Ex-Duke star Redick arrested for DWI

[ajoytoy]

Report: Ex-Duke star Redick arrested for DWIESPN.com news services


J.J. Redick, a likely first-round pick in this month's NBA draft, was arrested for driving while impaired early Tuesday and has was released on $1,000 bond, a Raleigh-Durham, N.C., television station reported.

WTVD, citing a police report, said that Redick was arrested at 1:03 a.m. in Durham, N.C., after the former Duke star made an illegal U-turn to avoid a police checkpoint.

The television station reported that Redick is scheduled to appear in a Durham court on July 17.

The NBA draft is scheduled June 28 in New York City. How an arrest will affect Redick's draft status is unclear, though it may not hurt it, according to ESPN.com's Andy Katz.

Redick had previously pulled out of scheduled workouts with Orlando and Boston this week. Previously, he had worked out for Golden State, Utah, Houston and Seattle.

Among the teams reportedly interested in Redick is Houston, which has the No. 8 pick.

Redick, who won the 2006 Wooden Award as the nation's top college player, shot 47 percent from the field, 42 percent from 3-point range and 85 percent from the free throw line in leading Duke to a 32-4 record. He finished his career with 2,769 points and the record 457 3-pointers.

 

[no pepper]

How an arrest will affect Redick's draft status is unclear, though it may not hurt it, according to ESPN.com's Andy Katz.

Laughable. JJ is learning to adapt to the next level. He should get caught with a gun or a cache of drugs at the airport next...

 

[DR STRANGELOVE]

why am i not surprised, i hope his stock drops

 

[vinnie]

Was he with anybody from the lacrosse team :mj07:

 

[Mags]

after the former Duke star made an illegal U-turn to avoid a police checkpoint.

Doesn't anyone see the problem with this? What the hell is a "police checkpoint"? Do we now live in Iraq?

Wouldn't a police checkpoint be illegal search/seizure? How can they tell if someone is impaired, without even seeing them drive?

Heck, many of our older folks drive impaired all the time, but without being able to see how they are driving, there is no way of knowing.....

This just doesn't seem right... next will be stopping everyone when they leave a store and doing a patdown - in case they stole something.

Or going through everyone's house - in case the have something illegal in there.

People wouldn't stand for police to ransack their house at random (which they can't do without probable cause AND a search warrant), so how the heck can they stop a car without probable cause?

Something is not right here.....

 

[Dr. Fade]

Doesn't anyone see the problem with this? What the hell is a "police checkpoint"? Do we now live in Iraq?

Wouldn't a police checkpoint be illegal search/seizure? How can they tell if someone is impaired, without even seeing them drive?

Heck, many of our older folks drive impaired all the time, but without being able to see how they are driving, there is no way of knowing.....

This just doesn't seem right... next will be stopping everyone when they leave a store and doing a patdown - in case they stole something.

Or going through everyone's house - in case the have something illegal in there.

People wouldn't stand for police to ransack their house at random (which they can't do without probable cause AND a search warrant), so how the heck can they stop a car without probable cause?

Something is not right here.....

The next step is to have "Patriot Check Points." These wil be installed to check for any terrorists or possible terrorist activities. "If you aren't doing anything wrong than you shouldn't have anything to worry about...." Kind of reminds me of Nazi Germany..... "PAPERS PLEASE!"

 

[THE KOD]

Doesn't anyone see the problem with this? What the hell is a "police checkpoint"? Do we now live in Iraq?

Something is not right here.....

......................................................

mags

I would tend to agree with you but they do it almost specifically to stop drunk driving. And it has worked well in Georgia at least as DUIs are way down.

They keep a few cars to watch out for what they call turnarounds. These are the cars that have something to not want to be questioned about.

As the officer looks through the window and says, licence , insurance, and registration please, its pretty easy to smell whiskey on JJs breath.

I dont want my family killed by impaired drivers so I say go ahead and stop us.

 

[SixFive]

He's an idiot for doing this. Wonder what Dick Vitale and all of Reddick's other blowers are going to say about this?

mags, when I read police checkpoint, I thought of police roadblock. These are things the police do and have done for years. They are all announced on the news and in the newspaper beforehand, and they are meant to catch drivers who are under the influence. Nothing new, and if you're dumb enough to be driving while intoxicated right into the arms of the law, then you deserve to be arrested. I'm glad he was caught before he plowed over some kids.

You also spoke of the elderly driving while impaired. I guess you mean by slower reflexes or senility? I would agree with you that there are some that shouldn't be driving, but I'd much rather see an old driver than an intoxicated one.

 

[Mags]

While I understand that DD is a serious issue, it is very frustrating at how they determine "impairment". One person at .08 is much different than another.

I would venture to say that many elderly people are impaired drivers - with no alcohol in them. And what about the soccer mom with 4 kids in the back of the minivan - who is extremely distracted by the kids in the back... or the person on the cell phone while driving.

To me, the penalties should be the same (jail time) for all the above BASED on their driving actions (or non actions).

After all, I think the idea is to get impaired drivers off the road - HOW they are impaired - whether drunk, old, distracted by kids, or on the phone.

Penalize people for their actions - not for what they COULD do, but for what they do.

 

[Dr. Fade]

I don't want a lot of potential bad events happening to myself or my family, but I don't want to give up my freedom to prevent it. You had just better stay in your house. By the way, most jurisdictions require public disclosure on where and when checkpoints will be held and I know most bartenders are usually aware of checkpoints who share that info w/patrons. People will continue to drink and drive w/or without checkpoints. I don't believe it reduces drinking & driving significantly.

