Pierce pulled over for erratic driving in LV

[crownsy]

boy facts comign out killed this thread in a hurry.

Celticsblog: where killing our own players and then claming up when more facts come out happens

[Las Vegas Asian]

Who says you can't party in Vegas & get ready for #18 all at the same time???

http://www.palms.com/suites_villas_3.php

All for a cool $25K a night!!! 

[Hoops]

That's better. Real facts from a reliable news source.

A glass of wine at dinner.

I'll bet some of our over reacting colleagues here might need to amend there opinions.

The problem with this thread is that everyone is making assumptions to "support" their opinion/argument. A glass of wine at dinner, you say? I'm pretty sure that a bottle of wine contains more than a single glass (I'd hope so for $700). I'm not trying to suggest that he drank the whole bottle himself, but to declare that he only had a single glass of wine is just as much an unfounded assumption as it would be to conjecture that he drank the whole bottle (based on the "facts" presented in the report).


EDIT: I agree that this report makes it sound like he was acting responsibly. However, if we're working with impressions, then it's just as reasonable to infer from the original report (handcuffs and getting a cab ride), that something was amiss (i.e., Pierce was, on some level, less than responsible). Fair is fair. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Fair enough, but then my theory still stands as well because he could just as likely not had a drink from the bottle at all.

But to take a look at the total spectrum, there was one bottle of wine. I hate to burst anyone's bubble here but $700 bottles of wine don't come in the half gallon variety. At most you will get about 4 maybe 5 glasses moderately filled.

So we have to assume he either:

1.) had none and let the rest of the table enjoy
2.) had the whole bottle by himself even though he was with 3 other people
3.) somewhere in between with a good guess being they might have shared the bottle between the 4 of them and had a glass each.

No matter what way you look at it, option 2 looks pretty unlikely considering it would portray our captain as a gluttonous, selfish pig, which all other indications learned about the man over the last 10 years don't indicate.

So what is it? Did he have a glass of wine or none at all or did he drink the whole bottle, ditched his friends thereafter, and went on a drinking binge which caused the Las Vegas PD to then initiate a massive cover up after pulling him over dead drunk?

The rest of the facts that have been confirmed by accurate news sources say that he either had a glass or none.

Look, I totally agree with you that "option 2" was unlikely. In fact, I think it was absolutely improbable. And I think option 1 is unlikely as well. But the available facts don't tell us any more than that. If you're lumping me in with those ready to crucify Pierce over the original report, I understand your defensiveness. But I'm actually not in the crucifier camp. And I wasn't trying to suggest he drank the whole bottle - my point was simply that BOTH sides (the Pierce crucifiers and defenders) are assuming things to suit their stance on the issue. The crucifiers are over-reaching with the bottle of wine. But on the flip side, everyone else is trying to call it a non-issue because he apparently "passed" a breath test.

With the wine and the drinking, we only know what he did do - not what he didn't do. We know he drank a glass of wine. Fine. No problem there. And if he got pulled over for failing to signal after drinking a glass of wine, I'd agree that there's still no issue. But how can all the Pierce defenders dismiss the handcuffs and cab ride? That has to count for something, right?!?

Again, my point is that we should be objective and reasonable, given the facts available. Ultimately, I'm actually with the camp that says this should be a non-issue. Paul can drink wine (or other kinds of booze) if he wants to. I don't care. However, at the very least, everyone ought to concede that he put himself in a stupid situation. Based on the available "facts", Paul was clearly not a perfect saint that night in Vegas. It doesn't mean he was drunk. But he must have done something stupid to get put in handcuffs and end up in a cab. Would you leave your fancy BMW (or whatever it was) on the side of the road at 3:30am for no reason and take a cab home? Maybe all he did was argue with the cop and was then restrained until he calmed down. Fine. But that's still stupid and unbecoming of a high profile public figure. It just is. I don't know how anyone could argue that.

[BudweiserCeltic]

But on the flip side, everyone else is trying to call it a non-issue because he apparently "passed" a breath test.

Not only that, but 2 other test. That should be the end of the discussion REGARDLESS of what the facts are. Those are the relevant ones (unless we learn new ones that discredit them).

