Arizona Cardinals GM Steve Keim cited for DUI on July 4

[TJ]

Did it say suspended “without pay?” If not its likely just the $200,000. I don’t think execs get paid weekly game checks like players.

Suspensions are without pay unless otherwise indicated, though I can’t remem any off the top of my head that were with pay.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Did it say suspended “without pay?” If not its likely just the $200,000. I don’t think execs get paid weekly game checks like players.

Not one source has reported "without pay."

And the $200k will be donated to the Arizona chapters of MADD. Nice, but that also makes it a tax write-off, I'm sure. Hopefully for the team and of no benefit to Keim.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

20+ years ago. The law doesn't recognize any DUI more than 7 years prior.

Just because the law doesn’t incorporate it means it didn’t happen???? Wtf? He has two dui’s. This one an extreme dui. He lied to the police. He has a serious problem. Why anyone is still arguing in support of him, in any fashion is becoming a bad look for those defending him, not just him.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Considering the league accepted the penalty as is, that really isn't relevant.

Also, 1996 was a very long time ago. If that had any bearing on anything, he wouldn't have been hired in the first place in any capacity.

Once is a mistake (albeit a mistake that a smart man could have, and would have avoided) twice is a dereliction of your membership in society because you were wrapped on the wrist and still didn’t learn your lesson and endangered those around you . . . EXTREME DUI. Let that sink. TWICE the legal limit. Drive by a painted house . . . Good god . . .

 

[TJ]

You must be registered for see images attach

Apparently he's going to read Bill Walsh's book during his staycation.

Looks like he's prepared to really rough it.

We are so soft on drunk drivers. SMH.

Get a grip, dude. People read in jail.

We get it: You’re disappointed he didn’t get fired. You’ve made that abundantly clear.

 

[TJ]

Once is a mistake (albeit a mistake that a smart man could have, and would have avoided) twice is a dereliction of your membership in society because you were wrapped on the wrist and still didn’t learn your lesson and endangered those around you . . . EXTREME DUI. Let that sink. TWICE the legal limit. Drive by a painted house . . . Good god . . .

And what’s your point? I don’t condone drunk driving and was hoping he’d get punished hard and he did. It’s up to Keim to figure it out, at this point.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

And what’s your point? I don’t condone drunk driving and was hoping he’d get punished hard and he did. It’s up to Keim to figure it out, at this point.

My point is it’s lame for you to dismiss his first dui just because it’s a long time ago. If you were hiring a babysitter for your child would you hire a convicted pedophile if it was 20 years ago? Of course not because it happened. He didn’t get a “reset” button for life. To be honest there’s not a real good public policy argument to be made even for the legal disregard due to time that’s transpired. Who cares that 7 or 20 years have passed. I’ve seen a lot of you say “well he was a stupid kid” but what if he got it when he was 35 and the second when he was 55? 35 isn’t a stupid kid. It’s a stupid rule to ignore it from a legal perspective, it’s literally illogical to ignore it from a reality perspective.

 

[TJ]

My point is it’s lame for you to dismiss his first dui just because it’s a long time ago. If you were hiring a babysitter for your child would you hire a convicted pedophile if it was 20 years ago? Of course not because it happened. He didn’t get a “reset” button for life. To be honest there’s not a real good public policy argument to be made even for the legal disregard due to time that’s transpired. Who cares that 7 or 20 years have passed. I’ve seen a lot of you say “well he was a stupid kid” but what if he got it when he was 35 and the second when he was 55? 35 isn’t a stupid kid. It’s a stupid rule to ignore it from a legal perspective, it’s literally illogical to ignore it from a reality perspective.

That’s an extreme example. Should Keim have had his driving privileges revoked permanently in 1996?

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

That’s an extreme example. Should Keim have had his driving privileges revoked permanently in 1996?

No. But considering he did it again . . . maybe he should now. Actually I believe he should be required to have interlock in cars forever now. He couldn’t learn his lesson. He should no longer be allowed to endanger society.

 

[TJ]

No. But considering he did it again . . . maybe he should now. Actually I believe he should be required to have interlock in cars forever now. He couldn’t learn his lesson. He should no longer be allowed to endanger society.

Agree about the interlock device. I think the stigma from that for first-time offenders would be a hefty burden. Plus, those things are expensive to have installed.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Just because the law doesn’t incorporate it means it didn’t happen???? Wtf? He has two dui’s. This one an extreme dui. He lied to the police. He has a serious problem. Why anyone is still arguing in support of him, in any fashion is becoming a bad look for those defending him, not just him.

Completely agree. It still speaks to him as a person. To his character. To his lack of concern for himself and others on the road. Screw the law. He is a two-time DUI offender. Period. That's on him and it doesn't go away every 7 years.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Get a grip, dude. People read in jail.

We get it: You’re disappointed he didn’t get fired. You’ve made that abundantly clear.

I was just hoping for an actual punishment that might sting. This is nothing for Keim, IMHO.

I hope he seeks help and doesn't drink and drive again anytime soon.

 

[AZ Shocker]

As long as alcohol is still legal....these things will continue within our society. Such a slippery slope. It's celebrated in our culture! Big money. Big advertisers. Big government. And us humans. Everybody wants a piece of that pie...

