Jump to content
Baron

La Russa arrested for DUI in Feb; charged day before hire

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

The tests are inaccurate?  What a coincidence that would be. People phoning in saying this guy was all over the road, and they find him with his car damaged calling AAA. How unlucky could Tony be?

He wouldn't be the 1st person to get off nor the last because you know people have the right to an attorney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

It is dangerous because if enough people share that opinion and decide to do something about it , that can be the 1st step in anarchy or mob rule.

If you are just exercising your rights in a meaningless squabble in the grand scheme of things then I see no problem with that . But we cannot be naive that these things lead to overly emotional, irrational thought and when people are in an irrational, angry state of mind, all it takes is a leader with rational thought to rule the mob of the angry to start a revolution. A revolution to get LaRussa fired is great as long as we do not violate his civil rights in the process .

Perhaps you can explain how folks on a message board posting their opinions, or fans calling advertisers of an organization they have an issue with have the ability to violate Tony LaRussa’s civil rights.

@CaliSoxFanViaSWside I did follow the discussion, your statement makes no sense.

Are you claiming a civil war or violent overthrow of the government to convict Tony LaRussa, based on a White Sox message board, is some type of realistic or credible threat of his civil rights?

 

 

 

 

Edited by South Side Hit Men

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Commish should get involved.  Good of baseball, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Perhaps you can explain how folks on a message board posting their opinions, or fans calling advertisers of an organization they have an issue with have the ability to violate Tony LaRussa’s civil rights.

 

Maybe if you had followed this from the beginning that would be clear to you . Read every post and get back to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mr. Showtime said:

There's a new White Sox Talk podcast where they talk about this. Has Nightengale on and he says it's a misdemeanor and not a big deal. Chuck didn't challenge him on that. Bob also said he might get 1 day in jail. Not sure what he's basing it on.

I haven't heard the whole podcast yet. Chuck and Ryan in the beginning said they want to hear from LaRussa. Not quite sure what difference that makes in this issue. Both seemed to agree that unless Tony steps away nothing is going to happen.

Bob should be ashamed of himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

He wouldn't be the 1st person to get off nor the last because you know people have the right to an attorney.

I get that, but at this point, getting off is a technicality. He still drove drunk.

The best receiver for Iowa got suspended for last weeks game because 2 weeks ago, he was arrested for DUI. He hasn't had his day in court, yet the school suspended him.

If there were no breathalyzer or blood test showing his alcohol level maybe you have a point. But getting off now is just privilege. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bmags said:

Bob should be ashamed of himself.

Bob brought up the BAC and said it was equivalent to 2 or 2.5 glasses of wine. Which is why he said it wasn't a big deal in his mind. So I'm guessing if that's his take it might be the Reinsdorf view on why there's no threat to his job.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr. Showtime said:

Bob brought up the BAC and said it was equivalent to 2 or 2.5 glasses of wine. Which is why he said it wasn't a big deal in his mind. So I'm guessing if that's his take it might be the Reinsdorf view on why there's no threat to his job.

Whatever he drank, it was enough to damage his car, and it could have been a human being. 

If it was no big deal, why did they cover it up?

Edited by Dick Allen
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mr. Showtime said:

Bob brought up the BAC and said it was equivalent to 2 or 2.5 glasses of wine. Which is why he said it wasn't a big deal in his mind. So I'm guessing if that's his take it might be the Reinsdorf view on why there's no threat to his job.

Frankly, unless LaRummy weighs 120 lb, those numbers are garbage. Plug a full bottle of wine (4 glasses) into a BAC calculator, make it over 2 hours (dinner with friends) and you get 0.06-0.07 for a guy my weight. He had probably 6 glasses if it was wine, one of which was right before he hit the road, so that his BAC went up between the breath and blood tests. Fewer if it was strong or fortified. 2 really strong mixed drinks in 30 minutes might do that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mr. Showtime said:

Bob brought up the BAC and said it was equivalent to 2 or 2.5 glasses of wine. Which is why he said it wasn't a big deal in his mind. So I'm guessing if that's his take it might be the Reinsdorf view on why there's no threat to his job.

I hit the laugh emoji on this because I'm at the point where I'm *so* pissed/frustrated/embarrassed/disappointed by this whole charade the front office is putting on so that all I have left to do is laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bmags said:

Bob should be ashamed of himself.

I think a direct quote is required to determine whether the unclear summary of Bob’s comments were directed at the legal ramifications of a “first offense” conviction in the State of Arizona, or whether he stated the act of driving drunk is “not a big deal”.

