Alan Tudyk possible DUI

POSTED BY: FutureMrsFIllion
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 02:00
VIEWED: 21447
PAGE 1 of 1

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Tuesday, February 1, 2011 12:55 PM

Say it ain't so Wash.

Not Cool.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/01/30/dodgeball-alan-tudyk-dui-firefly-chp-lan
d-cruiser-speeding/#comments-anchor

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Tuesday, February 1, 2011 1:21 PM

Having been married to an alcoholic who was arrested 3 times, I have ZERO tolerance for people not responsible enough to drink and NOT drive.

I am hoping it didn't happen.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, February 1, 2011 2:28 PM

Three sheets to the wind without a leaf? C'mon Alan.

ZEEK

Tuesday, February 1, 2011 2:46 PM

Yeah definitely not cool if true.

TVCHICK

Tuesday, February 1, 2011 8:22 PM

Results of the blood test aren't back yet, so let's hope he wasn't drunk (or on something).

In other news, I have to go take another shower. I feel so DIRTY having clicked & read an article from TMZ. *shudder*

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, February 1, 2011 8:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TVChick:
Results of the blood test aren't back yet, so let's hope he wasn't drunk (or on something).

In other news, I have to go take another shower. I feel so DIRTY having clicked & read an article from TMZ. *shudder*

Agree with you on TMZ - crashed my browser, not going to try again.

Hope Alan is doing ok - he's got to feel like sh*t no matter what right now, thank gawd no one was hurt.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, February 1, 2011 11:19 PM

Wash for President!

Quote:

"There's a report out tonight that 24-years ago I was apprehended in Kennebunkport, Maine, for a DUI. That's an accurate story. I'm not proud of that. I oftentimes said that years ago I made some mistakes. I occasionally drank too much and I did on that night. I was pulled over. I admitted to the policeman that I had been drinking. I paid a fine. And I regret that it happened. But it did. I've learned my lesson."
—President George W. Bush, CNN Larry King Live, November 2, 2000
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

Or President of Vice...

Quote:
"I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."
-Vice President Dick Cheney, Fox News
youtube.com/watch?v=pR7CH9zvD6s

Dick Cheney's 2 DUI arrests and convictions
www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/cheney_doc.html
http://gaduiblog.com/category/dui-arrests-that-made-the-news/top-50-du
i-arrests-of-all-time/

Rules for Drivers during traffic stops:

1. Never confess to drinking even 1 sip of alcohol (that's called a CONFESSION = sucker alert)
2. never admit to eating dinner at a restaurant that serves alcohol
3. never speak to cops since "odor of alcohol" does not exist
4. never volunteer for Field Sobriety Tests that have no passing score and there is no punishment for refusal (sucker alert)
5. never volunteer for breath alcohol tests where the failing score is 0.00% or above and such tests cannot even measure alcohol (scam alert). A person is already under arrest for DUI before an alcohol test is given (scam alert), and charges are never dismissed against innocent people for risk of being sued for false arrest (scam alert).

Alan Tudyk didn't read Rule #4, and probably Rules 1,2,3.

BTW there is no law against drinking and driving.

Quote:
"A driver can register a BAC of 0.00% and still be convicted of a DUI. The level of BAC does not clear a driver when it is below the 'presumed level of intoxication.'"
-TN Driver License Study Guide, The Prohibition Times

THE PROHIBITION TIMES
America's Secret History of the Current Prohibition of Alcohol
A Responsible Driver's Survival Guide
www.piratenews.org/theprohibitiontimes.html

At least the TMZ headline wasn't "Firefly Serenity Star Busted for DUI".

STORYMARK

Tuesday, February 1, 2011 11:24 PM

We don't need the input of our resident drunk driveing idiot, PN. Thanks.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, February 1, 2011 11:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

Having been married to an alcoholic who was arrested 3 times, I have ZERO tolerance for people not responsible enough to drink and NOT drive.

