actually he didnt get a dui and was going 37 in a 25 zone (gee, i do that everyday)
the cops said he seemed to be under the influence to the slightest degree (what the hell does that mean)....well it means that they took blood samples and let him go home, in his car.
wont be weeks until the blood samples come back but sounds like a lot of nothing, except for the fact that he was out at 3 in the morning.....who knows what he was doing....coming home from a club or woke up from a friends house and decided to drive home.....if he wasnt on probation none of this is news, but since he is he likely will serve the full 8 games of his suspension and might have some questions to answer with bears mgmt
cooz3;1765104 Although I am sick of this crap as much as the next guy with people that are given a million chances this may be a situation in which the Bears pulled the trigger to quickly. cooz[/QUOTE said:Tob Quick? Sad we have reachd the point where anyone could even think this. I know you are talking about this particular situation, but honestly how many people on this board would keep there job if they went to jail on gun charges. :shrug:
UGA12
I am not talking about the Gun charges. if they had gotten rid of him at that point then fine...absolutely no argument at all. But they kept him and they kept him after he was suspended for first 8 or whatever games. Then they terminate him after he is pulled over for doing over 10 freakin miles an hour on speed limit and they dont know if he was drinking???????? That just seems counterintuitive. I understand your point in looking at the aggregate but I was talking about the termination based upon this incident. I dont shed any tears for this guy by any means and I agree with your looking at the big picture but it seemed from what I read that the reason they released him was because of "this incident." i just find it hard to fathom that you keep a guy after all the other crap which was much more egregious and then have an incident where the cops dont even detain him and let him drive home even though they thought there was a "slight" chance of intoxication.
again overall I understand your point and I feel the same way i just think they may have screwed up by not releasing him earlier and now they may be in a situation that the blood test comes back negative for alcohol and they released him. The Union will fight the release if that is the case..watch
cooz
we'll find out sooner or later...
but I heard from one of our local talking sports heads he may have also had pot in the car:shrug:
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.