Its likely the former, if the latter, than he needs to be called out on it, and would deserve a public campaign against him for his statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mr. Showtime said:

Bob brought up the BAC and said it was equivalent to 2 or 2.5 glasses of wine. Which is why he said it wasn't a big deal in his mind. So I'm guessing if that's his take it might be the Reinsdorf view on why there's no threat to his job.

This interview is AWFUL.

Bob compares the possibility of TLR spending the night in jail during spring training to David Ross missing the first few days of spring training with the flu.

  • Thanks 2
  • Fire 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He drank, he drove, he hit a curb, he was arrested, and he was belligerent to the arresting officer. 

Doesn't matter if it were a single glass or a whole bottle.  

Entitlement doesn't free you from consequence, it merely allows you to believe that you are. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

I think a direct quote is required to determine whether the unclear summary of Bob’s comments were directed at the legal ramifications of a “first offense” conviction in the State of Arizona, or whether he stated the act of driving drunk is “not a big deal”.

Its likely the former, if the latter, than he needs to be called out on it, and would deserve a public campaign against him for his statement.

No, he absolutely was minimizing this, I just listened to the interview

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Or if he gets off technically he never did drive drunk because maybe the tests were inaccurate.

Look I've been against the LaRussa hiring from the beginning. I told everyone that it was not the Sox PR department using LaRussa's name as a smokescreen for hiring Hinch.

Would I be far off base if I were to say that 99% of the people who drive drunk aren't caught ? There are a lot of people on this board who might have got drunk every weekend in college or at some point in young adulthood and drove drunk 100 times and never got caught. Maybe they had an alcohol problem , maybe not.

There is always the "let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone" argument or the pot calling the kettle black. Is not getting caught a technicality ?   Many of us used that very same bad judgement time after time and got away with it .

I'm not going to die on that hill arguing for TLR . I'm just advocating for clear thought without hypocrisy.

I would be willing to bet that 75% or more of Sox fans who drink have operated a car around. 09 .  The first half or so of my driving years it was perfectly legal to do so.  Based on the fact that charges weren't filed until his name came back up in the news, and considering his rather public political leanings, I wonder if there isn't more to this story.

Bochy was my first choice and I'd be fine with that outcome, but Stone is 100% correct.  Sometimes the entire story takes a while to leak out.

Edited by ThirdGen
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

How is anyone ever charged with anything not guilty then ?  Should there not be trials anymore ? Might as well just skip the trial and get straight to the sentencing right ?

I am trying to be as fair as possible.I pointed out that writing advertising sponsors could have undesirable consequences and so would assuming a guilty verdict before due process . It took 8 months from the incident to making charges. Lawyers live to make charges like these go away . You can assume all you want that LaRussa is guilty but  the charges could still be dropped. That won't mean it still isn't a shit show but waiting for a verdict is a rather important part of democracies all over the world.

Just because I called the the Sox organization and this situation a SHIT SHOW that doesn't mean we should spit on the judicial process. We are treading on dangerous ground here. There is enough legitimate anger here without spouting anarchy or ochlocracy .

 

 

30 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Somehow your anger is over ruling your thoughts.  I didn't say you signed away your rights or didn't have the right to boycott. My original argument when responsding to the poster I responded to ( that wasn't you) was about declaring someone guilty without due process not about your rights. This is about TLR's rights. His civil rights. Everyone gets them not just the oppressed.

Take a look at the bolded in the post I replied to. You leaped way beyond declaring him guilty being a bad thing to include people who are writing advertisers. That is why I’m here.

I don’t care what the courts say in the end and I don’t have to. I can judge things for myself. Tony LaRussa has every right to a fair hearing by the legal system. He should receive that, and he should be treated as others are treated (note right here that he already received privileged treatment compared to a person of a different skin color being aggressive with a cop). 

REGARDLESS of the legal process, I have every right to write their advertisers based on the currently available information. He has zero right to this position and that is the case regardless of any legal process. I can judge where I spend my money based on the character of the individuals and I can make that clear to companies that have agreements with them. 

It is the White Sox, the team that hired him, that should worry about the unintended consequences of anger amongst their customers, and that is not mob rule. That is a $2 billion business that relies on public interest and public money, meaning they need to care about public opinion.

If Tony LaRussa needs a job to get back on his feet, and he’s friends with the owner, he can be given a job in the mailroom to rebuild his reputation and earn better references. I am totally ok with that and encourage the White Sox to offer such programs. But that is very different from him being given a very public endorsement and job out in front of a business asking for my attention and money next year. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

It is the White Sox, the team that hired him, that should worry about the unintended consequences of anger amongst their customers, and that is not mob rule. That is a $2 billion business that relies on public interest and public money, meaning they need to care about public opinion.

