Brandon Reilly DUI

[Enhance]

I would wager at least 80% of the people on this board have driven with a .15 bac unless they are non-drinkers.

Really? 80% at a .15? I could see possibly see 80% at a .08. Unless Reilly is an alcoholic, .15 is pretty damn drunk.

And, like it or not, results matter, and here, he didn't hurt anyone or thing.

This kind of thinking is what bugs me about drunk driving. By not hurting anyone or getting caught doing it this time, it reinforces the behavior to do it next time when there could be grave results.

I had a good friend in college that was hit by a drunk driver. Her sister was killed and she had to drop out of school for a couple semesters because she was in the ICU for a long while. She was still having surgeries a couple years after the accident to try to correct the physical damage to her, not to mention the emotional damage of losing her sister.

Excellent post, particularly the part about grave results.

Drunk driving is the conscience decision to consume alcohol exceeding the legal limit, get behind a wheel with impaired motor skills and then risk countless lives. Those bringing up the fact that he didn't kill anyone are, in fact, excusing the behavior. How do we know he WOULDN'T have killed anyone? The police pulling him over may have helped save a life that night.

 

[Savage Husker]

Is there uber in Lincoln yet? In today's world there's no reason to you should ever be in this position.

Yes, the problem is surge-pricing. 10-15 min. rides that may cost $10 at 2:00 p.m. cost $80 at 2:00 a.m. So, it's not the most reasonable option, even though it is certainly (and obviously) better than getting a DUI.

Sometimes that's true, but not always. And the cool thing about on demand services is that uber drivers will start to flex to those high demand periods, thus driving the price down.If I were a low wage earner and could make an extra $200 per weekend driving drunks home from the bar, I'd consider it.

That's very true - the theory is as surge-pricing goes up, more drivers are incentivized to go online and drive prices down.
However, in my experience, and that of my friends, a lot of people taking an Uber at 2:00 a.m. on a weekend are still having to drop in the $50-$60 plus range. I know someone who had a $102 bill for a 15 min. ride this past weekend. That's why many people I know, who are relying on an Uber, take some more personal responsibility and will often try to get one around 1:15 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. when it's cheaper.

one of my uber drivers in Omaha this past weekend said that he starts around 7-8pm does about 20-25 trips before he makes his goal of earning $200, that'll take him until about 4-6am.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Is there uber in Lincoln yet? In today's world there's no reason to you should ever be in this position.

Yes, the problem is surge-pricing. 10-15 min. rides that may cost $10 at 2:00 p.m. cost $80 at 2:00 a.m. So, it's not the most reasonable option, even though it is certainly (and obviously) better than getting a DUI.

Sometimes that's true, but not always. And the cool thing about on demand services is that uber drivers will start to flex to those high demand periods, thus driving the price down.
If I were a low wage earner and could make an extra $200 per weekend driving drunks home from the bar, I'd consider it.

That's very true - the theory is as surge-pricing goes up, more drivers are incentivized to go online and drive prices down.

However, in my experience, and that of my friends, a lot of people taking an Uber at 2:00 a.m. on a weekend are still having to drop in the $50-$60 plus range. I know someone who had a $102 bill for a 15 min. ride this past weekend. That's why many people I know, who are relying on an Uber, take some more personal responsibility and will often try to get one around 1:15 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. when it's cheaper.

Good Lord....why not just take a normal cab?

In college, we would lots of times take a cab TO the bar so that nobody would drive home. At the end of the night, just call another one and boom....you're home.

Sure as heck didn't cost $60 -100.

 

[cm husker]

Is there uber in Lincoln yet? In today's world there's no reason to you should ever be in this position.

Yes, the problem is surge-pricing. 10-15 min. rides that may cost $10 at 2:00 p.m. cost $80 at 2:00 a.m. So, it's not the most reasonable option, even though it is certainly (and obviously) better than getting a DUI.

Sometimes that's true, but not always. And the cool thing about on demand services is that uber drivers will start to flex to those high demand periods, thus driving the price down.
If I were a low wage earner and could make an extra $200 per weekend driving drunks home from the bar, I'd consider it.

That's very true - the theory is as surge-pricing goes up, more drivers are incentivized to go online and drive prices down.
However, in my experience, and that of my friends, a lot of people taking an Uber at 2:00 a.m. on a weekend are still having to drop in the $50-$60 plus range. I know someone who had a $102 bill for a 15 min. ride this past weekend. That's why many people I know, who are relying on an Uber, take some more personal responsibility and will often try to get one around 1:15 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. when it's cheaper.