 

[Jersey Girl]

10, and 1 HAS to be served in a jail - most can be done on house arrest. As I posted above, friends who have had same level of DUI spent 17 hours total in jail, rest on house arrest

The punishments are far ranging across the US and across the lawyer you can afford.

A 17-year old driving 20 MPH over the speed limit with a .08 BAC killed my friend and his friend (a 15 year-old) and he received 30 days of "overnight" jail. This was in Jersey and before there were laws about underage people being allowed zero BAC.

My brother got a DUI, just over the legal limit. My parents put up a lot of money to get a good lawyer for him. He lost his license for 6 months and his insurance was through the roof for five years, but that's the price you pay. Later we found out that the cop that pulled him over was arrested for trying to buy cocaine in his patrol car on a day he called off of work. This is the same cop who lived in my condo complex, came over on a football Sunday, knocked on our door and said that people were complaining about noise. It was 2 p.m. on a Saturday and he wasn't on duty. Pretty sure people (three of them) were just pissing him off for cheering about football when he was tired.

Does that absolve my brother of his bad choice? No. And, if you see my brother any time soon, please remind him of this (even though it's been almost 20 years).

 

[Jersey Girl]

The charts/calculators I can find only go up to 240 pounds, but to get a 300 pound man up to .19, which is extreme, he would have to had 12-15 beers/shots at minimum

Over the course of what time?

 

[Jersey Girl]

Also, 1996 was a very long time ago.

Settle down there, pal.

 

[ajcardfan]

I was just hoping for an actual punishment that might sting. This is nothing for Keim, IMHO.

I hope he seeks help and doesn't drink and drive again anytime soon.

BIM, to be fair, you cannot possibly know how bad Keim is hurting, or not hurting, over this entire affair. You can argue he should've gotten a more severe punishment from the team, but you cannot argue that this is "nothing" for Keim.

I hope he is hurting and ready to change. do I know he is? No.

I also don't know this is "nothing" for Keim and he's laughing up his sleeve.

I think we can all agree that we hope this sad situation makes him try to be a better man. not for the sake of the Cardinals. but for his wife and kids.

 

[Linderbee]

I was just hoping for an actual punishment that might sting. This is nothing for Keim, IMHO.

I hope he seeks help and doesn't drink and drive again, ever.

Ftfy.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

The moral police are out in full force again. Like I said earlier, if Keim was issued an extreme speeding citation, say going 70 through a residential neighborhood, it would have barely created a blip even though he was being much more dangerous and endangering more people.

I know that's not what he did, but both situations are traffic violations that are dangerous and can be avoided, no more, no less. Just because alcohol was involved in one doesn't make it worse than the other.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

BAD LOOK FOR THE FRANCHISE!

not long ago he was sitting on the other side of the table and Floyd was in his shoes. now he's the one under the spotlight, and we all know what happen to floyd. .19 isn't much off from Floyd's .21 so I don't see any scenario where Bidwill allows Keim to keep his job.

With rank comes privilege.

That is the truth of it. Not saying it is right, not saying it is fair, not excusing poor behavior, but that is the reality of the society we live in.

 

[Stout]

The moral police are out in full force again. Like I said earlier, if Keim was issued an extreme speeding citation, say going 70 through a residential neighborhood, it would have barely created a blip even though he was being much more dangerous and endangering more people.

I know that's not what he did, but both situations are traffic violations that are dangerous and can be avoided, no more, no less. Just because alcohol was involved in one doesn't make it worse than the other.

Bull-ish. I can do 70 through a residential area relatively safely, depending on the area and time of day, because I have my full faculties and am not impaired. If I'm at .19 BA, doing 30 through the same area would be 100x more dangerous. Being impaired this bad and driving is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more irresponsible than speeding. And it isn't playing morality police to say it.

To say don't drink and drive isn't being mean, taking away liberties, denying rights, being overly moralistic, or anything of the sort. It's a basic measure of responsibility that can have no argument.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

To say don't drink and drive isn't being mean, taking away liberties, denying rights, being overly moralistic, or anything of the sort. It's a basic measure of responsibility that can have no argument.

Agreed. You want the right/freedom to drink when and where you want, then you must be responsible about. You do not do it, people won't feel safe, and then will pass laws to further restrict the right/freedom and drink.

And as Stout state, there is no argument against it. That is just the way it works. Freedom without any self-responsibility is not freedom, it is anarchy (which is NOT freedom).

 

[Dback Jon]

As long as alcohol is still legal....these things will continue within our society. Such a slippery slope. It's celebrated in our culture! Big money. Big advertisers. Big government. And us humans. Everybody wants a piece of that pie...

How much money do the Cardinals make off of alcohol sales in a year? Tens of millions?

 

[Dback Jon]

Over the course of what time?

A few hours

 

[Dback Jon]

Bull-ish. I can do 70 through a residential area relatively safely, depending on the area and time of day, because I have my full faculties and am not impaired. If I'm at .19 BA, doing 30 through the same area would be 100x more dangerous. Being impaired this bad and driving is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more irresponsible than speeding. And it isn't playing morality police to say it.

To say don't drink and drive isn't being mean, taking away liberties, denying rights, being overly moralistic, or anything of the sort. It's a basic measure of responsibility that can have no argument.

Double bulls. No one can claim to be able to drive 70 miles through a residential area in a safe manner it is impossible

just because you haven’t killed a child running from her yard after a loose ball doesn’t mean it’s not gonna happen tomorrow