Pierce pulled over for erratic driving in LV

[hwangjini_1]

talk about mountainous mole-hills....


The legal limit of .08 is really really low.  Two glasses of wine at dinner will push most over that limit.  I myself have blown 1.0 after one beer on one of things that a buddy of mine had.  


Pierce, tested 3 times, was found to be under the legal limit.  This is a non-issue.  
 

good points. while it is not ideal to have your team leader driving around at 2 or 3AM in the morning, nor to have him pulled over by the police and cuffed....

it is not the end of the world either. he did call valet service to drive afterwards, so he is aware of image.... at least belatedly.

it still beats being knifed in a bar fight. this was foolish behavior, but i dont see it as  that bad...for an nba star.

[galen]

Just some info for those arguing about BAC and legal limits.  Some places have "Zero Tolerance" laws which means that you can be arrested for being impaired even if your BAC is below .08.  I've heard that Vegas is very strict on drunk driving and it would not surprise me if they had a zero tolerance law.

Zero tolerance is an interesting concept and I think, a good one.  It is extremely hard to know whether you are below a certain BAC and for some, .05 may actually mean they are incapable of driving a car.  If you don't have a breathalyzer, then how can you "really" know if you are legal to drive or not?  Zero tolerance laws make it so you know that you can't have even one drink and be confident that you are legal to drive.  Which is really how it should be.  Take a cab/public transit.

"Zero Tolerance" is for people under the age of 21 and they have it in some countries. Your post is more or less irrelevant in discussing Paul Pierce driving while under .08.  You can drive a car if you are under the legal limit.  This shouldn't even be a news story. **** TMZ for breaking this ****

Sorry.  They have it in DC.  You can be arrested no matter what your BAC is.  You probably won't get screwed without a prior offense, but you will be arrested.

[crownsy]

Erratic driving at 3am....had some boos, gets pulled over...doesn't cooperate with the police.... That's just so great that some of you are excusing that type of behavior!

Man this kind of stuff makes me ill. He's an adult who was out in Vagas after 3am. Most everyone in Vagas is out after 3 am. He passed all his sobrity tests. If I had to guess, I'm going with the DWB idea. Let's face it, he a black man driving a BMW and prehaps was not as polite as the police might have liked. I have a feeling when they realized who he was they desided it was best to let him go. That whole " we had to handcuff him because he's a big guy" sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I believe when the police handcuff you it's because they are planning on arresting you. I personally would become much more agitated if I were handcuffed. I don't find it soothing at all. Something about this whole thing feels wrong. I think any one who has been pulled over for DWB can see a pattern here.

i think the gap between people in this thread is between those who think they own the players by some gift of our fanhood, and thus they should be home and in bed by 9 pm every night, and those that realize there real people who are allowed to do whatever they want on there own time, withing reason.

to me, being pulled over for a freaking traffic violation and then 3 attempts to find him drunk, followed up by a 4th attempt with a breathalzer that came up blank files under the "dumb move, but ive done worse" varity

but, i don't consider myself as a owner of these players personal lives, so my view will differentiate from some in this thread i suppose.

[crownsy]

Frankly I don't care if he had 1 or 5.
If you are out at 3 am and have had some liquor find someone to drive, call a [dang] cab. Don't drive as if laws do not apply to you. That is how people get killed.

I'm ****ed. He's not 19. He's a champion, MVP, a dad, a Celtic. What he did was foolish! There is no excusing that.

he did not break any laws.  could you explain what you mean by "dont drive as if laws do not apply to you?" 

He DID break 2 laws! He committed a simple traffic violation, and he was nasty nasty and uncooperative enough with the cops that they had to handcuff the guy.

What a sad state of affairs that so many people think he was in the right in this situation. While he didn't pull a Kobe and "allegedly" rape anyone, he sure wasn't being responsible. Here's to pushing for a no tolerance law. If you don't agree with that stance then you are obviously not a parent or are too selfish to give a crap about anyone else's safety.

where exactly are you getting the in cuffs part?

also, notice how no legitamte news service has picked up on this? there's a reason.

[EJPLAYA]

Frankly I don't care if he had 1 or 5.
If you are out at 3 am and have had some liquor find someone to drive, call a [dang] cab. Don't drive as if laws do not apply to you. That is how people get killed.

I'm ****ed. He's not 19. He's a champion, MVP, a dad, a Celtic. What he did was foolish! There is no excusing that.

he did not break any laws.  could you explain what you mean by "dont drive as if laws do not apply to you?" 