All good reactions to economic incentives. I don't know regular no surge pricing in NE, but in LA, I can often take a car 20 min for about $10. That's an incredible value (often less than what parking would be) and why I don't have any problem paying surge pricing when necessary. Or, I just wait or go early, as you mentioned.

I love uber and get tired of people whining about surge pricing but having no problem taking advantage of low regular pricing.

 

[cm husker]

I would wager at least 80% of the people on this board have driven with a .15 bac unless they are non-drinkers.

Really? 80% at a .15? I could see possibly see 80% at a .08. Unless Reilly is an alcoholic, .15 is pretty damn drunk.

And, like it or not, results matter, and here, he didn't hurt anyone or thing.

This kind of thinking is what bugs me about drunk driving. By not hurting anyone or getting caught doing it this time, it reinforces the behavior to do it next time when there could be grave results.

I had a good friend in college that was hit by a drunk driver. Her sister was killed and she had to drop out of school for a couple semesters because she was in the ICU for a long while. She was still having surgeries a couple years after the accident to try to correct the physical damage to her, not to mention the emotional damage of losing her sister.

Excellent post, particularly the part about grave results.

Drunk driving is the conscience decision to consume alcohol exceeding the legal limit, get behind a wheel with impaired motor skills and then risk countless lives. Those bringing up the fact that he didn't kill anyone are, in fact, excusing the behavior. How do we know he WOULDN'T have killed anyone? The police pulling him over may have helped save a life that night.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think you agree that negligent behavior, even grossly negligent behavior, should be punished the same whether it results in actual harm or not. it's really the difference between malum in se versus malum prohibitum. Imagine the following scenarios:

1. Man speeds at 15 mph over the 55 limit, but causes no accident versus man speeds at 15 mph over 55 limit, which prevents him from stopping in time to avoid an injury to three people in another car. Should his punishment be the same in both instances?

2. Woman shoots crossbow out of window at a deer within city limits versus woman shoots same crossbow and hits person in background causing severe injury. Should the punishments be the same?

3. Company negligently dumps 50 tons of raw sewage into river but no one or thing is harmed versus Company dumping sewage that causes actual harm to people/environment? Should the fines be the same? Should there be no additional punishment/fines in the latter case?

Remember, in each of these cases, including Reilly's and most DUI drivers', the wrongful party was not acting with the intent to harm anyone.

 

[cm husker]

Is there uber in Lincoln yet? In today's world there's no reason to you should ever be in this position.

Yes, the problem is surge-pricing. 10-15 min. rides that may cost $10 at 2:00 p.m. cost $80 at 2:00 a.m. So, it's not the most reasonable option, even though it is certainly (and obviously) better than getting a DUI.

Sometimes that's true, but not always. And the cool thing about on demand services is that uber drivers will start to flex to those high demand periods, thus driving the price down.
If I were a low wage earner and could make an extra $200 per weekend driving drunks home from the bar, I'd consider it.

That's very true - the theory is as surge-pricing goes up, more drivers are incentivized to go online and drive prices down.

However, in my experience, and that of my friends, a lot of people taking an Uber at 2:00 a.m. on a weekend are still having to drop in the $50-$60 plus range. I know someone who had a $102 bill for a 15 min. ride this past weekend. That's why many people I know, who are relying on an Uber, take some more personal responsibility and will often try to get one around 1:15 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. when it's cheaper.

Good Lord....why not just take a normal cab?

In college, we would lots of times take a cab TO the bar so that nobody would drive home. At the end of the night, just call another one and boom....you're home.

Sure as heck didn't cost $60 -100.

How long ago were you in college?

The reason I ask is that just 20 years ago, that would be a $40 to $65 dollar in 1996 dollars.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Is there uber in Lincoln yet? In today's world there's no reason to you should ever be in this position.

Yes, the problem is surge-pricing. 10-15 min. rides that may cost $10 at 2:00 p.m. cost $80 at 2:00 a.m. So, it's not the most reasonable option, even though it is certainly (and obviously) better than getting a DUI.

Sometimes that's true, but not always. And the cool thing about on demand services is that uber drivers will start to flex to those high demand periods, thus driving the price down.
If I were a low wage earner and could make an extra $200 per weekend driving drunks home from the bar, I'd consider it.

That's very true - the theory is as surge-pricing goes up, more drivers are incentivized to go online and drive prices down.

However, in my experience, and that of my friends, a lot of people taking an Uber at 2:00 a.m. on a weekend are still having to drop in the $50-$60 plus range. I know someone who had a $102 bill for a 15 min. ride this past weekend. That's why many people I know, who are relying on an Uber, take some more personal responsibility and will often try to get one around 1:15 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. when it's cheaper.

