Author Topic: Our friend Dalonte (Read 4852 times)

bones129 · « **on:** July 01, 2015, 12:43:13 AM »

Sad. Another step back for Dalonte.

http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83894458/

Paul Moscow · « **Reply #1 on:** July 01, 2015, 01:35:12 AM »

Love this subheader

Quote

Dalonte Hill was once the highest-paid assistant coach in the country at Kansas State. He's going to jail.

michigancat · « **Reply #2 on:** July 01, 2015, 07:40:45 AM »

WillieWatanabe · « **Reply #3 on:** July 01, 2015, 08:00:47 AM »

damn.

SleepFighter · « **Reply #4 on:** July 01, 2015, 08:43:08 AM »

Should probably DM D.

420seriouscat69 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 01, 2015, 09:20:04 AM »

I miss him walking around the 'ville with the classy cats every night.

Winters · « **Reply #6 on:** July 01, 2015, 11:42:04 AM »

sys · « **Reply #7 on:** July 01, 2015, 12:51:28 PM »

drunk driving laws are so stupid.

renocat · « **Reply #8 on:** July 01, 2015, 02:57:48 PM »

Quote from: sys on July 01, 2015, 12:51:28 PM

drunk driving laws are so stupid.

Until a good friend is killed by one. He was a good coach. I do hope he sobers up and can start helping young men again.

ednksu · « **Reply #9 on:** July 01, 2015, 03:44:22 PM »

Quote from: renocat on July 01, 2015, 02:57:48 PM

Quote from: sys on July 01, 2015, 12:51:28 PM
drunk driving laws are so stupid.
Until a good friend is killed by one. He was a good coach. I do hope he sobers up and can start helping young men again.

yeah I agree with Reno here (

). This isn't a buzzed driving one off incident. The guy has an issue and isn't dealing with it.

WillieWatanabe · « **Reply #10 on:** July 01, 2015, 03:46:07 PM »

sys technically didn't say the laws were too strict...

ednksu · « **Reply #11 on:** July 01, 2015, 03:55:10 PM »

didn't imply that either. these laws aren't stupid IMO, especially when dealing with recidivist who make society less safe.

sys · « **Reply #12 on:** July 01, 2015, 04:02:23 PM »

Quote from: WillieWatanabe on July 01, 2015, 03:46:07 PM

sys technically didn't say the laws were too strict...

well, that's what i meant. they're ridiculous. "driving drunk" treats a continuous variable (degree impaired) as a binary condition and punishes many one-time, scarcely impaired violators by effectively making them unemployable - aside from other penalties.

other comparable impairments (tired, texting, eating, reading, watching video, etc, etc, etc) are either not prohibited, prohibitions are not enforced or penalties are orders of magnitude lesser.

society is not served by rendering otherwise productive people unemployable. nor is it just.

sys · « **Reply #13 on:** July 01, 2015, 04:05:25 PM »

obviously, hill is not an example of what i'm discussing. while the laws he's violated may be ridiculous (no idea how impaired he has been), his inability to make simple decisions to keep himself eligible to be very well paid to perform an enviable job is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

michigancat · « **Reply #14 on:** July 01, 2015, 04:16:54 PM »

Quote from: sys on July 01, 2015, 04:02:23 PM

Quote from: WillieWatanabe on July 01, 2015, 03:46:07 PM
sys technically didn't say the laws were too strict...

well, that's what i meant. they're ridiculous. "driving drunk" treats a continuous variable (degree impaired) as a binary condition and punishes many one-time, scarcely impaired violators by effectively making them unemployable - aside from other penalties.

other comparable impairments (tired, texting, eating, reading, watching video, etc, etc, etc) are either not prohibited, prohibitions are not enforced or penalties are orders of magnitude lesser.

society is not served by rendering otherwise productive people unemployable. nor is it just.

I think our laws against texting, talking on the phone (with or without hands), sleeping, eating, etc. are more wrong than drunk driving laws.

