Arizona Cardinals GM Steve Keim cited for DUI on July 4

[Brian in Mesa]

The problem is, it's a loaded question which is phrased so that anyone who has consumed alcohol, no matter how small, is asked to implicate himself.

Based on the question, I think drinking water as an answer would be honest. However, saying I prefer not to answer that question (if one has consumed alcohol) would probably be the better response if one does not want to admit guilt.

Saying you prefer not to answer a question like "Have you had anything to drink to night?" would probably not go well for you. Whether you had been drinking or not, you are probably going to go through a battery of tests right there on the spot. Officer would likely do all he could to make you regret your comment before letting you go.

Besides, officers are smart enough to tell when an answer is deceptive. Saying "Yes, I've had some water." is just going to lead to the follow-up question of "Anything else? Besides water?" or even "Have you consumed any alcohol this evening?"

I do not think you are getting out of admitting you had alcohol (if you did) without lying to the officer in your scenario. Unless you pull the refusal to answer card which I addressed above.

Easiest answer is do not drink and drive. Seriously. It is so simple.

 

[Mainstreet]

Saying you prefer not to answer a question like "Have you had anything to drink to night?" would probably not go well for you. Whether you had been drinking or not, you are probably going to go through a battery of tests right there on the spot. Officer would likely do all he could to make you regret your comment before letting you go.

Besides, officers are smart enough to tell when an answer is deceptive. Saying "Yes, I've had some water." is just going to lead to the follow-up question of "Anything else? Besides water?" or even "Have you consumed any alcohol this evening?"

I do not think you are getting out of admitting you had alcohol (if you did) without lying to the officer in your scenario. Unless you pull the refusal to answer card which I addressed above.

Easiest answer is do not drink and drive. Seriously. It is so simple.

People have rights... although we seem to be gradually losing them. I do not believe an officer asking a question that in my mind is designed to entrap... by admitting guilt or lying (if alcohol is consumed) is the best way to go.

A person should have every right to refuse to answer this question based upon constitutional rights and not worry about whether... "Officer would likely do all he could to make you regret your comment before letting you go."

We do not live in a police state yet or so I hope.

The thing you need to consider Brian, the police are not your friends and everything you say and do will be used against. Because you do not drink and drive does not mean you cannot be tricked into admitting guilt in a totally different situation.

I get it you don't drink and drive. I don't either but I do care about constitutional rights.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

People have rights... although we seem to be gradually losing them. I do not believe an officer asking a question that in my mind is designed to entrap... by admitting guilt or lying (if alcohol is consumed) is the best way to go.

A person should have every right to refuse to answer this question based upon constitutional rights and not worry about whether... "Officer would likely do all he could to make you regret your comment before letting you go."

We do not live in a police state yet or so I hope.

The thing you need to consider Brian, the police are not your friends and everything you say and do will be used against. Because you do not drink and drive does not mean you cannot be tricked into admitting guilt in a totally different situation.

I get it you don't drink and drive. I don't either but I do care about constitutional rights.

Wow. So now an officer is stepping all over your rights if they ask you whether or not you've had anything to drink during a traffic stop?

What about those scoundrels at the Border Patrol checkpoints that ask you "Are you a US citizen?" The nerve of them.

I think I'll exit this dialogue as I am not concerned one bit with how someone who has been drinking and then chooses to drive should answer questions when pulled over for suspicion of DUI.

I have zero empathy for anyone who chooses to be in that position.

 

[gimpy]

Man, i think a lot is being made out of nothing on here. Actually, the first question should be not, "have you been drinking", but "how much have you had to drink". For the most part, the officer is already thinking/knows you have been drinking because of your driving behaviour and he probably can smell it on your breath. So, it's not a matter of if, but how much. I think most people will probably say something like, "well officer, I'm not going to lie to you", anyway. And then proceed to tell him he's only had a couple or two drinks, at the most.

It doesn't really matter what you say, he will investigate further until he's decided whether he's going to arrest you or let you go.

Any more, i think law enforcement is trying to teach how to get the less obvious (lower BA readings) driver's off the road. The .08's, etc., the .15+ are a lot easier to find and arrest. They (law enforcement) are stressing the lower readings, along with drugs (both illegal and prescription).

 

[Solar7]

The first question is actually "Have you had anything to drink tonight?"

As a lifelong non-drinker and a sarcastic person, I've always thought about that initial question myself. Drinking and driving is a very serious issue which has directly impacted my life more than once, but...if I was ever pulled over and asked that question...is an officer going to think I'm being honest or being a jerk when I tell him I had some lemonade and a flavored water? It's purely semantics, but they don't ask you if you've had any alcohol to drink...just "anything to drink."

This is part of the issue of why it's hard to come to a reasonable agreement on this discussion - so many people are on vehemently different sides.

You never drink, and apparently never have (which is fine and dandy with me), but the reality of the situation is that we have a legal limit - people are legally allowed to drink and drive. You have a major problem with alcohol and don't get why anyone could possibly want to have a drink with dinner, I drink too much and don't get why there's hysteria over someone having three drinks.