Not everyone is an alcoholic, but cops treat everyone as an alcoholic.

The proper cure for a disease is not jail, where many "alcoholics" die from diabetic shock. Most "alcoholics" are diabetics, self-medicating with alcohol (fermented sugar).

Too bad "rehab" increases risk of alcoholism, addiction, OD and suicide, due to quackery.

Car crashes kill 40,000/year in USA. Doctors kill over 10-million/year in USA...

Alcoholism = Bad

Police State = GENOCIDE

INVADERCHAT

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 2:40 AM

How many of the ten million that doctors 'kill' are people that were DUI and they simply couldn't save?

RIONAEIRE

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 6:26 AM

Yeah, I heard about this yesterday morning at my local browncoat group site, Totally not cool as previously mentioned. I hope the blood tests come back normal. But if they don't, I don't believe celebrities, no matter how cool the charactors they play are, should get special treatment in regards to rules/laws. But again I hope they're wrong about the DUI

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 10:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Yeah, I heard about this yesterday morning at my local browncoat group site, Totally not cool as previously mentioned. I hope the blood tests come back normal. But if they don't, I don't believe celebrities, no matter how cool the charactors they play are, should get special treatment in regards to rules/laws. But again I hope they're wrong about the DUI

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

Word.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

STORYMARK

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:

The proper cure for a disease is not jail

Just for being an alcoholic, no.

But when they CHOOSE to get behind the wheel impaired, that is EXACTLY where they belong.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

AURAPTOR

Saturday, February 5, 2011 4:08 PM

Gahr...

Odds are pretty long that he wasn't driving impaired via some substance. I hope it's just barely over the limit, he gets the sh*t scared out of him, and he never does anything this stupid ( on the road ) again.

C'mon Alan, you're better than this !

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

ECGORDON

Sunday, February 6, 2011 12:06 AM

I just hope it doesn't turn out that he was coming from a party at Nathan's.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 6, 2011 1:46 AM

This is all standard bulls**t. If he hadn't been speeding (oooooh, such a problem- no good citizen ever does THAT)he wouldn't have been pulled over. If he hadn't been just a bit buzzed, just a speeding ticket.

But, in this 'Demolition Man' ultra PC land we live in, in this land where bad drivers & bad drivers who drink kill 10,000 times the number of peeps that good drivers who are technically 'drunk' do, the label DUI rules.
How about DWP (driving while pissed)?
Or DWO (driving when old)?
Or DUIPM (driving under the influence of pain medication)?
Or DWS (driving while sleepy)?
Or DUALBOTIWALBW (driving under a little bit of the influence with a low body weight)?

This is such a non/deflective issue.

Nail BAD drivers!!! Road ragers, true drunks, near blind drivers, careless jerk*ffs!!!
Not celebrities that had 2 martinis before driving home.

Now Alan will get to pay civil fines, pay for driving instruction, pay higher insurance... it's all really about PAYING.

This Alliance mentality pisses me the hell off.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 6, 2011 1:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
I just hope it doesn't turn out that he was coming from a party at Nathan's.

LOL!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 6, 2011 2:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

C'mon Alan, you're better than this !

Hey AU, check this out:
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/01/26/report-officer-killed-in-cras
h-was-speeding/

Quote:
An investigative report concludes that a Baltimore police officer who died when his cruiser crashed into the back of a fire truck was speeding.

Oh, but was he DRUNK?
No.
He was looking at at nearby film crew as he passed.
He was a BAD DRIVER.

Alan didn't HIT anything. He wasn't even driving erratically (people tend to drive like they walk;
fast is better than incompetent).

So, now he's somehow a person who can be a better one than a gorram POLICE OFFICER, eh?

You sociologically programmed tool.

No offense.

The laughing Chrisisall

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Sunday, February 6, 2011 11:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is all standard bulls**t. If he hadn't been speeding (oooooh, such a problem- no good citizen ever does THAT)he wouldn't have been pulled over. If he hadn't been just a bit buzzed, just a speeding ticket.

