Michael Turner: Idiot

Awesome.

 

Personally, I think Moddy's full of ...

 

Lower than the national average, according to this.

The Falcons’ Michael Turner—arrested Tuesday morning, hours after playing a game in Atlanta against the Broncos—is the 15th NFL player charged with an alcohol-related driving offense in 2012. Turner also is at least the 22nd athlete in the four major sports—including the NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball—arrested on such a charge this year.

For what it’s worth, that’s not a terrible rate, 22 out of about 3,600 players on active rosters between the four leagues. That’s actually lower than the national average, according to statistics in recent years from the FBI and other federal agencies. Obviously, though, those arrests are much more widely known. After all, they’re celebrities, with money and resources and opportunities.

aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-09-18/michael-turner-dui-arrest-drunk-driving-dwi-professional-athletes-speeding-fast

 

A stretch of road nabs people? Holy shit.

I have no idea where in Gwinnett he was on 85. But to Kirk's point earlier, I regularly do 70-75 in a 55 on my way north to work once I get past the midtown crunch. And I'm getting passed.

 

IJAG,

What would you know about driving in Atlanta? Stick to writing about NASCAR, so Drip can tell you to stick to writing about something else. Now take it to PMs and have a Happy Michael Turner Was A Victim of Racial Profiling Day.

 

Georgia's speed limits are all over the map, even along relatively short stretches of the same road. Not too failiar with 85, but I always hated driving through the state on 75. It'd be 65, then 70, then 55, then 65, then 55, then back to 65 ... I don't have time to turn my cruise control on and off like that.

 

Just do 80 the whole time.

 

Wow, its grab a coke and let's get out of here for our team. Of course this has been Little League and travel teams which ban alcohol at the field.

 

It's a moral failing, not just some lapse in judgment.

 

It must be nice to live in a world of absolution.

 

How so?

Again, some of us are arguing past each other here. I believe that very few people decide to drive impaired. Rather, they decide they aren't impaired. Then they drive. This is not a distinction without difference. In fact, I think it's an extremely important distinction, particularly if we wish to apply moral judgment on the act. Now, I do concur that a moral failing exists in these situations, but I place it, like I said, elsewhere in the timeline than intuition might. I also think that what may seem obvious to some - that you shouldn't drive after so much as a sip, or at least after two or three drinks - is something that just doesn't take for everyone. People take all kinds of risks that don't make sense. They eat red meat and don't exercise and don't wear their seat belt. Why do some lessons sink in and others just sail past? I don't know. I suspect it's cultural within families and groups of friends, and also psychological among individuals.

I also suspect that people's ability to judge their level of impairment varies from person to person, perhaps even a great deal. That .08 number can be destructive, because its existence in our law - and, really, our culture by now - convinces people that impairment is a bright line. In actuality, the road to it is very much a continuum. Some here, poin included, seem surprised that people mis-calculate their level of impairment. But the loss of judgment is a biological/physiological fact. Alcohol affects judgment. Like someone said, these decisions have to be ironed out prior to sip No. 1.

 

Which is still 17 mph lower than what Turner was driving.