 

[saint]

WTVD, citing a police report, said that Redick was arrested at 1:03 a.m. in Durham, N.C., after the former Duke star made an illegal U-turn to avoid a police checkpoint.

He didn't avoid it because he was drunk, he avoided it because he was getting a blow job from coach K while he was driving.




And to mags...you either drive drunk a lot, or are a moron. Checkpoints exist to prevent people from drivin drunk. Don't give me that civil libery shit. It's not like they are set up during the day (exception of holidays). If you are out at 2am, lets face it, there is a good chance you're a drunk driver. Have you even been through one of them? It's not that big of a deal. You drive up, they flash the light in your eyes, and they can pretty much tell from your pupils if you are a risk. The only people I can see them being a big deal are the ones who habitually drive drunk. If you have a problem with .08, then don't take the keys after you've had a few. Far too many people die from drunk drivers, checkpoints do nothing but good.

 

[THE KOD]

While I understand that DD is a serious issue, it is very frustrating at how they determine "impairment". One person at .08 is much different than another.

Penalize people for their actions - not for what they COULD do, but for what they do.

...........................................................

So you would be perfectly fine if a driver under age 30 blowing .07 killed a member of your family, as long as they got penalized for what they did.

Meanwhile your loss.

Your just stupid

 

[SixFive]

While I understand that DD is a serious issue, it is very frustrating at how they determine "impairment". One person at .08 is much different than another. umm, so what??

I would venture to say that many elderly people are impaired drivers - with no alcohol in them. some are for sure, don't know about many, and how do you define "elderley"

And what about the soccer mom with 4 kids in the back of the minivan - who is extremely distracted by the kids in the back... or the person on the cell phone while driving. agree, very distracted. How about those who are changing the radio station or who drop a cd in the floor that they are reaching to get?

To me, the penalties should be the same (jail time) for all the above BASED on their driving actions (or non actions). huh?? You're kidding me, right? WOW!!

After all, I think the idea is to get impaired drivers off the road - HOW they are impaired - whether drunk, old, distracted by kids, or on the phone. Point is to get rid of those driving while commiting a crime.

Penalize people for their actions - not for what they COULD do, but for what they do. Disagree with this again. It's an accident if a soccer mom on a cell phone wrecks. It's against the law if a drunk driver does it. You mean that if a soccer mom causes an accident with a fatality, you want to lock her up for 10 years for involuntary manslaughter?? WOW!! :com:

............................

 

[Taximike]

People wouldn't stand for police to ransack their house at random (which they can't do without probable cause AND a search warrant), so how the heck can they stop a car without probable cause?

Prolly cause that house isn't a deadly vehicle, in the hands of some drunk retards, that cause it to go careening into some innocent victims. Well, unless you are a white trash redneck driving your trailer around; no offense

 

[blgstocks]

He didn't avoid it because he was drunk, he avoided it because he was getting a blow job from coach K while he was driving.




And to mags...you either drive drunk a lot, or are a moron. Checkpoints exist to prevent people from drivin drunk. Don't give me that civil libery shit. It's not like they are set up during the day (exception of holidays). If you are out at 2am, lets face it, there is a good chance you're a drunk driver. Have you even been through one of them? It's not that big of a deal. You drive up, they flash the light in your eyes, and they can pretty much tell from your pupils if you are a risk. The only people I can see them being a big deal are the ones who habitually drive drunk. If you have a problem with .08, then don't take the keys after you've had a few. Far too many people die from drunk drivers, checkpoints do nothing but good.

I absolutely 100% agree with saint here, right down to the blowjob by coach k, lol, in all seriousness he said it best to mags.
Living in SoCal, we see these checkpoints alot, and sometimes they are set up at 7 which is inconvienent for alot of people but they also catch alot of people who are driving drunk.

Mags I am all for govt staying out of my business and letting me live my life, BUT I think they are enforcing a minor inconvience for anybody who is not BREAKING THE LAW.

And the comment from someone about it reminds them of "paper please" yeah thats what this reminds me of as well a Nazi Germany that is targeting a section of its population just because the leader is power hungry and insane from being involved in a previous war. ...... No actually it doesnt, it reminds me of a govt doing a random and very minor check to quickly weed out a few ILLEGAL drunk drivers to prevent them from killing innocent people.

 

[LAPURE]

HE TRIED THE BACKDOOR WITH THAT U-TURN

 

[boilermaker]

That third Zima must have put him over the limit.

 

[cisco]

No actually it doesnt, it reminds me of a govt doing a random and very minor check to quickly weed out a few ILLEGAL drunk drivers to prevent them from killing innocent people.

That's not it at all.
It's all about the money. Over 200,000 DUI's a year in California. Fines, lawyer fees, DWI classes, raised insurance premiums and who knows what else.
Some zones are "Double Fine Zones" to squeeze a little more out of'em.

 

[Beebs]

Can't remember if this is the case I studied in a pol. sci class called Due Process in undergrad but seems to capture the spirit of the discussion going on here about roadblocks

from http://caselaw.duicenter.com/

Michigan v. Sitz

Do roadside sobriety checkpoints violate the 4th Amendment protection from being stopped/detained without probable cause that he may be engaged in illegal conduct? In a much-criticized 6-3 decision, the Court overlooked the Constitution, focusing instead on the drunk driving problem: "No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it....the weight bearing on the other scale?the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints?is slight." Note: A few states (Michigan, for example, but not California) have continued to prohibit DUI checkpoints by relying upon their own state constitutions.

 

[Jinxbreaker]

Rhode Island doesn't have checkpoints either.