Now, if people want to crucify a guy for being a bad driver, then have at it. But this is not the drunk driving issue it's being made out to be. It's as simple as that.

Again, my point is that we should be objective and reasonable, given the facts available. Ultimately, I'm actually with the camp that says this should be a non-issue. Paul can drink wine (or other kinds of booze) if he wants to. I don't care. However, at the very least, everyone ought to concede that he put himself in a stupid situation. Based on the available "facts", Paul was clearly not a perfect saint that night in Vegas. It doesn't mean he was drunk. But he must have done something stupid to get put in handcuffs and end up in a cab. Would you leave your fancy BMW (or whatever it was) on the side of the road at 3:30am for no reason and take a cab home? Maybe all he did was argue with the cop and was then restrained until he calmed down. Fine. But that's still stupid and unbecoming of a high profile public figure. It just is. I don't know how anyone could argue that.

Reports say that he left the car in a valet parking. He got agitated, got handcuffed, and was then let go? These are the sort of situations that cops love busting people for... that they let him go tells me that Pierce was on the clear. The policemen had the motivation to bust him. They made Pierce go through 3 tests... they apparently wanted to bust him.

[Hoops]

But on the flip side, everyone else is trying to call it a non-issue because he apparently "passed" a breath test.

Not only that, but 2 other test. That should be the end of the discussion REGARDLESS of what the facts are. Those are the relevant ones.

Now, if people want to crucify a guy for being a bad driver, then have at it. But this is not the drunk driving issue it's being made out to be. It's as simple as that.

Apparently, my point is not getting through. I don't care whether he passed 300 sobriety tests. I don't care whether he was "drunk" or not or whether he had anything to drink (though it seems pretty clear that he at least had SOMETHING to drink) My point is that he was put in handcuffs and took a cab home. Those stubborn facts necessitate that Pierce did something stupid. How can you argue that? I don't think you can. Instead, you all keep going back to the "fact" that he passed some subjective sobriety tests...

"Do I make myself clear? Or am I being obtuse?"   

[BudweiserCeltic]

But on the flip side, everyone else is trying to call it a non-issue because he apparently "passed" a breath test.

Not only that, but 2 other test. That should be the end of the discussion REGARDLESS of what the facts are. Those are the relevant ones.

Now, if people want to crucify a guy for being a bad driver, then have at it. But this is not the drunk driving issue it's being made out to be. It's as simple as that.

Apparently, my point is not getting through. I don't care whether he passed 300 sobriety tests. I don't care whether he was "drunk" or not or whether he had anything to drink (though it seems pretty clear that he at least had SOMETHING to drink) My point is that he was put in handcuffs and took a cab home. Those stubborn facts necessitate that Pierce did something stupid. How can you argue that? You can't. Instead, you all keep going back to the "fact" that he passed some subjective sobriety tests...

"Do I make myself clear? Or am I being obtuse?"   

Read the context, I was addressing the whole discussion dynamic that went on in this thread. Read my edited post above for the rest of the response.

My point is that he was put in handcuffs and took a cab home. Those stubborn facts necessitate that Pierce did something stupid. How can you argue that? You can't.

I can because people have the right to be agitated. We don't know WHY he was agitated, maybe he felt he was being unfairly treated and was on the defensive, especially if he felt he did nothing wrong and maybe was being stereotyped or something. Maybe he was tired and agitated after all the experience and decided that the prudent thing to do was to take a cab instead of driving angry. Maybe he wasn't in the mood to drive any more after the unpleasant experience. Maybe he was still angry about the shrimp.

The difference between the people that are criticizing Paul and those that are "defending" him is that some are jumping in to conclusions while others are waiting for the facts of the story to come out. I'll let you figure out which is which.

[BballTim]

But on the flip side, everyone else is trying to call it a non-issue because he apparently "passed" a breath test.

Not only that, but 2 other test. That should be the end of the discussion REGARDLESS of what the facts are. Those are the relevant ones.

Now, if people want to crucify a guy for being a bad driver, then have at it. But this is not the drunk driving issue it's being made out to be. It's as simple as that.