But, in this 'Demolition Man' ultra PC land we live in, in this land where bad drivers & bad drivers who drink kill 10,000 times the number of peeps that good drivers who are technically 'drunk' do, the label DUI rules.
How about DWP (driving while pissed)?
Or DWO (driving when old)?
Or DUIPM (driving under the influence of pain medication)?
Or DWS (driving while sleepy)?
Or DUALBOTIWALBW (driving under a little bit of the influence with a low body weight)?

This is such a non/deflective issue.

Nail BAD drivers!!! Road ragers, true drunks, near blind drivers, careless jerk*ffs!!!
Not celebrities that had 2 martinis before driving home.

Now Alan will get to pay civil fines, pay for driving instruction, pay higher insurance... it's all really about PAYING.

This Alliance mentality pisses me the hell off.

The laughing Chrisisall

Well, he WAS doing 40 in a 25 MPH. I speed all the time, but not in a 25MPH zone. That's just stupid. Plus, he did refuse the breathalyzer and failed the field sobriety. Would he have been pulled over had he not been speeding? Probably not, but he now has to face the consequences. I hope he was speeding and tired. If he was speeding and drunk driving then that will be a great disappointment. I don't expect people to be perfect, but I do expect them not to drink and drive.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

PIRATENEWS

Sunday, February 6, 2011 5:55 PM

New thread
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=2&t=47473&m=830939#830939

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

Well, he WAS doing 40 in a 25 MPH. I speed all the time, but not in a 25MPH zone. That's just stupid. Plus, he did refuse the breathalyzer and failed the field sobriety.

Alcohol overdose is a depressant and slows thinking and reaction time. Thus speeding is proof of sobriety.

Low dose of alcohol is a stimulant and improves thinking and reaction time, thus improving safety.

Speeding is SIX TIMES SAFER than driving a speed limit, according to USDOT and Ralph Nader.

99.99% of speed limits are illegal and invalid, according to USDOT and all state legislatures, for lack of a traffic engineering survey speed audit to measure the 85th Percentile Speed of traffic.

Driving 212 mph on the German Autobahn highway in commuter traffic at night in the rain is safer than driving 55 mph on a US interstate, according to History Channel.
www.http://americanautobahn.com
http://americanautobahn.piratenews.org

BTW 100% of drivers speed every day they drive, which is a criminal crime punishable by arrest and 30 days in jail. Does that sound right to you?

Quote:
"One hundred forty years ago, the Royal Society in England warned against the railroads, claiming that at speeds over 30 miles per hour, the air supply to the passenger compartment would be cut off and people would die from asphyxiation. And the college of physicians in Munich, for its part, warned that at 30 mph, travelers would suffer headaches, vertigo and possible lose their sight because of a blurring effect. Over 30 mph great catastrophies were predicted, because everyone knew that even a twig would shatter the wheels."
-Jules Burgman, ABC News, NASA Langley Research Center, The Impact of Science on Society, NASA SP-482, NASA Scientific and Technical Information Branch, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1985
http://history.nasa.gov/sp482.pdf

"There is no speed limit on the Autobahn. Before pulling into the left lane to pass, check the rear view mirror very carefully as far back as you can see. Cars traveling at 160-180 km per hour approach suddenly, so when passing, do so quickly and then quickly return to the right lane. WARNING: Do NOT admit any guilt. Do NOT sign anything unless you know exactly what you are signing. "
-US Embassy in Germany

Alan, call me if you want to live.
www.piratenews.org/theprohibitiontimes.html

PIRATENEWS

Sunday, February 6, 2011 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Hey AU, check this out:
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/01/26/report-officer-killed-in-cras
h-was-speeding/

Quote:
An investigative report concludes that a Baltimore police officer who died when his cruiser crashed into the back of a fire truck was speeding.