He DID break 2 laws! He committed a simple traffic violation, and he was nasty nasty and uncooperative enough with the cops that they had to handcuff the guy.

What a sad state of affairs that so many people think he was in the right in this situation. While he didn't pull a Kobe and "allegedly" rape anyone, he sure wasn't being responsible. Here's to pushing for a no tolerance law. If you don't agree with that stance then you are obviously not a parent or are too selfish to give a crap about anyone else's safety.

1.  Being "nasty" isn't against the law.
2.  Switching lanes without signalling is against the law, I concede.  If you think it's enough to condemn a man...

The only thing "obvious" is that someone disagrees with you.  It has nothing to do with being a parent.

Man EJ let it go.  You're getting sillier and sillier by the post.  Your heart is in the right place but you picked the wrong argument and your points are thinner than a supermodel.

You know if you'd put as much effort into your argument as you do your comedy routine you might have a chance at changing my mind! I didn't pick the wrong side of this. I will never be convinced a person should get behind the wheel after drinking more than 1 drink. If you had a child killed by a drunk driver then I think you'd change your mind about the parent part not being important. There is approximately 1 person killed by drunk drivers every 33 minutes in the US. Many of them kids. Ask yourself again if that isn't important. Those are 100% preventable deaths.

As far as being nasty not qualifying as a crime, I'm afraid you're wrong. Refusing to cooperate with an officer is a crime.

[crownsy]

Frankly I don't care if he had 1 or 5.
If you are out at 3 am and have had some liquor find someone to drive, call a [dang] cab. Don't drive as if laws do not apply to you. That is how people get killed.

I'm ****ed. He's not 19. He's a champion, MVP, a dad, a Celtic. What he did was foolish! There is no excusing that.

he did not break any laws.  could you explain what you mean by "dont drive as if laws do not apply to you?" 

He DID break 2 laws! He committed a simple traffic violation, and he was nasty nasty and uncooperative enough with the cops that they had to handcuff the guy.

What a sad state of affairs that so many people think he was in the right in this situation. While he didn't pull a Kobe and "allegedly" rape anyone, he sure wasn't being responsible. Here's to pushing for a no tolerance law. If you don't agree with that stance then you are obviously not a parent or are too selfish to give a crap about anyone else's safety.

1.  Being "nasty" isn't against the law.
2.  Switching lanes without signalling is against the law, I concede.  If you think it's enough to condemn a man...

The only thing "obvious" is that someone disagrees with you.  It has nothing to do with being a parent.

Man EJ let it go.  You're getting sillier and sillier by the post.  Your heart is in the right place but you picked the wrong argument and your points are thinner than a supermodel.

You know if you'd put as much effort into your argument as you do your comedy routine you might have a chance at changing my mind! I didn't pick the wrong side of this. I will never be convinced a person should get behind the wheel after drinking more than 1 drink. If you had a child killed by a drunk driver then I think you'd change your mind about the parent part not being important. There is approximately 1 person killed by drunk drivers every 33 minutes in the US. Many of them kids. Ask yourself again if that isn't important. Those are 100% preventable deaths.

As far as being nasty not qualifying as a crime, I'm afraid you're wrong. Refusing to cooperate with an officer is a crime.

while i agree with the principle of your argument, the facts in this case don't support the level of outrage you've put forth.

also, you say more than one drink, which would conflict with your earlier stance on zero tolerance, and approximates what paul must have had in his system to blow less than a .08, which is very low, and set that way for a reason, because anything above approaching "slightly buzzed" which .08 is, is dangerous and reckless.

if paul had blown above that and gotten a DWI, i'd be more able to appreciate the outrage put forth with his behavior.

[nickagneta]

There's a lot of assuming going on in this thread regarding what happened that night.

I personally don't care about any of this but did it ever occur to anyone that it went down like this:

Pierce was gambling and never had a drink. Driving back to wherever he was staying he failed to signal a lane change and was pulled over. Upon being pulled over and being asked for license and registration Pierce gets a bit displeased because he feels he is being pulled over for no reason and questions the officer's motives.

The officer then gets angered and decides he is going to let Pierce know just who is in charge in a situation like this. So he tells Pierce he smells liquor and orders him out of the car. Pierce gets out but gets animated because he knows he didn't drink and that the cop is just giving him a hard time. While arguing with the officer, who might be dealing with a man he can not physically handle if the situation came down to it, Pierce gets a little too vocal and the officer decides to restrain him until he calms down, fearing for his safety.