Apparently, my point is not getting through. I don't care whether he passed 300 sobriety tests. I don't care whether he was "drunk" or not or whether he had anything to drink (though it seems pretty clear that he at least had SOMETHING to drink) My point is that he was put in handcuffs and took a cab home. Those stubborn facts necessitate that Pierce did something stupid. How can you argue that? I don't think you can. Instead, you all keep going back to the "fact" that he passed some subjective sobriety tests...

  A couple of posts ago you were saying "BOTH sides (the Pierce crucifiers and defenders) are assuming things to suit their stance on the issue". Now you seem to be assuming things to suit your stance on the issue. What does the "stubborn fact" that Pierce was put in handcuffs show? That he annoyed the cops? Maybe he just complained about having to pass 4 sobriety tests when he wasn't drunk. Doesn't the "stubborn fact" that the handcuffs were taken off and he was allowed to leave without being charged show that whatever he did was extremely mild?

[Hoops]

But on the flip side, everyone else is trying to call it a non-issue because he apparently "passed" a breath test.

Not only that, but 2 other test. That should be the end of the discussion REGARDLESS of what the facts are. Those are the relevant ones.

Now, if people want to crucify a guy for being a bad driver, then have at it. But this is not the drunk driving issue it's being made out to be. It's as simple as that.

Apparently, my point is not getting through. I don't care whether he passed 300 sobriety tests. I don't care whether he was "drunk" or not or whether he had anything to drink (though it seems pretty clear that he at least had SOMETHING to drink) My point is that he was put in handcuffs and took a cab home. Those stubborn facts necessitate that Pierce did something stupid. How can you argue that? I don't think you can. Instead, you all keep going back to the "fact" that he passed some subjective sobriety tests...

  A couple of posts ago you were saying "BOTH sides (the Pierce crucifiers and defenders) are assuming things to suit their stance on the issue". Now you seem to be assuming things to suit your stance on the issue. What does the "stubborn fact" that Pierce was put in handcuffs show? That he annoyed the cops? Maybe he just complained about having to pass 4 sobriety tests when he wasn't drunk. Doesn't the "stubborn fact" that the handcuffs were taken off and he was allowed to leave without being charged show that whatever he did was extremely mild?

Ok. Ok. Maybe we're reaching a point where we just have to agree to disagree. In my world, you don't get put in handcuffs and then subsequently leave your expensive car on the side of the road simply to enjoy the experience of taking a cab ride. In my world, you've done something stupid and unbecoming of yourself when it gets to that point. Drunk or not.

I was afraid that this discussion was going to devolve into stereotyping and racial profiling (brought up by BudCelt, not you). I studied all the search and seizure cases in law school and have no doubt but what minorities are treated unfairly and unequally in certain cases involving getting pulled over in a car. If people want to go there, fine. But to go down that road, you again have to make assumptions about the police conduct. Given that we have no facts or allegations that there was any stereotyping or racial profiling going on, the known facts simply tell me that he was put in cuffs and took a cab ride home. Again, in my world those things don't happen unless you do something stupid. If my world or my life perspective is substantially different than everyone else, then I guess you can write me off as that weird dude on CelticsBlog with the abnormal and/or narrow-minded life experience...I don't know what else to say...

[nickagneta]

But on the flip side, everyone else is trying to call it a non-issue because he apparently "passed" a breath test.

Not only that, but 2 other test. That should be the end of the discussion REGARDLESS of what the facts are. Those are the relevant ones.

Now, if people want to crucify a guy for being a bad driver, then have at it. But this is not the drunk driving issue it's being made out to be. It's as simple as that.

Apparently, my point is not getting through. I don't care whether he passed 300 sobriety tests. I don't care whether he was "drunk" or not or whether he had anything to drink (though it seems pretty clear that he at least had SOMETHING to drink) My point is that he was put in handcuffs and took a cab home. Those stubborn facts necessitate that Pierce did something stupid. How can you argue that? I don't think you can. Instead, you all keep going back to the "fact" that he passed some subjective sobriety tests...

"Do I make myself clear? Or am I being obtuse?"   