The cop wasn't killed by speeding, he was killed by the sudden stop without a seatbelt.

News today:

Deputy DoNutt crashes into house...GO VOLS!
http://dragonaters.blogspot.com/2011/02/knox-deputy-tickets-house-for-
crashing.html

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 6, 2011 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

Well, he WAS doing 40 in a 25 MPH. I speed all the time, but not in a 25MPH zone.

Was it at night? Who goes the speed limit when there are no other cars on the road? Heck, I don't even come to a complete stop at stop signs when I'm the only one on the road & I have a clear view in all directions.
Speed limits & stop signs are for the morons out there that would not otherwise drive in a reasonable way. Thanks to the law, we are all demoted to their level, all the time.

One more thing- if I ever lost a loved one to a drunk driver's bad driving, I certainly wouldn't join MADD or some other nonsense. The PERSON does the bad thing, not the alcohol. I'd kill the guy, not try to get booze banned. Get bad drivers off the road permanently, and you automatically solve the 'drinking & driving' problem.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 6, 2011 9:22 PM

Quote:
You sociologically programmed tool.

No offense.

No, I'm not. And I have no clue what's prompted your little hissy fit on this matter.

Other countries where drinking is much more acceptable by society don't have such as bad an issue w/ DUI as we do in the US.

It's because we say one thing, then do another, all the while we wink and nudge each other, with the implied message that"REAL" men can hold their liquor, get behind a wheel and probably drive better than when they're sober.

Complete and total. b.s.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 6, 2011 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
the implied message that"REAL" men can hold their liquor, get behind a wheel and probably drive better than when they're sober.

Ancient history IMO.
The real message is: have .000001% more alcohol in your system than law allows WHEN we inevitably pull you over for some little thing or other, and we got you by the wallet.

Getting s***faced & then driving all over the road is something a dope does, and dopes should not have a driver's license anyway- problem solved.

The hissy Chrissy

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 6, 2011 10:15 PM

So, what was the verdict on Alan?

Quote:
A female passenger who was sober drove the Land Cruiser after the arrest, Smith said.

Now that just bites....

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 6, 2011 10:29 PM

He had had 'a few beers'...
We must define 'few'. 3 or 4? No big deal. He IS a large, semi-muscular man. Forget it & get him for the speeding.
12 or 13? Say bye to the license, says I.

The harsh Chrisisall

RIONAEIRE

Monday, February 7, 2011 4:59 AM

I think that if Alan was over the legal driving limit for alcohol then he should be punished like anyone else, I still hope he wasn't but that is neither here nor there. Celebrities are human, they make the same mistakes as everyone else, and should be punished in the same ways as everyone else.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 7, 2011 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I think that if Alan was over the legal driving limit for alcohol then he should be punished like anyone else

The 'legal limit' is a degree set by suits for political & economic reasons. It, like many other laws, does not take individual differences into account.
It's very ALLIANCE that way, you see.
Individuality takes a back seat to broad, sweeping rules, that, BTW, do not include our rule-MAKERS or enforcers.

Chew on that, why doncha?

The laughing Chrisisall

SHEPHERD_RICK

Monday, February 7, 2011 5:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The 'legal limit' is a degree set by suits for political & economic reasons. It, like many other laws, does not take individual differences into account.
It's very ALLIANCE that way, you see.

Very surprised to read this. The limit set was the lower limit for when people begin to become impaired.

If reports are true: He failed a field sobriety test, and the police were doing right to arrest him.

In my state, failure to submit to breathalyzer means one year suspension of driver's license. This is one of those instances where it is of greater benefit to all, including the impaired driver, to err on the side of caution because of the potentially lethal results. Most DUI offenders who cause an accident (not even a fatality) regret their decision tremendously when sober.

Having individual freedom does not exempt one from responsibility, nor from obeying established rules. It's anarchy which does that, and it is very bad.

Shepherd Rick

LILI

Monday, February 7, 2011 5:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
does not take individual differences into account.