Good Lord....why not just take a normal cab?

In college, we would lots of times take a cab TO the bar so that nobody would drive home. At the end of the night, just call another one and boom....you're home.

Sure as heck didn't cost $60 -100.

How long ago were you in college?

The reason I ask is that just 20 years ago, that would be a $40 to $65 dollar in 1996 dollars.

late 80s.

 

[Enhance]

Is there uber in Lincoln yet? In today's world there's no reason to you should ever be in this position.

Yes, the problem is surge-pricing. 10-15 min. rides that may cost $10 at 2:00 p.m. cost $80 at 2:00 a.m. So, it's not the most reasonable option, even though it is certainly (and obviously) better than getting a DUI.

Sometimes that's true, but not always. And the cool thing about on demand services is that uber drivers will start to flex to those high demand periods, thus driving the price down.
If I were a low wage earner and could make an extra $200 per weekend driving drunks home from the bar, I'd consider it.

That's very true - the theory is as surge-pricing goes up, more drivers are incentivized to go online and drive prices down.

However, in my experience, and that of my friends, a lot of people taking an Uber at 2:00 a.m. on a weekend are still having to drop in the $50-$60 plus range. I know someone who had a $102 bill for a 15 min. ride this past weekend. That's why many people I know, who are relying on an Uber, take some more personal responsibility and will often try to get one around 1:15 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. when it's cheaper.

Good Lord....why not just take a normal cab?

In college, we would lots of times take a cab TO the bar so that nobody would drive home. At the end of the night, just call another one and boom....you're home.

Sure as heck didn't cost $60 -100.

A little higher in the thread I posted about availability - trying to get a cab in downtown Lincoln at bar close is like trying to find milk at a grocery store right before a hurricane rolls through.

So, if you can't get a cab, and if you can't pay for an Uber, it's gotta be a DD.

 

[Enhance]

I would wager at least 80% of the people on this board have driven with a .15 bac unless they are non-drinkers.

Really? 80% at a .15? I could see possibly see 80% at a .08. Unless Reilly is an alcoholic, .15 is pretty damn drunk.

And, like it or not, results matter, and here, he didn't hurt anyone or thing.

This kind of thinking is what bugs me about drunk driving. By not hurting anyone or getting caught doing it this time, it reinforces the behavior to do it next time when there could be grave results.

I had a good friend in college that was hit by a drunk driver. Her sister was killed and she had to drop out of school for a couple semesters because she was in the ICU for a long while. She was still having surgeries a couple years after the accident to try to correct the physical damage to her, not to mention the emotional damage of losing her sister.

Excellent post, particularly the part about grave results.

Drunk driving is the conscience decision to consume alcohol exceeding the legal limit, get behind a wheel with impaired motor skills and then risk countless lives. Those bringing up the fact that he didn't kill anyone are, in fact, excusing the behavior. How do we know he WOULDN'T have killed anyone? The police pulling him over may have helped save a life that night.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think you agree that negligent behavior, even grossly negligent behavior, should be punished the same whether it results in actual harm or not. it's really the difference between malum in se versus malum prohibitum. Imagine the following scenarios:

1. Man speeds at 15 mph over the 55 limit, but causes no accident versus man speeds at 15 mph over 55 limit, which prevents him from stopping in time to avoid an injury to three people in another car. Should his punishment be the same in both instances?

2. Woman shoots crossbow out of window at a deer within city limits versus woman shoots same crossbow and hits person in background causing severe injury. Should the punishments be the same?

3. Company negligently dumps 50 tons of raw sewage into river but no one or thing is harmed versus Company dumping sewage that causes actual harm to people/environment? Should the fines be the same? Should there be no additional punishment/fines in the latter case?

Remember, in each of these cases, including Reilly's and most DUI drivers', the wrongful party was not acting with the intent to harm anyone.

You're correct and I agree - the end result is ultimately what determines punishment in most criminal cases. Naturally, a first time drunk driving offender who causes no physical harm to anyone during his/her crime should not be charged to the same extent as someone who drives drunk and kills someone, at least in my opinion.

I think we all agree both situations, while having very different results, are unacceptable. That's really all I want people to keep in mind. We should avoid the narrative that just because he didn't kill someone it's not as big of a deal as it could've been. This is true, to an extent, but it also somewhat feeds the behavior that as long as you're not caught or don't hurt anyone than it shouldn't be treated as a big deal. I think that kind of mentality is why some people, to this day, continue to drive over the legal limit.