As I clearly showed in my first post there could be a very simple explanation for the cuffs and for taking the cab home.

Pierce may have felt he was being unfairly targeted as a person to pull over and may have voiced his opinions to the police officers. The officers then having felt that Mr. Pierce was unfairly portraying them as racists or at least practicing profiling, decided to give Pierce all the tests. Once informed of this and asked to get out of the car Pierce could have become highly vocal.

Having a 6'7" man screaming at them the officers decided to subdue Pierce until he calmed and would be cooperative in taking the tests. Once he passed the tests and was released Pierce might have decided he didn't want to put up with possibly another situation, so he left the car with the valet and grabbed a cab.

In that scenario, which fit the facts given, Pierce could have done nothing more wrong than to accuse a police officer of harassing him and then was forced to go through a battery of unnecessary tests because the officer got a hair across his ass.

Again, I could care less either way whether he drank or not or got pulled over or not or was cuffed or not. The man did nothing illegal, immoral, or otherwise wrong other than possibly not turning on a blinker for a lane change. He's used to driving in Boston where just about nobody ever uses a turn signal. Big deal.

But, what I don't like is the jumps to conclusions and assumptions based on the facts that were reported by an unreliable news source and as of yet, not confirmed by any reliable news source other than one man in a Las Vegas newspaper who has confirmed a bottle of wine was bought to Pierce's table as much as 6 hours earlier.

I find it hard to believe that he could get that info confirmed and, if Pierce was drinking more than that, couldn't get a waiter, waitress, or bartender to confirm they served the man a drink.

I know a lot of police officers and one thing I have learned is that they are not all nice, not all honest, and that the biggest dinks tend to be on the midnight to 8 shift for a variety of reasons I won't get into.

All I ask is that before anyone jumps to conclusions wait to see what is reliably reported and confirmed before hanging a guy out to dry that just gave you one of the better winters and springs in your sports following life. I think he deserves that, especially on this site.

[Hoops]

But on the flip side, everyone else is trying to call it a non-issue because he apparently "passed" a breath test.

Not only that, but 2 other test. That should be the end of the discussion REGARDLESS of what the facts are. Those are the relevant ones.

Now, if people want to crucify a guy for being a bad driver, then have at it. But this is not the drunk driving issue it's being made out to be. It's as simple as that.

Apparently, my point is not getting through. I don't care whether he passed 300 sobriety tests. I don't care whether he was "drunk" or not or whether he had anything to drink (though it seems pretty clear that he at least had SOMETHING to drink) My point is that he was put in handcuffs and took a cab home. Those stubborn facts necessitate that Pierce did something stupid. How can you argue that? I don't think you can. Instead, you all keep going back to the "fact" that he passed some subjective sobriety tests...

"Do I make myself clear? Or am I being obtuse?"   

As I clearly showed in my first post there could be a very simple explanation for the cuffs and for taking the cab home.

Pierce may have felt he was being unfairly targeted as a person to pull over and may have voiced his opinions to the police officers. The officers then having felt that Mr. Pierce was unfairly portraying them as racists or at least practicing profiling, decided to give Pierce all the tests. Once informed of this and asked to get out of the car Pierce could have become highly vocal.

Having a 6'7" man screaming at them the officers decided to subdue Pierce until he calmed and would be cooperative in taking the tests. Once he passed the tests and was released Pierce might have decided he didn't want to put up with possibly another situation, so he left the car with the valet and grabbed a cab.

In that scenario, which fit the facts given, Pierce could have done nothing more wrong than to accuse a police officer of harassing him and then was forced to go through a battery of unnecessary tests because the officer got a hair across his ass.

Again, I could care less either way whether he drank or not or got pulled over or not or was cuffed or not. The man did nothing illegal, immoral, or otherwise wrong other than possibly not turning on a blinker for a lane change. He's used to driving in Boston where just about nobody ever uses a turn signal. Big deal.

But, what I don't like is the jumps to conclusions and assumptions based on the facts that were reported by an unreliable news source and as of yet, not confirmed by any reliable news source other than one man in a Las Vegas newspaper who has confirmed a bottle of wine was bought to Pierce's table as much as 6 hours earlier.