Right, except for body mass.

I, for example, am easily over the limit on a glass and a half of wine. My friend Richard, being a tall man with plenty of muscle, takes considerably more to get drunk. He's probably not over the limit until his fifth scotch. So he gets to drink more than me before he's impaired. He'd still be impaired.

Facts are stubborn things.

RIONAEIRE

Monday, February 7, 2011 7:38 AM

Okay, so some here feel the current rules are unfair, what substitute rules would you have if you could choose? I'm not asking this to be a snot, I'm seriously asking since people are expressing distaste for the current rules. I personally think that the current rules make sense, its hard to weigh everyone you pull over, then again I guess you could and then do a calculation. Like I said I don't mind the current rules, I think they're fine, but what alternatives are there that you can think of?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

ZEEK

Monday, February 7, 2011 2:57 PM

I don't mind the rules at all. If you're even close to impaired you shouldn't be driving. It's a choice and everyone should err on the side of safety or they shouldn't be driving IMO. Alan chose poorly and I've lost a lot of respect for him. He put other people's lives on the line for his choice to drink. That's not cool in any manner. He failed the sobriety test meaning he was showing signs of impairment. Not cool at all. There's simply no excuse.

PENNAUSAMIKE

Monday, February 7, 2011 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Okay, so some here feel the current rules are unfair, what substitute rules would you have if you could choose?
SNIP

Years ago Road & Track magazine did an article proposing a two-tiered penalty system for impaired driving.
They proposed that the person who realized they had too much to drink, drove slowly and as close to carefully as they could, and weren't belligerent if pulled over; shouldn't be penalized the same as the the belligerent loud-mouth going 70 miles an hour while loudly proclaiming that he/she drives BETTER when drunk.

The benefits of such a system would be three fold.
First, you separate out the occasional, mistaken impaired driver from the habitual, personality disorder drunk driver.
Second, you offer an incentive for those who choose to drive impaired to do so with the least risk.
Three, you don't destroy the lives of those connected to the one-time offender who was unlucky enough to be caught. Nothing like the system taking a month or two of a family's earnings to send a ripple effect of destruction from a single bad decision.
Hopefully reason two, (impaired drivers would slow it down to minimze risk and penalty), reduces danger to others on the road.

Obviously, a repeat offender moves into the higher risk category at some point, regardless of how meek the impaired driving style.

I found it to be a common sense approach, but unlikely in today's "lawyered-up" society.

ZEEK

Monday, February 7, 2011 4:18 PM

I don't like that approach at all. You're saying people who know they're impaired and still choose to drive should get rewarded for trying? If you knowingly drive impaired you should lose your license. I have no sympathy for that. If you know you're impaired then wait until you sober up or call a cab. Neither of those will kill you. Driving might.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, February 7, 2011 4:23 PM

I agree. "I know I am drunk but I am going to drive anyway". That is just stupid. A slow drunk driver can run somebody over just as dead. It also shows distinct lack of responsibility.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

PENNAUSAMIKE

Monday, February 7, 2011 5:12 PM

All hail the mighty Alliance!
You're making better worlds, all of them, better worlds.
Worlds...without sin.
Little perfect people going about their little perfect lives; no risk to themselves or others.
With the government, through fines and imprisonment ensuring that no one steps out of line.

Independents? Browncoats?
Only in front of the TV, I guess...

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, February 7, 2011 5:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
All hail the mighty Alliance!
You're making better worlds, all of them, better worlds.
Worlds...without sin.
Little perfect people going about their little perfect lives; no risk to themselves or others.
With the government, through fines and imprisonment ensuring that no one steps out of line.

Independents? Browncoats?
Only in front of the TV, I guess...

That is such a pile of shit. Because some of us think people should be responsible for their actions?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

STORYMARK

Monday, February 7, 2011 5:45 PM

Anyone else who reads these complaints about drunk driving laws have trouble imagining the posters as anything but sloppy drunks now?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

ZEEK

Monday, February 7, 2011 5:46 PM

People can put them self at risk all they want as far as I'm concerned. It's when they put others at risk that I have a problem.