Amen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bmags said:

No, he absolutely was minimizing this, I just listened to the interview

Then Bob was completely inaccurate at best, or an MLB / JR / TLR apologist at worst.

Two or three glasses of wine during a normal 45-60 minute meal would not render someone Tony’s weight (6’ 0”, at least 180 lbs) 0.095, his reported BAC obtained hours after police arrested him.

https://communitylawfirm.com/bac-calculator

Unless these were the wine glasses.

abyedrL_700b.jpg

Edited by South Side Hit Men
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Ok folks, we have a longstanding rule against wishing direct harm to specific people here and this thread is crossing that line. Consider this a warning in thread, I'm going to vanish a couple of posts that cross said line.

Bumping this again for the morning - Posts that call for violence or injury towards specific people, even if hyperbolic, are something we aren’t ok with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

It is dangerous because if enough people share that opinion and decide to do something about it , that can be the 1st step in anarchy or mob rule.

If you are just exercising your rights in a meaningless squabble in the grand scheme of things then I see no problem with that . But we cannot be naive that these things lead to overly emotional, irrational thought and when people are in an irrational, angry state of mind, all it takes is a leader with rational thought to rule the mob of the angry to start a revolution. A revolution to get LaRussa fired is great as long as we do not violate his civil rights in the process .

Ok, this is ridiculous.  Do you never have a political or social opinion?  Do you sit back and accept everything you don't like in life?  Do you not try to influence others into your line of thinking?  I mean let's state the obvious here, and say that the American Revolution started out as anarchy and mob rule.  You ready to go back to QE2?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the legalities and bad PR, here is my problem with this. It has been common knowledge that LaRussa has had some sort of drinking problem. Hiring him was a risk no matter what he has accomplished in the past, and it was a risk that didn't need to be taken. The team just spent years losing on the field and was losing credibility in the process. This was an incredible step backwards and was an unforced error. And this controversy is not going away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Frankly, unless LaRummy weighs 120 lb, those numbers are garbage. Plug a full bottle of wine (4 glasses) into a BAC calculator, make it over 2 hours (dinner with friends) and you get 0.06-0.07 for a guy my weight. He had probably 6 glasses if it was wine, one of which was right before he hit the road, so that his BAC went up between the breath and blood tests. Fewer if it was strong or fortified. 2 really strong mixed drinks in 30 minutes might do that.

Might be worth mentioning that in most states a breathalyzer is not admissible in court. It can only be used to gain reasonable suspicion along with other factors. Trying to glean details of a curve argument based on a breathalyzer is kinda tough since it has a degree of error. Bit of free legal advice: if you are pulled over, NEVER tell police you were drinking. No matter how drunk you are, and ALWAYS agree to all tests. Get a lawyer and they can make up a curve argument.

Anyway, to me, and as I said before, if he were black, he would have been beat or shot. Literally, everything about his demeanor, and his stance against kneeling during the anthem says everything about him. He wants blacks to have their hands at 10 and 2 and obey all commands of the officer, but he does whatever he wants. How he represents this team is hard to understand.

  • Fire 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NWINFan said:

Aside from the legalities and bad PR, here is my problem with this. It has been common knowledge that LaRussa has had some sort of drinking problem. Hiring him was a risk no matter what he has accomplished in the past, and it was a risk that didn't need to be taken. The team just spent years losing on the field and was losing credibility in the process. This was an incredible step backwards and was an unforced error. And this controversy is not going away.

I mean, people can clean up. LaRummy had one in 2007, it was bad, he was so drunk he fell asleep while driving. If he had completed his punishment, gone to treatment, and figured out how to control that part of his life, we could be proud of him. It might even be the kind of behind-the-scenes thing that might make you consider him highly in an interview setting. If that was all he had, then there's no reason to condemn him for that this much later.

This second one makes it clear that it's a long-term problem for him, he hasn't cleaned up anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this Nightengale interview is embarrassing. He’s making the DUI sound like a jaywalking ticket.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Frankly, unless LaRummy weighs 120 lb, those numbers are garbage. Plug a full bottle of wine (4 glasses) into a BAC calculator, make it over 2 hours (dinner with friends) and you get 0.06-0.07 for a guy my weight. He had probably 6 glasses if it was wine, one of which was right before he hit the road, so that his BAC went up between the breath and blood tests. Fewer if it was strong or fortified. 2 really strong mixed drinks in 30 minutes might do that.

Online blood alcohol calculators can be highly inaccurate for older people.  Older people process alcohol more slowly, have less water in their bodies, and more fat tissue than when younger.  Its is possible someone in their 70's or 80's could hit .09 on two or three glasses of wine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×