Pierce pulled over for erratic driving in LV

[crownsy]

Show me that he was giving one and I'll retract my statement.

from TMZ.com


We're also told the Breathalyzer showed Pierce had alcohol in his system but was below .08, which means you're legally drunk in Vegas.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Show me that he was giving one and I'll retract my statement.

from TMZ.com


We're also told the Breathalyzer showed Pierce had alcohol in his system but was below .08, which means you're legally drunk in Vegas.

In Vegas, and just about anywhere in United States.

[wdleehi]

Again, glad to here Pierce was not drinking and driving.

[incoherent]

Oh, so he was only legally drunk and recklessly driving.

Paul was given a break, he probably wasn't really drunk or anything, but he had definitely been drinking at one point in that long night.

I retract this statement.

[Roy Hobbs]

Show me that he was giving one and I'll retract my statement.

from TMZ.com


We're also told the Breathalyzer showed Pierce had alcohol in his system but was below .08, which means you're legally drunk in Vegas.

In Vegas, and just about anywhere in United States.

Although you can still be arrested for DUI in just about any jurisdiction even if you blow below a 0.08.  If the officer makes the assessment that you're impaired, regardless of BAC, you can be charged.  Good luck trying to argue the inverse in court, however ("I was above .08, but I wasn't impaired").  That's a one-way street.

[BballTim]

Oh, so he was only legally drunk and recklessly driving.

Paul was given a break, he probably wasn't really drunk or anything, but he had definitely been drinking at one point in that long night.

I retract this statement.

  It sounds like you misunderstood the (poorly worded) statement.

  "We're also told the Breathalyzer showed Pierce had alcohol in his system but was below .08, which means you're legally drunk in Vegas."

  Above .08 means legally drunk. Below .08 means not drunk. There's a reason the person who wrote that works for tmz...

[The4Time2Doctor0]

he needs to reign in his actions, but paul pierce can do no wrong.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Pierce was drunk with POWER!

[EJPLAYA]

Again, glad to here Pierce was not drinking and driving.

He WAS drinking and driving, just not enough to be drunk. At 3:30 in the morning you'd think he'd be smart enough to take a cab if he was drinking at all.  IMO if you have more than one drink you shouldn't be on the road no matter your blood alcohol content.

[crownsy]

Oh, so he was only legally drunk and recklessly driving.

Paul was given a break, he probably wasn't really drunk or anything, but he had definitely been drinking at one point in that long night.

I retract this statement.

never had one beer at anytime in the last 6-8 hours then got behind the wheel eh? you'll blow at least a .01 if you have. can't claim the same myself, i never drive drunk, but i have driven within 6-8 hours of my last beer before. guess im just not as pure as some in this thread.



obviously he was at a party and probley had some booze, used bad judgment, and of course shouldn't have been behind the wheel, but i love all the judgmental people in this thread that are convinced he was sloshed out of his mind and is therby neglecting his commitment to this season, and have never, EVER had a beer and driven home.

the funniest part to me is this logic displayed by some-TMZ report about him NOT getting arrested for drunk driving= completely sloshed and drunk driving, but he got out of it somehow= no serious about winning another championship.

I mean, i totally see the logic. 

[EJPLAYA]

Some of you people need to calm down. Paul did absolutely nothing wrong. It's almost like some of you are looking for something to complain about or a reason to throw Paul under the bus. Well, this isn't it. Having been screwed over by the cops before, I can tell you that when they pull you over for "not signaling while changing lanes" and they "smelled alcohol coming from the car" they were just looking to get somebody in trouble who was doing nothing wrong whatsoever. Cops have to meet their quota, and this sounds like a routine "looking for trouble when there isn't any" traffic stop.

I was pulled over for "rolling" through a stop sign on my way to the bowling alley one night. When the cop came over, the first thing out of his mouth was "can I search your vehicle?" I told him he couldn't because I was in a hurry to meet my buddies to go bowling. He decides to stick a drug dog on my car and the dog ends up alerting the cop that there was something in the car. The cop then searches my car and found a small little one hitter on the floor, but no pot. I wasn't drunk or high and I wasn't speeding or driving recklessly. The cop pulled me over hoping he'd find something so he could say he's "fighting drug crime," even though I didn't have any drugs in the car. Technically I broke the law for having a pipe with residue in it, I get that. What I don't understand is how busting me when I'm not under the influence or doing anything wrong is putting tax payer money to good use. The fact that a cop is willing to waste 45 minutes of his time on a Saturday night when there is plenty of bigger fish to fry to find that pipe is the reason why the "War on Drugs" is an epic failure.

Back to Paul's incident...It's not much different from mine. The cops post up waiting to bust drunk drivers and ruin their lives instead of trying to prevent the problem by making sure people that are hammered don't drive home from bars. In this case, Paul wasn't drunk or speeding, but forgot to signal to change lanes. That to me isn't a legit reason to pull somebody over and say they're driving erratically. Not even giving him a ticket when they realized Paul was sober is proof that they had no legit reason to pull him over in the first place. They were simply looking for trouble where there wasn't any. If you're going to pull somebody over under suspicion of a DUI, you better be pulling them over because they did something ticket worthy like driving 10+ over the speed limit or swerving...

Funny how the guys drinking and driving, or the one's with drug paraphernalia in their cars are always complaining that the cops were just trying to meet a quota. That they did nothing wrong...

how bout this one for you EJ, i was pulled over 7 times at UMASS between 10-2 am, i dont drink and drive. ever. here's how all the stops pretty much went.