15 minutes pass. Pierce calms down. He then is administered 3 sobriety tests which he passes and a breathalyzer which he also passes because he hasn't had a drink. Thinking better of getting into the car and having the officer follow him, looking for another reason to harass him, Pierce got a service and went home that way.

Given the released information, this is just as likely a scenario. All the information said was that he did not register above a .08. Well, .00 is below .08.

My point is that there has been a ton of assumptions being made and a ton of accusations being made and we do not have a clue what transpired based on the released information. The report paints a picture that makes you think one way and everyone is going in that direction.

Sometimes the truth is much different than the tale.

This could be a case of an innocent man being screwed around with and when the report is written up, the facts can be twisted to make things sound less favorable towards Mr. Pierce.

Again, I am not saying this happened. But it very well could have happened. Why is everyone assuming what Pierce was doing before getting into his car based on the report that "he was given a breathalyzer, but was under the legal .08 limit". The man may not even have had a drink for god's sake.

Give the man a break, he just made your winter and based on some vague report people are jumping to all sorts of conclusions regarding the man when this story hasn't even been told by him.

[EJPLAYA]

Frankly I don't care if he had 1 or 5.
If you are out at 3 am and have had some liquor find someone to drive, call a [dang] cab. Don't drive as if laws do not apply to you. That is how people get killed.

I'm ****ed. He's not 19. He's a champion, MVP, a dad, a Celtic. What he did was foolish! There is no excusing that.

he did not break any laws.  could you explain what you mean by "dont drive as if laws do not apply to you?" 

He DID break 2 laws! He committed a simple traffic violation, and he was nasty nasty and uncooperative enough with the cops that they had to handcuff the guy.

What a sad state of affairs that so many people think he was in the right in this situation. While he didn't pull a Kobe and "allegedly" rape anyone, he sure wasn't being responsible. Here's to pushing for a no tolerance law. If you don't agree with that stance then you are obviously not a parent or are too selfish to give a crap about anyone else's safety.

1.  Being "nasty" isn't against the law.
2.  Switching lanes without signalling is against the law, I concede.  If you think it's enough to condemn a man...

The only thing "obvious" is that someone disagrees with you.  It has nothing to do with being a parent.

Man EJ let it go.  You're getting sillier and sillier by the post.  Your heart is in the right place but you picked the wrong argument and your points are thinner than a supermodel.

You know if you'd put as much effort into your argument as you do your comedy routine you might have a chance at changing my mind! I didn't pick the wrong side of this. I will never be convinced a person should get behind the wheel after drinking more than 1 drink. If you had a child killed by a drunk driver then I think you'd change your mind about the parent part not being important. There is approximately 1 person killed by drunk drivers every 33 minutes in the US. Many of them kids. Ask yourself again if that isn't important. Those are 100% preventable deaths.

As far as being nasty not qualifying as a crime, I'm afraid you're wrong. Refusing to cooperate with an officer is a crime.

while i agree with the principle of your argument, the facts in this case don't support the level of outrage you've put forth.

also, you say more than one drink, which would conflict with your earlier stance on zero tolerance, and approximates what paul must have had in his system to blow less than a .08, which is very low, and set that way for a reason, because anything above approaching "slightly buzzed" which .08 is, is dangerous and reckless.

if paul had blown above that and gotten a DWI, i'd be more able to appreciate the outrage put forth with his behavior.

I have stated one drink from the very beginning, but stated I'd rather lean to no tolerance than the other way. My outrage is not actually as much directed at PP as it is some of these posters acting like drinking and driving isn't a big deal. Some have even thrown out the comment that PP was actually being responsible because he didn't fail the tests. I think PP shouldn't have been behind the wheel due to the fact he had a few drinks even if it wasn't enough to go over the "legal" limit, but he should have never been in that position in the first place.

These guys saying that PP was in the right though and didn't do anything wrong are absolutely being ridiculous.

[Roy Hobbs]

There's a lot of assuming going on in this thread regarding what happened that night.

I personally don't care about any of this but did it ever occur to anyone that it went down like this:

Pierce was gambling and never had a drink. Driving back to wherever he was staying he failed to signal a lane change and was pulled over. Upon being pulled over and being asked for license and registration Pierce gets a bit displeased because he feels he is being pulled over for no reason and questions the officer's motives.

The officer then gets angered and decides he is going to let Pierce know just who is in charge in a situation like this. So he tells Pierce he smells liquor and orders him out of the car. Pierce gets out but gets animated because he knows he didn't drink and that the cop is just giving him a hard time. While arguing with the officer, who might be dealing with a man he can not physically handle if the situation came down to it, Pierce gets a little too vocal and the officer decides to restrain him until he calms down, fearing for his safety.

