I don't like to ride with people who have been drinking.

If you have never been a part of a group of people going out on the weekends doing things where alcohol is involved, you would quickly see that logic has no place in Saturday night shenanigans.
Well, if people refuse to use logic in their actions, they have to suffer the consequences for them.

If you have never had someone drive your drunk ass home after you had too much and the other guy only had a little, you wouldn't understand.
That doesn't even make sense. Either way somebody is risking a DUI charge at the very least, if not endangering someone's life as well.

[Bugeater]

exactly ....... how in the hell can you charge somebody for another person's crime?!!?
McNair isn't getting charged for another persons crime. You're acting like he's getting the DUI instead of the driver, that's not what's happening. McNair let an intoxicated person drive his vehicle which, whether you agree with it or not, is a crime in Tennessee.