forums

Mark Walton News

GreatCane said:
The crazy thing is his blood alcohol level was .06 according to the police report. That's below the legal limit for those that are allowed to drink. The problem is, he isn't, and he was driving with a suspended license
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe a person of his size with blood alcohol at .059 would be slurring his words or have difficulty in walking a straight line. Does not equate. The stupidity of driving with a suspended license cannot be comprehended.
 
Advertisement
Look it was a dumb decision, but since it's his first offense he needs be disciplined internally like every other program like a multiple game suspension and extra running...
 
canesthing3 said:
We got some real drama queens on here, wow. Some of you just amaze me. If the charges stand as is, he will be given a short leash and suspended 2-3 games at most, probably 2. Get off your high horses.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

But the weeping **** brigade wants him kicked off for the charges as they currently stand.

Nobody's saying his alleged transgressions should be taken lightly, but as the charges stand now, there is no program in the country, at least not in the power five, that would kick him off for a first offense DUI under .08
 
Mcanes305 said:
On every issue the people of this country are figuratively crabs in a boiling pot.

hes an idiot, he's only 18, he should yes sir and no sir the police, the police are corrupt, etc etc....in my opinion everything being said is insignificant.

DUI/DWI and all variations are bogus and should not be enforceable. i mean, this is a law that punishes you for violating nothing but itself. No laws or civil liberties are broken, threatened or imposed on by a drunk driver. if a person is driving recklessly or speeding he/she should be charged as such but pulling someone over and imposing on their liberties because he/she may or may not get in an accident is just madness. it literally is minority report; where you are being charged before a crime is committed.

He chose to drink and he chose to make the bad decision of driving; DEFINITELY a bad decision but bad decisions are NOT illegal. i've had unprotected *** plenty of times and im sure many in this forum have as well. Bad decision but we all have a right to take risk until we impose on the civil liberties of someone else. the government shouldnt me checking to make sure we are all doing it right. No drunk drivers should be arrested until a real law is broken. You can argue he threatened the safety of the public, bu the public has no inherent right to safety - thats why cops patrol the streets.

Im sorry for making this political but it just always suprises me how we championed our wars with cries of "they hate our freedom" but we are so quick to give ours away at home. Also, funny how EVERY bar has parking lot...hmmm
Click to expand...


SONNYdongs posts have now been passedin stupidity. Driving is not a human right and if you're enough of a selfish moron to drink and drive you deserve to lose the rest of your rights.
 
cubin10 said:
GreatCane said:
The crazy thing is his blood alcohol level was .06 according to the police report. That's below the legal limit for those that are allowed to drink. The problem is, he isn't, and he was driving with a suspended license
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe a person of his size with blood alcohol at .059 would be slurring his words or have difficulty in walking a straight line. Does not equate. The stupidity of driving with a suspended license cannot be comprehended.
Click to expand...

He wasn't. That's just the cop's bogus justification for popping him once he saw that lame 0.59 reading. I'll bet the police report also claims Walton's car was "driving erratically" to justify pulling him over in the first place.

0.59? You can blow that from swishing a little mouthwash. Sounds to me like Walton was not impaired and ****ed off that he got pulled over for bs reasons. One story I saw claims that the impersonating an officer thing was already an ongoing investigation at the time. I'm wondering if they had been tailing him, and when he didn't do anything incriminating, they decided to pull him over to see if they could catch him with a police light or some other law enforcement paraphernalia in the car.

Btw, how can it be constitutional to charge someone under 21 with DUI, even if they blow under the legal limit? The central element of a DUI charge is the impairment aspect while operating a vehicle. The law allows for the presumption of impairment by carrying a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher. Without the element of impairment, all a person under 21 is really guilty of is underage drinking.
 
Mcanes305 said:
On every issue the people of this country are figuratively crabs in a boiling pot.

hes an idiot, he's only 18, he should yes sir and no sir the police, the police are corrupt, etc etc....in my opinion everything being said is insignificant.

DUI/DWI and all variations are bogus and should not be enforceable. i mean, this is a law that punishes you for violating nothing but itself. No laws or civil liberties are broken, threatened or imposed on by a drunk driver. if a person is driving recklessly or speeding he/she should be charged as such but pulling someone over and imposing on their liberties because he/she may or may not get in an accident is just madness. it literally is minority report; where you are being charged before a crime is committed.

