The report said he was weaving slightly. We're playing the what if game, because not even the police know if Noc being intoxicated caused him to weave. Only Andres knows that for sure, and he won't be saying at the advice of the attorney I'm sure. So, yes, I'm throwing out options. Just because an officer said Noc weaved, it doesn't automatically mean he weaved because of intoxication. Now if it comes out that is bac was .2 or something ridiculous well then we know what we're dealing with.
Again, I had friends that left when he did and he didn't seem that intoxicated. if he was high like .18 to .2 it would have been visible.
From the
article:
Sacramento Police Sgt. Norm Leong says Nocioni was pulled over around 2 a.m. in downtown Sacramento when an officer noticed his car weaving. Charges indicate Nocioni had a blood alcohol level of .08 or more.
Whether he was weaving because he was intoxicated or because there was a bee in the car, the facts, according to the police, are that he was driving under the influence, and his blood alcohol level was over the legal limit. He could have been driving perfectly fine, and they pulled him over just for kicks; it's happened to me before. But even if that's the case (we'd have to assume the officer is lying about the car weaving, as if it's impossible that someone could momentarily allow their car to drift one way or the other), he was still above the legal limit, and that's what matters. It doesn't matter whether he was legitimately impaired or if he was being picked on by the police. He was breaking the law, and the law has been set in place to prevent people from driving while impaired by alcohol.
By the way, you are assuming the man's bac was simply .08, when, in reality, it could have been much higher. We don't know what his bac was.
I don't know if you're just playing devil's advocate or what, but I really can't understand how it can be considered defensible that someone was operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit. Maybe it's personal for you, in which case, I can understand how personal experience can affect your point of view. But consider how severe the consequences could have been. You don't even have to speculate. Thousands of people are killed by drunk drivers yearly. It's really not something that should be trivialized, and that's part of the reason why, despite the fact that different people respond different to alcohol, and even though one person might be in complete control of themselves after a couple of drinks, the next person might not be able to stand up straight, the law is very clear: if you're at or above .08 bac and you're driving, you're breaking the law. It's very black and white.
It makes it worse that we're talking about an individual who has the resources at his disposal to never have to drive under the influence. He can, at the very least, call a cab. There are even professional security services now that will taxi you and your car home so that you can sleep in your own bed and not have to worry about your car being parked overnight at some club or bar. Nocioni had options, and instead
chose to drive, even though he had been drinking. It's really the height of irresponsibility, and I can't comprehend defending that decision.
And to others asking if this turned into a beat a dui rap, I appreciate your sarcasm, really I do, but these are my opinions and on topic. Sorry, if you dont' like it, but online forums are a forum for opinion.
We're not going to keep going down that path. You have a right to your opinion, but that's not gonna fly on this board. Let's just leave that whole thing alone.