15 minutes pass. Pierce calms down. He then is administered 3 sobriety tests which he passes and a breathalyzer which he also passes because he hasn't had a drink. Thinking better of getting into the car and having the officer follow him, looking for another reason to harass him, Pierce got a service and went home that way.

Given the released information, this is just as likely a scenario. All the information said was that he did not register above a .08. Well, .00 is below .08.

Well, no, the information was that he registered, but below a .08, as I read it.  For the breathalyzer to have any reading at all (i.e., to "register") there needs to be some  alcohol in your system.  I suppose Pierce could have drank a heavy dose of cough syrup, but I think you're really stretching things to suggest that Pierce had *nothing* to drink.

[nickagneta]

There's a lot of assuming going on in this thread regarding what happened that night.

I personally don't care about any of this but did it ever occur to anyone that it went down like this:

Pierce was gambling and never had a drink. Driving back to wherever he was staying he failed to signal a lane change and was pulled over. Upon being pulled over and being asked for license and registration Pierce gets a bit displeased because he feels he is being pulled over for no reason and questions the officer's motives.

The officer then gets angered and decides he is going to let Pierce know just who is in charge in a situation like this. So he tells Pierce he smells liquor and orders him out of the car. Pierce gets out but gets animated because he knows he didn't drink and that the cop is just giving him a hard time. While arguing with the officer, who might be dealing with a man he can not physically handle if the situation came down to it, Pierce gets a little too vocal and the officer decides to restrain him until he calms down, fearing for his safety.

15 minutes pass. Pierce calms down. He then is administered 3 sobriety tests which he passes and a breathalyzer which he also passes because he hasn't had a drink. Thinking better of getting into the car and having the officer follow him, looking for another reason to harass him, Pierce got a service and went home that way.

Given the released information, this is just as likely a scenario. All the information said was that he did not register above a .08. Well, .00 is below .08.

Well, no, the information was that he registered, but below a .08, as I read it.  For the breathalyzer to have any reading at all (i.e., to "register") there needs to be some  alcohol in your system.  I suppose Pierce could have drank a heavy dose of cough syrup, but I think you're really stretching things to suggest that Pierce had *nothing* to drink.

That's information from TMZ.com, a source that for me isn't exactly credible. They may have broken the story but I don't trust the fact they have the details correct.

from the AP report on boston.com:

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2008/08/04/pierce_cuffed_released_after_vegas_traffic_stop/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Boston+Celtics+news

LAS VEGAS—Police detained NBA star Paul Pierce in handcuffs during a weekend traffic stop on the Las Vegas Strip, but released him without issuing a summons.

Las Vegas police Officer Bill Cassell said Monday that Pierce was handcuffed briefly after emerging "a little agitated" from a vehicle he was driving around 3 a.m. Sunday.

Pierce led the Boston Celtics to the championship this year and was MVP of the finals.

The 6-foot-7, 235-pound Pierce was given field sobriety tests and a Breathalyzer, which registered below the legal limit. Cassell said Pierce was not arrested.

A valet was called to drive Pierce's car, and Pierce took a cab back to where he was staying.

A spokeswoman for the Celtics said Monday the team and Pierce had no comment.

The wording here is that the Breathalyzer registered below the legal limit. It does not state that it registered with alcohol content but below the legal limit.

Once a credible source can confirm that he did indeed have any reading then of course my point is moot. But I think it odd that TMZ.com has it worded one way while the AP report words it differently. They paint different pictures because once given a breathalyzer a .00 reading is a registered reading.

Again, I could care less, he did nothing wrong. But I just wanted to point out that there could be other explanations rather than some of the summertime hyperbole interpretations I have been reading.

[Schupac]

Frankly I don't care if he had 1 or 5.
If you are out at 3 am and have had some liquor find someone to drive, call a [dang] cab. Don't drive as if laws do not apply to you. That is how people get killed.

I'm ****ed. He's not 19. He's a champion, MVP, a dad, a Celtic. What he did was foolish! There is no excusing that.

he did not break any laws.  could you explain what you mean by "dont drive as if laws do not apply to you?" 

He DID break 2 laws! He committed a simple traffic violation, and he was nasty nasty and uncooperative enough with the cops that they had to handcuff the guy.