I respect your perspective, but where you feel like people should never have a drop to drink and get in a car, I think there should be better resources in place to educate people on when they're too impaired.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

This is part of the issue of why it's hard to come to a reasonable agreement on this discussion - so many people are on vehemently different sides.

You never drink, and apparently never have (which is fine and dandy with me), but the reality of the situation is that we have a legal limit - people are legally allowed to drink and drive. You have a major problem with alcohol and don't get why anyone could possibly want to have a drink with dinner, I drink too much and don't get why there's hysteria over someone having three drinks.

I respect your perspective, but where you feel like people should never have a drop to drink and get in a car, I think there should be better resources in place to educate people on when they're too impaired.

Ah, freedom. It sounds so good to so many, but then the reality of what freedom is, comes into play. Freedom is not safe, nor is it for people who are not responsible.

If we are a free country (and that is HIGHLY debatable these days) then people should be allowed to drink as they please, as long as they are responsible.

To ban any drinking, that is taking away someone else's freedom. It makes things less safe, but the amount of freedom we give up, while all the while claiming to be a "free country" for the sake of safety is a lot.

There are more rights, and freedom taken away in the name of making things safe for everyone than just about anything else in this country. It has gotten to the point where that is the go to card for many people, businesses, and politicians. "We are going to control ______ in the name of safety."

Just saying that is the balance in our society, with you two gentlemen making a prime example of it (not saying either are wrong, or did anything wrong), but it was a good example of what we as a people in this country really got to think about every time we do something in the name of safety.

 

[Dback Jon]

.19. Extreme DUI

 

[Cheesebeef]

.19. Extreme DUI

where'd you see that?

 

[AZfaninMN]

http://ktar.com/story/2144424/arizona-cardinals-gm-steve-keim-pleads-guilty-to-extreme-dui/

 

[Kel Varnsen]

.19. Extreme DUI

Two beers!

You must be registered for see images

 

[Cheesebeef]

http://ktar.com/story/2144424/arizona-cardinals-gm-steve-keim-pleads-guilty-to-extreme-dui/

I'm shocked.

Extreme DUI. Two-time offender. Go get some help and figure your ish out.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

.19. Extreme DUI

Guess that ends the speculation. Hope he seeks help.

 

[82CardsGrad]

.19. Extreme DUI

I'm really not surprised at all... 0.193. At .20 he would've hit "Super Extreme DUI"... Based on what I have witnessed with Keim, and the video of the night in question, I was 99.9% certain he was bombed.
What I have seen with Keim over the past 18-24 months is somehow who consistently consumed alcohol, and on 2 occasions he was doing so when others, like Mike B., were not. But what was more troubling to me was the personality change I felt I was seeing...I referenced this earlier, but to me, Keim had lost that humble nature that I had always associated with him. IMHO, I believe he allowed his position, solidified via the extension, and his "success" (however he chose to define it), get to him. He took on a superior aura and I am certain that hubris contributed to him getting behind the wheel while being extremely intoxicated.
So sad... but, as someone who has seen a multitude of people hit bottom and bounce to new highs, I know it's possible for Steve Keim to do so as well...
Praying for you Steve...

 

[splitsecond]

.193 for a guy his size probably requires at least 1/2 a bottle.

 

[unseenaz]

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.

 

[TopGun]

Ian Rapoport‏Verified account@RapSheet




#AZCardinals GM Steve Keim, who recently pleaded guilty to extreme DUI in court, is being suspended for five weeks and fined $200,000 which will be donated to MADD Arizona.

 

[BIGDADDY_REDBIRD]

https://www.azcardinals.com/news/steve-keim-suspended-five-weeks-fined-after-dui

 

[Dback Jon]

where'd you see that?

Heard on radio

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Weak.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Ian Rapoport‏Verified account@RapSheet




#AZCardinals GM Steve Keim, who recently pleaded guilty to extreme DUI in court, is being suspended for five weeks and fined $200,000 which will be donated to MADD Arizona.

What is his salary?

 

[TJ]

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.

A) He’s keeping his job

B) Why do people continue to compare the two situations when there are staunch differences?

 

[TJ]

Weak.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Weak?! This is consistent with other punishments dished to other executives in NFL. Dude just lost 10% of his annual salary and an additional $200k, along with corresponding legal punishments and public humiliation.

 

[unseenaz]

A) He’s keeping his job

B) Why do people continue to compare the two situations when there are staunch differences?

Both were at least extreme DUI on a rap sheet, do the case specific circumstances really make that much of a difference? Why? Because Floyd wasn’t sorry?

 

[TJ]

Both were at least extreme DUI on a rap sheet, do the case specific circumstances really make that much of a difference? Why? Because Floyd wasn’t sorry?

Considering that lack of remorse was literally the deciding factor, yes. You can fixate on the details, but it’s objective as to why both are distinguishably different circumstances. If Keim tells Michael B to F off, he’s done.

 

[splitsecond]

So Keim is going to be suspended during the only time of year he is particularly useful. May as well fire him at this point.