I find it hard to believe that he could get that info confirmed and, if Pierce was drinking more than that, couldn't get a waiter, waitress, or bartender to confirm they served the man a drink.

I know a lot of police officers and one thing I have learned is that they are not all nice, not all honest, and that the biggest dinks tend to be on the midnight to 8 shift for a variety of reasons I won't get into.

All I ask is that before anyone jumps to conclusions wait to see what is reliably reported and confirmed before hanging a guy out to dry that just gave you one of the better winters and springs in your sports following life. I think he deserves that, especially on this site.

If you want stories that fit the facts, I'll take the bait and play the game. You could just as easily suggest that Paul was indeed drunk and confrontational when pulled over, so the cops put him in cuffs. He passed two field sobriety tests (based on his superior hand/eye coordination as a professional athlete), but the cops were convinced he was drunk so they gave him a breath test (test #3), which he actually FAILED. You just said yourself that cops are not all honest. Maybe the cops lied about the results of the breath test. Maybe they were starstruck with Pierce and didn't want to be the bad guys that created a PR nightmare for Pierce. So instead, they agreed to send him home if he took a cab. In this way, they weren't putting the public at risk, but they weren't creating the aforementioned PR nightmare for Pierce.

My story fits the facts and is just as plausible as yours. We all know that famous people get special treatment all the time. Cops have a lot of discretion - we've all seen them use it. I get a speeding ticket every time I get pulled over no matter what I say or do, but I know lots of cute girls that drive just as fast and get out of the ticket by crying or looking cute.

Again, my original point is that we're all jumping to conclusions on this. You, me and everyone else. We have limited facts. But I can't stand this holier than thou attitude that demands your conclusions/assumptions/inferences are better (or are more reasonable) than mine. I don't think it's fair to say that Pierce was 100% guilty here. But it's equally unfair to say that he is 100% innocent (i.e., I'm not talking simply about drinking and driving, but there was more to it than simply failing to use a turn signal - c'mon).

[nickagneta]

But on the flip side, everyone else is trying to call it a non-issue because he apparently "passed" a breath test.

Not only that, but 2 other test. That should be the end of the discussion REGARDLESS of what the facts are. Those are the relevant ones.

Now, if people want to crucify a guy for being a bad driver, then have at it. But this is not the drunk driving issue it's being made out to be. It's as simple as that.

Apparently, my point is not getting through. I don't care whether he passed 300 sobriety tests. I don't care whether he was "drunk" or not or whether he had anything to drink (though it seems pretty clear that he at least had SOMETHING to drink) My point is that he was put in handcuffs and took a cab home. Those stubborn facts necessitate that Pierce did something stupid. How can you argue that? I don't think you can. Instead, you all keep going back to the "fact" that he passed some subjective sobriety tests...

"Do I make myself clear? Or am I being obtuse?"   

As I clearly showed in my first post there could be a very simple explanation for the cuffs and for taking the cab home.

Pierce may have felt he was being unfairly targeted as a person to pull over and may have voiced his opinions to the police officers. The officers then having felt that Mr. Pierce was unfairly portraying them as racists or at least practicing profiling, decided to give Pierce all the tests. Once informed of this and asked to get out of the car Pierce could have become highly vocal.

Having a 6'7" man screaming at them the officers decided to subdue Pierce until he calmed and would be cooperative in taking the tests. Once he passed the tests and was released Pierce might have decided he didn't want to put up with possibly another situation, so he left the car with the valet and grabbed a cab.

In that scenario, which fit the facts given, Pierce could have done nothing more wrong than to accuse a police officer of harassing him and then was forced to go through a battery of unnecessary tests because the officer got a hair across his ass.

Again, I could care less either way whether he drank or not or got pulled over or not or was cuffed or not. The man did nothing illegal, immoral, or otherwise wrong other than possibly not turning on a blinker for a lane change. He's used to driving in Boston where just about nobody ever uses a turn signal. Big deal.

