Arizona Cardinals GM Steve Keim cited for DUI on July 4

[Stout]

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

I didn't say I DO it; I said I CAN do it. And I would do 70 in a residential area 100 times out of 100 rather than doing far slower at .19 BAC.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

I didn't say I DO it; I said I CAN do it. And I would do 70 in a residential area 100 times out of 100 rather than doing far slower at .19 BAC.

Well, the only things to say to that is you're wrong.

I'm sure you realize the faster you drive, the slower the reaction time you have, the less stopping distance you have, etc.

I copied this from an article: not earth shattering at all.

1. Speeding While Driving and Reckless Driving: Failing to follow the speed limit is the most common cause of traffic accidents in the United States.

 

[Dback Jon]

I didn't say I DO it; I said I CAN do it. And I would do 70 in a residential area 100 times out of 100 rather than doing far slower at .19 BAC.

Both are stupid and reckless

 

[Dback Jon]

By the way going 70 in a residential area would be criminal speeding subject 30 days in jail and loss of license

Anytime you go 20 over posted speed limit or more than 45 mph in a residential area you were subject to that penalty

So the law would disagree that going 70 in a residential area is safer

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Brian in Mesa]

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.

These are not mutually exclusive violations either. You present them as black and white in this discussion, but often it is an impaired driver speeding. Double whammy. If I learned anything in college it is that statistics can and do lie. Drunk driving and speeding are the top causes in most fatal traffic accidents (killing roughly the same number of people annually) and there is no doubt a lot of crossover in those statistics.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

48 whole hours? Ooh.

 

[Mainstreet]

“Entraps you”. Wtf?!? The policeman asks you if you did something. You can answer honestly or lie. “Entraps you”. I, I, I just don’t even know how to address this. “Entraps.” Sigh . . .

Entrap you is perhaps too strong so I initially used the word trick I believe. The design of the question is not by accident in my opinion. A person has to admit guilt, lie or remain silent. I bet most officers use a similar question. The question presumes you have been drinking making it awkward for most people not to answer it.

 

[Mainstreet]

But getting the driver to admit that he did something is not “entrapment.” Everyone needs to leave that argument beyond.

The quote you used did not include "entrapment."

 

[Mainstreet]

Good god man stop using the term “entrap!” You’re using it wrong. Entrapment is to induce someone to do something illegal. Trying to get an admission of illegal activity is not trying to get someone to do the illegal activity. They are not trying to get the guy to actually drink and drive they are trying to get him to admit it. And they’re not doing it by any means that are even remotely deceptive - they are asking a factual question! By your argument if they find someone in house that’s been reported as a burglary they are “entrapping” the individual if they ask the burglar if they own the house. That’s NOT entrapment. And to even suggest such is so beyond the absurd I’m honestly astonished you’re even making this argument.

Again the use of the word "entrap" may be too strong but it is not off target

Here is one of the definitions.

"3. to lure into performing an act or making a statement that is compromising or illegal".


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/entrap?s=t

 

[Mainstreet]

“You cannot be tricked into admitting guilt” - where’s the “trick” here? It’s a pretty blatantly straight forward question. There’s no “trick.”

The question, “When did you stop beating your wife?" makes an contains a controversial assumption.

IMO, the same type question was used in the DUI case. As I recall the prosecuting attorney even used the answer as an admission of guilt.

There are such things as loaded questions. Maybe we are debating terminology.

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Dback Jon]

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[MadCardDisease]

You must be registered for see images attach

Truly embarrassing. My kids go to the same school as Keim's. It must suck to see your dad go to jail. At least there is a week left till school starts back up so hopefully this won't affect his kids much.

I think Keim has a drinking problem and hopefully he can get it fixed. I have a feeling that BA helped to fuel that problem as BA is a big drinker as well.

Keim pops up all around where I live so I've spoke with several friends who have run into him at local restaurants and such. Many have seen him waiting at a bar for his takeout food while working on his phone. They say he could put down 2 to 3 drinks while waiting for his food.

I'm not here to judge Keim. But I truly do hope he get help and takes it seriously.

 

[BillsCarnage]

By the way going 70 in a residential area would be criminal speeding subject 30 days in jail and loss of license

Anytime you go 20 over posted speed limit or more than 45 mph in a residential area you were subject to that penalty

So the law would disagree that going 70 in a residential area is safer

These are not mutually exclusive violations either. You present them as black and white in this discussion, but often it is an impaired driver speeding. Double whammy. If I learned anything in college it is that statistics can and do lie. Drunk driving and speeding are the top causes in most fatal traffic accidents (killing roughly the same number of people annually) and there is no doubt a lot of crossover in those statistics.

And yet, most people usually escape the criminal speeding ticket. And, you can take traffic school to have the speeding ticket dropped.

They may kill roughly the same, but with one you get a "get out of jail" free card on an annual basis. Both are reckless and endanger others. Makes ya wonder...

 

[Dback Jon]

And yet, most people usually escape the criminal speeding ticket. And, you can take traffic school to have the speeding ticket dropped.

They may kill roughly the same, but with one you get a "get out of jail" free card on an annual basis. Both are reckless and endanger others. Makes ya wonder...

If you are going 70 in a residential area, you most likely won't escape the criminal speeding ticket. That's 45 over the speed limit.