 

[cm husker]

I would wager at least 80% of the people on this board have driven with a .15 bac unless they are non-drinkers.

Really? 80% at a .15? I could see possibly see 80% at a .08. Unless Reilly is an alcoholic, .15 is pretty damn drunk.

And, like it or not, results matter, and here, he didn't hurt anyone or thing.

This kind of thinking is what bugs me about drunk driving. By not hurting anyone or getting caught doing it this time, it reinforces the behavior to do it next time when there could be grave results.

I had a good friend in college that was hit by a drunk driver. Her sister was killed and she had to drop out of school for a couple semesters because she was in the ICU for a long while. She was still having surgeries a couple years after the accident to try to correct the physical damage to her, not to mention the emotional damage of losing her sister.

Excellent post, particularly the part about grave results.

Drunk driving is the conscience decision to consume alcohol exceeding the legal limit, get behind a wheel with impaired motor skills and then risk countless lives. Those bringing up the fact that he didn't kill anyone are, in fact, excusing the behavior. How do we know he WOULDN'T have killed anyone? The police pulling him over may have helped save a life that night.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think you agree that negligent behavior, even grossly negligent behavior, should be punished the same whether it results in actual harm or not. it's really the difference between malum in se versus malum prohibitum. Imagine the following scenarios:

1. Man speeds at 15 mph over the 55 limit, but causes no accident versus man speeds at 15 mph over 55 limit, which prevents him from stopping in time to avoid an injury to three people in another car. Should his punishment be the same in both instances?

2. Woman shoots crossbow out of window at a deer within city limits versus woman shoots same crossbow and hits person in background causing severe injury. Should the punishments be the same?

3. Company negligently dumps 50 tons of raw sewage into river but no one or thing is harmed versus Company dumping sewage that causes actual harm to people/environment? Should the fines be the same? Should there be no additional punishment/fines in the latter case?

Remember, in each of these cases, including Reilly's and most DUI drivers', the wrongful party was not acting with the intent to harm anyone.

You're correct and I agree - the end result is ultimately what determines punishment in most criminal cases. Naturally, a first time drunk driving offender who causes no physical harm to anyone during his/her crime should not be charged to the same extent as someone who drives drunk and kills someone, at least in my opinion.

I think we all agree both situations, while having very different results, are unacceptable. That's really all I want people to keep in mind. We should avoid the narrative that just because he didn't kill someone it's not as big of a deal as it could've been. This is true, to an extent, but it also somewhat feeds the behavior that as long as you're not caught or don't hurt anyone than it shouldn't be treated as a big deal. I think that kind of mentality is why some people, to this day, continue to drive over the legal limit.

True. Your last sentence and a half is particularly interesting to consider. I'm going to think on that concept. There is value in sending a signal through criminal law, even if it seems "harsh" to come down on someone for something that was ultimately a victimless crime in a particular instance.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

It was a dumb mistake...

With that said I would hate to be a college player today. You end up on message boards for anything and everything with a bunch of Judy Judy's judging everything.

Shoot, when those guys go out after a loss and it ends up on a message board that they were out partying they end up getting crucified on message boards.

So much this.
And not just with college players. It seems anything is a fire-able offense these days.

 

[teachercd]

It was a dumb mistake...

With that said I would hate to be a college player today. You end up on message boards for anything and everything with a bunch of Judy Judy's judging everything.

Shoot, when those guys go out after a loss and it ends up on a message board that they were out partying they end up getting crucified on message boards.

So much this.
And not just with college players. It seems anything is a fire-able offense these days.

I am all for deleting this entire thread...if you are as well either plus one this or reply.

Start a thread on DUI's if you guys want but let this freaking kid be. He f'd up...got a ticket and will pay the fine.

 

[BigRedBuster]

It was a dumb mistake...

With that said I would hate to be a college player today. You end up on message boards for anything and everything with a bunch of Judy Judy's judging everything.

Shoot, when those guys go out after a loss and it ends up on a message board that they were out partying they end up getting crucified on message boards.

So much this.
And not just with college players. It seems anything is a fire-able offense these days.

I am all for deleting this entire thread...if you are as well either plus one this or reply.
Start a thread on DUI's if you guys want but let this freaking kid be. He f'd up...got a ticket and will pay the fine.

Yes

 

[StPaulHusker]

Should Reilly be punished more harshly than Randy Gregory for his repeated failed drug tests?

 

[Bowfin]

Should Reilly be punished more harshly than Randy Gregory for his repeated failed drug tests?

Yeah, he should.

Because Reilly made everybody else on that highway share the risks of his poor decision making.