What a sad state of affairs that so many people think he was in the right in this situation. While he didn't pull a Kobe and "allegedly" rape anyone, he sure wasn't being responsible. Here's to pushing for a no tolerance law. If you don't agree with that stance then you are obviously not a parent or are too selfish to give a crap about anyone else's safety.

1.  Being "nasty" isn't against the law.
2.  Switching lanes without signalling is against the law, I concede.  If you think it's enough to condemn a man...

The only thing "obvious" is that someone disagrees with you.  It has nothing to do with being a parent.

Man EJ let it go.  You're getting sillier and sillier by the post.  Your heart is in the right place but you picked the wrong argument and your points are thinner than a supermodel.

You know if you'd put as much effort into your argument as you do your comedy routine you might have a chance at changing my mind! I didn't pick the wrong side of this. I will never be convinced a person should get behind the wheel after drinking more than 1 drink. If you had a child killed by a drunk driver then I think you'd change your mind about the parent part not being important. There is approximately 1 person killed by drunk drivers every 33 minutes in the US. Many of them kids. Ask yourself again if that isn't important. Those are 100% preventable deaths.

As far as being nasty not qualifying as a crime, I'm afraid you're wrong. Refusing to cooperate with an officer is a crime.

I don't think it matters how I post, I wouldn't be able to change your mind.

"If you had a child killed..."

If that happened to you, I am very sorry for you because that would be a pain I've never come close to experiencing.  But from a completely logical point of view, I don't think that puts you in a position to have an unbiased opinion.

As many, many people have posted (and you to which you have not responded) there are myriad ways a person could be more impaired while driving, than having 1-2 beers.  So, based entirely off your argument that PP is being irresponsible and endangering the public because of his level of impairment, would you argue that a person should not be allowed to drive:

After drinking a single dose of cough medicine?
On a less than normal amount of sleep?
While slightly ill (not due to alcohol)?
Talking on their cell phone?
Having disruptive children in the car?
while being emotional due to personal reasons?


I'm sorry to be blunt and I mean this not as a personal condemnation but as a condemnation of your argument, but it sounds to me like you are on a crusade and are blinded to the common reality of the situation and are not willing to address reason.


Was that unfunny enough?

edit:  "As far as being nasty not qualifying as a crime, I'm afraid you're wrong. Refusing to cooperate with an officer is a crime.".  Correct, refusing to cooperate.  But begrudgingly cooperating is fine.  I didn't read about Paul Pierce refusing to show his license, registration, etc.  I didn't read about him running, or even using foul language.  He was "slightly agitated".  That is not a crime in the United States.  If he had broken the law, perhaps he would have been arrested?  The Police didn't seem to think he had committed a crime.  I think they are in a better position to judge than you.

[blazingarrow]

This thread is still going? Why?

I can see if he was wasted, because there's a lot of money tied up in his staying healthy and out of trouble with the law.

He clearly wasn't, so what is the big deal?

If you expect professional athletes to be boy scouts and model citizens, that's your mistake.

[blazingarrow]

And also, .08 is low. It's low for a reason, and if he blew BELOW that...he was OK to drive. Period.

Who the hell says "oh, I better call a cab, I had a beer earlier" 

[BballTim]

I have stated one drink from the very beginning, but stated I'd rather lean to no tolerance than the other way. My outrage is not actually as much directed at PP as it is some of these posters acting like drinking and driving isn't a big deal. Some have even thrown out the comment that PP was actually being responsible because he didn't fail the tests.

  I'll respond to this since it's at least partly directed at me. The claim is that drinking IN QUANTITIES SMALL ENOUGH THAT YOU ARE STILL UNDER THE LEGAL LIMIT is not a big deal. Not that getting drunk and then driving is appropriate. Was there a single post by anyone in this thread claiming that drunk driving is acceptable?

  Also, you've mentioned several times that Pierce was "out drinking" or "partying". If he was, and he consumed such a small amount of alcohol that he passed a breathalizer test then he was being responsible. Driving while impaired is irresponsible. Staying sober enough that you can drive home when you're out drinking is responsible.

[Las Vegas Asian]

where exactly are you getting the in cuffs part?

also, notice how no legitamte news service has picked up on this? there's a reason.

Here is the story from the Las Vegas Review Journal:

http://www.lvrj.com/breaking_news/26226259.html

To me the handcuff issue is not that big of a deal. Living out here you see it on a daily basis night and day. A friend of mine from the LVPD said it's pretty much standard procedure if they suspect you've been drinking. Keeps the suspect restrained if he or she does decide later on to be uncooperative & gives the police a chance to run the name for any outstanding warrants.