 

[Stout]

By the way going 70 in a residential area would be criminal speeding subject 30 days in jail and loss of license

Anytime you go 20 over posted speed limit or more than 45 mph in a residential area you were subject to that penalty

So the law would disagree that going 70 in a residential area is safer

Yes, I was a criminal justice major, and I realize this.

Well, the only things to say to that is you're wrong.

I'm sure you realize the faster you drive, the slower the reaction time you have, the less stopping distance you have, etc.

I copied this from an article: not earth shattering at all.

1. Speeding While Driving and Reckless Driving: Failing to follow the speed limit is the most common cause of traffic accidents in the United States.

That's a thing, not things. And it's a willfully ignorant stance you're taking. Go on, defend drunk driving some more. It's really making you look bad. Why you have to immediately defend drunk driving/drunk drivers by pulling another crime into the conversation is disgusting. Yes, it's good to point out discrepancies in our justice system, but not when you minimize other reckless, harmful crimes in doing so.

Both are stupid and reckless

Fully agree.

 

[Dback Jon]

Who's defending drunk driving? You seem to be defending criminal speeding though - a VERY bad look.

You are the one that claimed you could do 70 in a residential zone safely.

 

[BillsCarnage]

If you are going 70 in a residential area, you most likely won't escape the criminal speeding ticket. That's 45 over the speed limit.

At 70, probably not, but I have a co-worker who was clocked at 57 in a 35. Got the 20+, but doesn't have a history and the judge gave him the online school.

Why you have to immediately defend drunk driving/drunk drivers by pulling another crime into the conversation is disgusting. Yes, it's good to point out discrepancies in our justice system, but not when you minimize other reckless, harmful crimes in doing so.

I don't think he's defending DD, just pointing out how dangerous both are. Yet one basically gives a hall pass and no one cares about, and the other is public outcry.

 

[oaken1]

“You cannot be tricked into admitting guilt” - where’s the “trick” here? It’s a pretty blatantly straight forward question. There’s no “trick.”

ahhh... but they do try and trick you into admitting guilt. a cop buddy of mine once told me,...a part of the reason for field sobriety checks..is to inform a driver what you want them to do, then listen for damning phrases like,..." Oh crap, I couldnt do that sober"

the best answer when a cop asks you what you had to drink is... not a god damned thing, argue nyquil later if you need to... but never ever ever tell the damned cops you ever did anything.
hell no, I didnt drink tonight, didnt drink last night,... I have never drank any alcohol since my fifteenth birthday...had a bad experience, stuff makes me sick, I dont drink

that would be like... Cop: Did you just rob that bank
dude:.. nah man, I only took fifty bucks for gas

unless you called them yourself, the cops aint your friends, their job is to find a reason to bust you. never tell them anything, deny everything, speak as little as possible, lie if you have to, and deny, deny, deny , deny.... because they will sure as poo lie to you in order to get you to confess to something

 

[BillsCarnage]

“You cannot be tricked into admitting guilt” - where’s the “trick” here? It’s a pretty blatantly straight forward question. There’s no “trick.”

I think what @Mainstreet is just trying to point out is the ambiguity of the question.

"Have you been drinking?"
"Sure, I've had water, soda, juice, etc." - That's not lying, right?

You're already being pulled over for suspicion of impaired driving; wouldn't admission of alcohol, drugs or medication provide evidence against you?

People seem to assume the question refers to alcohol. I'm surprised defense lawyers haven't jumped all over the question.

In the end, you're going to get busted no matter how the question is phrased.

 

[82CardsGrad]

I think what @Mainstreet is just trying to point out is the ambiguity of the question.

"Have you been drinking?"
"Sure, I've had water, soda, juice, etc." - That's not lying, right?

You're already being pulled over for suspicion of impaired driving; wouldn't admission of alcohol, drugs or medication provide evidence against you?

People seem to assume the question refers to alcohol. I'm surprised defense lawyers haven't jumped all over the question.

In the end, you're going to get busted no matter how the question is phrased.

The only "evidence" are the facts... What did you blow, and/or what was your blood alcohol content. You can't be arrested for drinking a beer. You will be arrested if you BAC is over .08.

 

[TJ]

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.

You brought up the elephant in the room.

Had this been the GM of a team struggling to win more than 5 games a season, then I would say the chances of Keim being fired go up exponentially. But the Cardinals are in the Top-5 in Wins since Keim took over, so his success is measurable. As a result, he has a little more protection than most.

But this also says something about the franchise and its willingness to give others a second, and perhaps a third, chance despite performance. When Michael Floyd got his third DUI, this one of the super extreme variety, he was struggling exponentially on the field. Michael B gave him an opportunity to stay provided he took responsibility and showed remorse. This was even after failing to report it to the team in a timely fashion. Floyd did not, and was cut as a result.

Maybe it's to a fault, but the team has shown leniency and a desire to help those who struggle with alcoholism rather than castigate them.

 

[BillsCarnage]

You brought up the elephant in the room.

Had this been the GM of a team struggling to win more than 5 games a season, then I would say the chances of Keim being fired go up exponentially. But the Cardinals are in the Top-5 in Wins since Keim took over, so his success is measurable. As a result, he has a little more protection than most.

If this were the Chargers GM, people would be like, "The Chargers are in LA???"

 

[Brian in Mesa]

If you are going 70 in a residential area, you most likely won't escape the criminal speeding ticket. That's 45 over the speed limit.

Yeah, you'd be stuck with a ticket. Can't take a class to wipe out certain violations. Points would go on your license, too.