But, what I don't like is the jumps to conclusions and assumptions based on the facts that were reported by an unreliable news source and as of yet, not confirmed by any reliable news source other than one man in a Las Vegas newspaper who has confirmed a bottle of wine was bought to Pierce's table as much as 6 hours earlier.

I find it hard to believe that he could get that info confirmed and, if Pierce was drinking more than that, couldn't get a waiter, waitress, or bartender to confirm they served the man a drink.

I know a lot of police officers and one thing I have learned is that they are not all nice, not all honest, and that the biggest dinks tend to be on the midnight to 8 shift for a variety of reasons I won't get into.

All I ask is that before anyone jumps to conclusions wait to see what is reliably reported and confirmed before hanging a guy out to dry that just gave you one of the better winters and springs in your sports following life. I think he deserves that, especially on this site.

If you want stories that fit the facts, I'll take the bait and play the game. You could just as easily suggest that Paul was indeed drunk and confrontational when pulled over, so the cops put him in cuffs. He passed two field sobriety tests (based on his superior hand/eye coordination as a professional athlete), but the cops were convinced he was drunk so they gave him a breath test (test #3), which he actually FAILED. You just said yourself that cops are not all honest. Maybe the cops lied about the results of the breath test. Maybe they were starstruck with Pierce and didn't want to be the bad guys that created a PR nightmare for Pierce. So instead, they agreed to send him home if he took a cab. In this way, they weren't putting the public at risk, but they weren't creating the aforementioned PR nightmare for Pierce.

My story fits the facts and is just as plausible as yours. We all know that famous people get special treatment all the time. Cops have a lot of discretion - we've all seen them use it. I get a speeding ticket every time I get pulled over no matter what I say or do, but I know lots of cute girls that drive just as fast and get out of the ticket by crying or looking cute.

Again, my original point is that we're all jumping to conclusions on this. You, me and everyone else. We have limited facts. But I can't stand this holier than thou attitude that demands your conclusions/assumptions/inferences are better (or are more reasonable) than mine. I don't think it's fair to say that Pierce was 100% guilty here. But it's equally unfair to say that he is 100% innocent (i.e., I'm not talking simply about drinking and driving, but there was more to it than simply failing to use a turn signal - c'mon).

I agree with the assuming parts.

But you asked why was he then cuffed and took a cab home? Did you not? You said that in your world that it necessitates that Pierce did something stupid. You did say that, right?

All I was pointing out is that there is indeed a scenario that could have occurred where Pierce didn't do anything stupid. So, you were doing, what you were telling us not to do.

I don't presume to know anything other than what the AP, the Boston Globe, and the Las Vegas newspaper have reported. All I am pointing out is that there are scenarios that fit an explanation where Pierce did nothing wrong.

That's it. Nothing more. I'm not saying he did or didn't do anything. All I am pointing out is that before we jump all over the guy, which many(who have I guess since abandoned this post) did yesterday, that we wait for information that is reliable and confirmed to come out before labeling the guy as having done something wrong, illegal, stupid, or whatever you want to call it.

And by the way, yes, your scenario is valid as well. But as I pointed out, if the reporter could confirm a bottle was sent to his table hours before the incident, would not that reporter have very easily found others who served him drinks, watched him drink, or saw him getting drinks?

I don't think a good reporter would confirm through multiple sources that Pierce got a bottle of wine and not follow it up with questions regarding more alcohol. The fact that no other alcohol has been reported being served to Pierce, at this point in time, makes it less likely that your extreme scenario is valid.

Now perhaps more will be printed tomorrow and we can then make an even more informed decision. But from what has been reported and confirmed, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the actions of one Paul Pierce that evening.

Tomorrow is another day.
 

[Schupac]

Reliable news sources are BOOOO-ring.

Can't we get Bill O'Reilly on this thing?

Come on, man, the guy who wrote this report looks like this:



It doesn't get much more exciting than a guy in an eye patch!

Yeah, his reporting seems to lack depth.... perception! Oooohhhhhhhh I'm here all week folks.

Also, I'm going to jump to a conclusion here and say the only reason the police handcuffed PP is because they watched the playoffs and figured that was the only way they could stop Paul from driving on them.