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 7, 2011 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
All hail the mighty Alliance!
You're making better worlds, all of them, better worlds.
Worlds...without sin.
Little perfect people going about their little perfect lives; no risk to themselves or others.
With the government, through fines and imprisonment ensuring that no one steps out of line.

Independents? Browncoats?
Only in front of the TV, I guess...

I'd suggest that the DUI issue not be the hill on which to die on when it comes to fighting the " making better worlds " battle. It's well with in expectation that the pubic road ways be traveled by as many able and capable drivers as possible. Sure, some 7 yr olds could drive better than some adults, but the odds won't be too favorable.
Same goes for driving impaired.

I think folks are getting a bit carried away here, because of their affection towards Alan, and ignoring the point. He may have done something stupid, that doesn't make him a stupid or bad guy.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

BYTEMITE

Monday, February 7, 2011 6:02 PM

Quote:
Having individual freedom does not exempt one from responsibility, nor from obeying established rules. It's anarchy which does that, and it is very bad.

That's chaos, not anarchy.

Anarchy just means without leadership. It doesn't mean without rules.

As for drunk driving, it goes back to the risk/choice morality theory.

One of the aspects of our society that's increasingly growing worse is that rights and privileges of one person increasingly come into conflict with another. You have a right to bear arms, but you don't have the right to brandish and freak out the norms. You have a right to use public property, including public roads for transportation, and you have a right to own a car, but it is not always a right to drive on them.

I won't comment on what's good and what's bad about legislating risk/choice on infringement on others rights, but I will say that it is regrettable that we can't seem to move an inch without causing some infringement, either to people who own guns or the people who are afraid of them; and to people who drink, and drive, or the other people who have to share the road with them.

In both cases I find it unfair to stigmatize one or the other unless their actions have resulted in measurable harm or damage. I suppose I don't deal in "what if" very often.

Alan's all right and no one was hurt. Thank goodness, and I hope he learns something from this.

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 7, 2011 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
All hail the mighty Alliance!
You're making better worlds, all of them, better worlds.
Worlds...without sin.
Little perfect people going about their little perfect lives; no risk to themselves or others.
With the government, through fines and imprisonment ensuring that no one steps out of line.

Independents? Browncoats?
Only in front of the TV, I guess...

Yeah... I agree.

See, most peeps get brainwashed. Two beers & you're a drunk driver. If you're Muslim, you're a terrorist sympathizer. It's all the same.
Individuality counts for nothing anymore.
But peeps driving who are really old & have much slower reaction time than a younger dude with a few beers in him- that's safe. That's acceptable.
Unless a public campaign starts up & rallies the masses to the new enlightened Government dictates.
Wow.
So, right now, it's okay if you're driving 'impaired,' as long as that impairment isn't caused by something currently frowned upon.

I guess we're on the losing side, Mike.

The laughing Chrisisall

ZEEK

Monday, February 7, 2011 7:28 PM

Last I checked aging wasn't a choice.

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 7, 2011 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
Last I checked aging wasn't a choice.

Zeek, that is SO not the point.

The laughing Chrisisall

ZEEK

Monday, February 7, 2011 7:45 PM

The choice to drink and drive is very much the point IMO. I didn't lose respect for Alan because his reaction time isn't off the charts. I lost respect for him because he made an unnecessary choice that put other people in danger.

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 7, 2011 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
he made an unnecessary choice that put other people in danger.

See, THIS is the point.
You KNOW for a fact people were in danger.
You KNOW it because you are conditioned to know it.
No, George Bush did what I quoted from you above, I see no evidence that Alan did any such thing.