He chose to drink and he chose to make the bad decision of driving; DEFINITELY a bad decision but bad decisions are NOT illegal. i've had unprotected *** plenty of times and im sure many in this forum have as well. Bad decision but we all have a right to take risk until we impose on the civil liberties of someone else. the government shouldnt me checking to make sure we are all doing it right. No drunk drivers should be arrested until a real law is broken. You can argue he threatened the safety of the public, bu the public has no inherent right to safety - thats why cops patrol the streets.

Im sorry for making this political but it just always suprises me how we championed our wars with cries of "they hate our freedom" but we are so quick to give ours away at home. Also, funny how EVERY bar has parking lot...hmmm
Click to expand...

I've read many, many dumb things on this site.

This may just take the cake for the dumbest.
 
Last edited:
Jack71 said:
cubin10 said:
GreatCane said:
The crazy thing is his blood alcohol level was .06 according to the police report. That's below the legal limit for those that are allowed to drink. The problem is, he isn't, and he was driving with a suspended license
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe a person of his size with blood alcohol at .059 would be slurring his words or have difficulty in walking a straight line. Does not equate. The stupidity of driving with a suspended license cannot be comprehended.
Click to expand...

He wasn't. That's just the cop's bogus justification for popping him once he saw that lame 0.59 reading. I'll bet the police report also claims Walton's car was "driving erratically" to justify pulling him over in the first place.

0.59? You can blow that from swishing a little mouthwash. Sounds to me like Walton was not impaired and ****ed off that he got pulled over for bs reasons. One story I saw claims that the impersonating an officer thing was already an ongoing investigation at the time. I'm wondering if they had been tailing him, and when he didn't do anything incriminating, they decided to pull him over to see if they could catch him with a police light or some other law enforcement paraphernalia in the car.

Btw, how can it be constitutional to charge someone under 21 with DUI, even if they blow under the legal limit? The central element of a DUI charge is the impairment aspect while operating a vehicle. The law allows for the presumption of impairment by carrying a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher. Without the element of impairment, all a person under 21 is really guilty of is underage drinking.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the Constitution?
 
Advertisement
nystateofmind said:
Mcanes305 said:
On every issue the people of this country are figuratively crabs in a boiling pot.

hes an idiot, he's only 18, he should yes sir and no sir the police, the police are corrupt, etc etc....in my opinion everything being said is insignificant.

DUI/DWI and all variations are bogus and should not be enforceable. i mean, this is a law that punishes you for violating nothing but itself. No laws or civil liberties are broken, threatened or imposed on by a drunk driver. if a person is driving recklessly or speeding he/she should be charged as such but pulling someone over and imposing on their liberties because he/she may or may not get in an accident is just madness. it literally is minority report; where you are being charged before a crime is committed.

He chose to drink and he chose to make the bad decision of driving; DEFINITELY a bad decision but bad decisions are NOT illegal. i've had unprotected *** plenty of times and im sure many in this forum have as well. Bad decision but we all have a right to take risk until we impose on the civil liberties of someone else. the government shouldnt me checking to make sure we are all doing it right. No drunk drivers should be arrested until a real law is broken. You can argue he threatened the safety of the public, bu the public has no inherent right to safety - thats why cops patrol the streets.

Im sorry for making this political but it just always suprises me how we championed our wars with cries of "they hate our freedom" but we are so quick to give ours away at home. Also, funny how EVERY bar has parking lot...hmmm
Click to expand...

I've read many, many dumbs things on this site.

This may just take the cake for the dumbest.
Click to expand...

Agree. This has to be a troll job, no adult can be that dumb.
 
Coach Macho said:
You're friends (teammates) with 40+ other young males. You couldn't get a ride home?
Click to expand...

There is a serious stupidity issue and a lack of judgment by MW. Apparently he needed a ride to his destination, his license was suspended. It goes without saying, notwithstanding what he or didn't do, his civil rights were violated, it's just the way it is.
 
Coach Macho said:
You're friends (teammates) with 40+ other young males. You couldn't get a ride home?
Click to expand...
If I had a dollar for every dumb, irrational decision I made when I was in college I could have retired the day I graduated. Not trying to trivialize drinking and driving but everyone makes bad decisions at that age. Fortunately no one was hurt.
 