"L & R please"

give it to him

"I noticed you were driving erraticly"

" I don't believe i was, but i'll be more aware of it"

"do you mind if search your vehicle?"

(legal studies major, you can say no) "yes, i mind"

"slow it down and quite the swerving, alright?"

"will do"

twice i got asked out to do field soberity tests, which i passed.

bottom line, yes the police do pull people over with very little suspicion at later hours, i.e random stops. i for one don't blame them at all, its very hard to identify drunk drivers, not everyone helps you out by driving like an idiot before the kill someone. The pull you over and get you talking to see if you smell like booze. no problem with this from me.

A fine strategy to me, but not everyone pulled over between the hours of 10-whenever in the morning was asking for it. the only thing i did wrong at collage with relations to driving is drive a beater. Ive noticed now that i have a much more respectable car, this has not been a problem while visiting friends up at umass 

EDIT: i should mention this was over all4 years, not one crazy stretch of time heh.

I'm glad to hear that you don't drink and drive ever. That is the way it should be, but the point I guess I am making is that these officers need to be keeping drinkers off our streets. It is an absolute fact that there is a much larger percentage of drunk drivers out there on the road in the wee hours of the morning than there are in the middle of the day. They intentionally put others lives at risk for their own convenience. I don't feel sorry for someone out partying that late that gets "profiled" and pulled over if he committed a traffic offense no matter how minor. That's how they catch these borderline drunk drivers. If someone doesn't want to be pulled over for not signaling and changing lanes, then they should either stay home, or take a cab. It is that simple.

[crownsy]

right, and paul 100% should not have gotten near the drivers seat, but i just wanted to point out the whole "The cops ALWAYS pull people over for the right reasons" rap we kind of got into in this thread is utterly false.

Again, i have no problem with random stops in the wee hours, its how you catch drunks before they hurt people, but just because they catch people doesn't make the process fool proof, and they do profile.

when i drove a rusty f-150, i got random stopped CONSTANTLY.

I now drive a new looking yaris, never pulled over.

[celticsmaniac]

Again, glad to here Pierce was not drinking and driving.

He WAS drinking and driving, just not enough to be drunk. At 3:30 in the morning you'd think he'd be smart enough to take a cab if he was drinking at all.  IMO if you have more than one drink you shouldn't be on the road no matter your blood alcohol content.

Why? If you're below the legal limit, then you ARE NOT DRUNK. So what's the problem?
Pierce is a grown man. He can stay out as late as he wants. He just won us the NBA championship so that proves that whatever partying he may engage in does not effect his career in any adverse way. And as long as he's not doing anything to effect his career or his safety than anything he does is his own business. Who cares if he's out partying until 3:30 am?

how come nobody has pointed out the fact that the fact that it was 3:30 in the morning and he was still not drunk shows how responsible he was in taking it slow over the course of the night?

I'm sick of and offended by all this hypocritical puritan nonsense.

[blazingarrow]

I don't see what the big argument is.

He was out celebrating, and he had a few. He drove his car, but he wasn't really drunk.

Ideally he should have taken a cab, but a lot of us have done this before.

The legal limit is actually pretty low to begin with, so if he's blowing below it he's probably ok to drive.

We need some new free agent news, or some kind of trade rumor or something

[EJPLAYA]

Again, glad to here Pierce was not drinking and driving.

He WAS drinking and driving, just not enough to be drunk. At 3:30 in the morning you'd think he'd be smart enough to take a cab if he was drinking at all.  IMO if you have more than one drink you shouldn't be on the road no matter your blood alcohol content.

Why? If you're below the legal limit, then you ARE NOT DRUNK. So what's the problem?
Pierce is a grown man. He can stay out as late as he wants. He just won us the NBA championship so that proves that whatever partying he may engage in does not effect his career in any adverse way. And as long as he's not doing anything to effect his career or his safety than anything he does is his own business. Who cares if he's out partying until 3:30 am?

how come nobody has pointed out the fact that the fact that it was 3:30 in the morning and he was still not drunk shows how responsible he was in taking it slow over the course of the night?

I'm sick of and offended by all this hypocritical puritan nonsense.
"ALCOHOL IS THE DEVIL!! IF YOU'VE HAD EVEN ONE SIP OF WINE YOU NEED TO CALL A CAB! ONLY LOWLIFES AND CRIMINALS ARE UP AFTER MIDNIGHT BECAUSE I DON'T STAY UP AFTER MIDNIGHT! PIERCE NEEDS TO STOP ALL OF THIS WRECKLESS, EXCESSIVE PARTYING! IF HE WANTS TO HAVE FUN HE SHOULD DO WHAT I DO AND PLAY BRIDGE WITH A LOVED ONE OVER A NICE CUP OF TEA!!"

Sounds like a guilty conscience to me, however I do not care how drunk you decide to get. Just don't get behind the wheel. Take a cab, whatever. You know very well I am not saying he shouldn't have been drinking. I don't care if he was out late partying. I just care that he didn't care enough about others to do the responsible thing. You are sure concerned about his safety, but how about the safety of that person who is the sole provider for his family and has to work a late shift as a second job to keep food on the table. What if a guy had one more drink than he thought and killed him. Don't give us this nonsense that if you are just barely under the legal limit you are being a saint. You are free to do whatever you want to do in life, as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's freedoms. Then it no longer is your right.