The laughing Chrisisall

RIONAEIRE

Monday, February 7, 2011 7:58 PM

I think I'll stick with our current driving under the influence rules. As I said before, they're fine and designed to discourage a very bad choice, to drive while impaired, which is really dangerous and can hurt and kill people needlessly. I don't fancy the alternatives put forth, I'm sticking with the current rules.

I care about charactors, not so much actors. Alan made a mistake, we're all human, he needs to experience the consequences for his mistake as anyone else would. The fact that he chose to do this is disappointing, but no more disappointing to me than if anyone else chooses to do it. With rights come responsabilities.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 7, 2011 8:02 PM

No Chris... any time a person imbibes in alcohol and then operates a vehicle weighing a couple of tons or more on the open road....that's not a matter of being 'conditioned' to know anything, it's simply human physiology and chemistry.

There's no defense here, what so ever.

Alan F'd up. Deal w/ it and move on.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

STORYMARK

Monday, February 7, 2011 8:04 PM

Never, ever did I expect to find myself siding with AuRaptor against Chris....

EVER.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

ZEEK

Monday, February 7, 2011 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
he made an unnecessary choice that put other people in danger.
See, THIS is the point.
You KNOW for a fact people were in danger.
You KNOW it because you are conditioned to know it.
No, George Bush did what I quoted from you above, I see no evidence that Alan did any such thing.

It's not conditioning it's simple logic. Alan was impaired. Alan was operating a dangerous piece of heavy machinery. Alan does not have any mystical ability to know if there will be other drivers on the road or not. So, yes he was putting other people in danger or at least he was willing to put them in danger.

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 7, 2011 8:24 PM

So, older people whose eyes are failing them and reaction time is visibly down are CHOOSING to put peeps at risk when they get behind the wheel, but THAT'S okay.
BS.

One time I was riding my motorcycle and an old guy cut me off cold while doing an illegal U-turn. I was milliseconds from ditching the bike, when he happened to speed up a bit, got mostly out of my way, and my footrest banged his fender. When I regained complete control, I turned around and followed him to his destination- a store parking lot. When I asked him why he cut me off in such a manner, he replied "I didn't see you."
So now I'm angry at all old people, right?
NO.
That INDIVIDUAL old dude was a danger because he was STUPID. Other old peeps drive with the idea that extra caution on their part is REQUIRED.

Y'know what? Logic means nothing in an artificially hyped emotionally charged issue.

Later.

The laughing Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Monday, February 7, 2011 8:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So, older people whose eyes are failing them and reaction time is visibly down are CHOOSING to put peeps at risk when they get behind the wheel, but THAT'S okay.
BS.

Who exactly said it was okay??

We're just not falling for the fallacy that because old people are allowed to drive, drunks should as well.

You're use of logic is flawed and questionable at best in this case, so you might heed your own words.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

ZEEK

Monday, February 7, 2011 8:54 PM

You act like those things are legal. An old person would still need to pass a driving test and renew their driver's license. At least in every state I've lived in. Reckless driving is still punishable even if a person isn't drunk. The difference with the older person having a slower reaction time than a younger person is that the older person didn't choose to do anything that impaired his or her reaction time. A person under the influence made a choice and that choice rightfully deserves punishment.

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 7, 2011 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

We're just not falling for the fallacy that because old people are allowed to drive, drunks should as well.

Okay, this is my last word because now I'm being told what I'm saying when I'm not sayin' it...

If you consider a dude who's had three beers a 'drunk,' then we see thing very differently. I see a dude who has had three beers the same way I see an old dude- extra exercised caution while driving reduces risk of accent back to that of a 'normal' driver.
My idea of being drunk is reaction time down below that of an old person, and a STUPID drunk is one that drives that way.
Liscense Revoked.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 7, 2011 9:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Never, ever did I expect to find myself siding with AuRaptor against Chris....

EVER.

LOL, "Anything at all can and does happen."

The laughing Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Monday, February 7, 2011 9:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

We're just not falling for the fallacy that because old people are allowed to drive, drunks should as well.