AllAboutTheU said:
Jack71 said:
cubin10 said:
GreatCane said:
The crazy thing is his blood alcohol level was .06 according to the police report. That's below the legal limit for those that are allowed to drink. The problem is, he isn't, and he was driving with a suspended license
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe a person of his size with blood alcohol at .059 would be slurring his words or have difficulty in walking a straight line. Does not equate. The stupidity of driving with a suspended license cannot be comprehended.
Click to expand...

He wasn't. That's just the cop's bogus justification for popping him once he saw that lame 0.59 reading. I'll bet the police report also claims Walton's car was "driving erratically" to justify pulling him over in the first place.

0.59? You can blow that from swishing a little mouthwash. Sounds to me like Walton was not impaired and ****ed off that he got pulled over for bs reasons. One story I saw claims that the impersonating an officer thing was already an ongoing investigation at the time. I'm wondering if they had been tailing him, and when he didn't do anything incriminating, they decided to pull him over to see if they could catch him with a police light or some other law enforcement paraphernalia in the car.

Btw, how can it be constitutional to charge someone under 21 with DUI, even if they blow under the legal limit? The central element of a DUI charge is the impairment aspect while operating a vehicle. The law allows for the presumption of impairment by carrying a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher. Without the element of impairment, all a person under 21 is really guilty of is underage drinking.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Why can kids fight for their country, but not be able to drink legally?
 
Jack71 said:
cubin10 said:
GreatCane said:
The crazy thing is his blood alcohol level was .06 according to the police report. That's below the legal limit for those that are allowed to drink. The problem is, he isn't, and he was driving with a suspended license
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe a person of his size with blood alcohol at .059 would be slurring his words or have difficulty in walking a straight line. Does not equate. The stupidity of driving with a suspended license cannot be comprehended.
Click to expand...

He wasn't. That's just the cop's bogus justification for popping him once he saw that lame 0.59 reading. I'll bet the police report also claims Walton's car was "driving erratically" to justify pulling him over in the first place.

0.59? You can blow that from swishing a little mouthwash. Sounds to me like Walton was not impaired and ****ed off that he got pulled over for bs reasons. One story I saw claims that the impersonating an officer thing was already an ongoing investigation at the time. I'm wondering if they had been tailing him, and when he didn't do anything incriminating, they decided to pull him over to see if they could catch him with a police light or some other law enforcement paraphernalia in the car.

Btw, how can it be constitutional to charge someone under 21 with DUI, even if they blow under the legal limit? The central element of a DUI charge is the impairment aspect while operating a vehicle. The law allows for the presumption of impairment by carrying a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher. Without the element of impairment, all a person under 21 is really guilty of is underage drinking.
Click to expand...

It is worse than that. He wasn't pulled over. Where is the explicit evidence that he drove while under the influence? When the cops arrived he was already there - he wasn't pulled over.

This charge likely gets tossed.
 
Advertisement
The kid blew below the legal limit. But unfortunately it doesn't matter since he's under 21. He essentially drank a beer and hopped in his car. Probably not a smart decision but it's nothing malicious. Some of you holier than thou posters screaming for the kid to get kicked off the team and thrown in jail need a serious ladder to hop off your high horses. He's a teenaged college kid who made a mistake. He didn't hurt anyone. Give him a couple game suspension and a really short leash. He's got to understand that a second offense will cost him his scholarship.
 
JimmyJohnsonsHair said:
Coach Macho said:
You're friends (teammates) with 40+ other young males. You couldn't get a ride home?
Click to expand...
If I had a dollar for every dumb, irrational decision I made when I was in college I could have retired the day I graduated. Not trying to trivialize drinking and driving but everyone makes bad decisions at that age. Fortunately no one was hurt.
Click to expand...

No doubt.

However...

(not saying Richt has never done this but...)

I would let every player on my team know...
Your support system is this team. Your teammates are your "guardian angels" and if you get into any kind of trouble, I'm making it mandatory that your teammates lend a helping hand. You will police each other. Let it be known, if you're drunk and need a ride, you are to call a teammate. ****, you could even call me.
 
This is a very minor mistake though IMO. Definitely doesn't deserve to be booted. That's ridiculous. He's a kid. Freakin' 30 years olds make this same exact mistake every day.
 
Back
Top