CNS · « **Reply #15 on:** July 01, 2015, 04:28:00 PM »

Are there any laws against eating while driving? I mean, there should be, if they are picking on other things like texting. I am safer texting than the lady next to me is with a bigmac in one hand, a diet coke in the other, and steadying the wheel with her knees. Especially when she chases that fry she drops.

Also, the biggest thing that is mumped up that ppl do while driving is doing so with.dogs in their lap.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Mr Bread · « **Reply #16 on:** July 01, 2015, 05:14:01 PM »

Quote from: sys on July 01, 2015, 04:02:23 PM

Quote from: WillieWatanabe on July 01, 2015, 03:46:07 PM
sys technically didn't say the laws were too strict...

well, that's what i meant. they're ridiculous. "driving drunk" treats a continuous variable (degree impaired) as a binary condition and punishes many one-time, scarcely impaired violators by effectively making them unemployable - aside from other penalties.

other comparable impairments (tired, texting, eating, reading, watching video, etc, etc, etc) are either not prohibited, prohibitions are not enforced or penalties are orders of magnitude lesser.

society is not served by rendering otherwise productive people unemployable. nor is it just.

you have a very poor grasp on what happens to first time dui offenders. and not all laws treat a continuous variable (degree impaired) as a binary condition.

i agree though. people should be able to drink and drive all they want. i mean they might lose their jobs by choices they voluntarily made and that's not just. i mean people need jobs and they can't be responsible for the crap they get up to.

and hey if somebody doesn't want to have sex with you, but you'd really like to, go ahead and eff their brains out if you can pull it off. somebody got something that you'd like to have? can you take it from them? rough ridin' do it then. criminal laws are for the unsophisticated and the pedestrian when you take into consideration that as a result of violations of such artificial constructs people face concrete, real-world consequences like the loss of gainful employment.

it's like society has lost its collective mind when these types of tradeoffs are routinely being made. my thought balloon for your ability to provide for your family. insanity sys, insanity.

slobber · « **Reply #17 on:** July 01, 2015, 05:33:59 PM »

DWI- Driving While Impaired. It can be for any reason. I am guessing one of the lawyers can find an example of somebody being sued fro DWI for use of cell-phone (in the absence of cell phone restricting laws).

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #18 on:** July 01, 2015, 06:17:32 PM »

Quote from: slobber on July 01, 2015, 05:33:59 PM

DWI- Driving While Impaired. It can be for any reason. I am guessing one of the lawyers can find an example of somebody being sued fro DWI for use of cell-phone (in the absence of cell phone restricting laws).

I've only heard DWI referred to as driving while intoxicated.

SkinnyBenny · « **Reply #19 on:** July 02, 2015, 12:41:32 AM »

MCMW. Would take back.

wetwillie · « **Reply #20 on:** July 02, 2015, 12:44:46 AM »

Expired license is unforgiveable IMO

ksuwizard · « **Reply #21 on:** July 02, 2015, 11:57:14 AM »

Boggles me how highly paid coaches (and players) get DUIs all the time when they can afford (and teams most of the time provide) drivers at their disposal.

Spracne · « **Reply #22 on:** July 02, 2015, 01:18:07 PM »

Isn't it legal to drive while intoxicated on private property?

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #23 on:** July 02, 2015, 01:49:17 PM »

Quote from: Spracne on July 02, 2015, 01:18:07 PM

Isn't it legal to drive while intoxicated on private property?

I'm pretty sure it's not. It's hard to imagine a circumstance where you would get pulled over on your own property, though.

dmartin · « **Reply #24 on:** July 02, 2015, 02:00:09 PM »

Quote from: Spracne on July 02, 2015, 01:18:07 PM

Isn't it legal to drive while intoxicated on private property?

At one time it was not, but I'm not sure now. Or at least it was ok in Texas and Oklahoma.