Okay, this is my last word because now I'm being told what I'm saying when I'm not sayin' it...

Hmm, seems you missed my point, as YOU were the first one to start attributing arguments to us that we never made. Guess you don't like that shoe being on the other foot, eh?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 7, 2011 9:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

YOU were the first one to start attributing arguments to us that we never made. Guess you don't like that shoe being on the other foot, eh?

You know what Story?
You're right. Okay, I did do that first.

Okay, THIS is my last word, stupid drivers need their driving privileges revoked, and that includes drunks. I just see a gray area between driving like a normal idiot & driving drunk, the same way I see a gray area between assault & murder.

The laughing Chrisisall

BORIS

Monday, February 7, 2011 10:12 PM

drinking driving and speeding is never cool...no matter how slightly past the limit you are. above legal limits of alcohol in the system limit brain function (the ability to make quick and clear decisions). a car is effectively a killing/maiming machine when driven by someone with limited brain function. when you choose to drive drunk and speed you choose to put yourself and others at risk. not a cool choice no matter who it is but even less cool when it's someone you respect and has the intelligence to know better

Rose S

LILI

Monday, February 7, 2011 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
its hard to weigh everyone you pull over, then again I guess you could and then do a calculation.

That would be ridiculous because the breathalyzer is the calculation. Larger people can drink more before they hit a blood alcohol level of .08 than a smaller person. Like I said earlier. I'm a teeny woman and I will hit that limit after fewer drinks than someone who weighs twice as much as I do. That's why there isn't a limit on number of drinks, there's a limit on blood alcohol level.

Facts are stubborn things.

STEGASAURUS

Monday, February 7, 2011 10:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Alan F'd up. Deal w/ it and move on.

I haven't been following the actual story, so I have to ask - was Alan convicted of DUI? Until then, I wouldn't say he f'd up at all.

True story:

While at a bar, I consumed 3 drinks between the hours of 3:00pm and 10:30pm. They were not strong drinks, as they were "tall" which means same amount of alcohol as the normal, but more coke to fill the glass.

From 10:30pm until 3:00am, I drank water. Throughout the afternoon and evening, I danced with darn near every woman in the bar to darn near every song (thus burning off the alcohol rather quickly). About a half hour before I left to give a gal a ride home, someone knocked over their Patron and in landed squarely on my jacket.

I left, took the girl home, and then commenced to head home myself. It was about 3:30am when I was pulled over. Why was I pulled over? Driving 80mph down the deserted freeway.

When the officer approached and asked for my papers, he asked if I had had anything to drink that night. I asked him why and he stated that he could smell tequila and it was strong. I told him the same information I stated here earlier, and told him that my drinks were rum & coke, not tequila.

He told me that drinking water doesn't do anything, but I politely told him that it does if it prevented you from drinking more alcohol. He kinda sneered and asked if I would be willing to take some field sobriety tests. I told him sure, but I couldn't take any tests that required standing stationary and I would have difficulty walking a perfectly straight line.

I cannot even describe the look of "gotcha!!!" that came over his face when I sad that. When he chucked and asked "oh? And why is that?" I just pointed at my handicap placard and said "that's why". He asked why I was disabled and I told him I had arthritis in both knees and ankles. He was no longer nice and respectful.

He started e tests - counting and pinching fingers to thumbs, ABCs forward and backward, follow the pen with my eyes, etc. It was obvious he was getting pissed because he really wanted to make the arrest. But I was passing all of the tests with flying colors. Then he asked me if I would take a breathalyzer.

Without hesitation, I took it and scored .08 below the legal limit. So THEN he asked me if I knew why I was pulled over. I honestly told him I had no clue, and that's when he told me I had been driving 80mph in a 70mph zone. He said other than my speed, my driving was impeccable.

He asked me where I was going in such a hurry and I told him I was just trying to get home so I could get some sleep before work. When asked where I worked, I told him "the Secretary of State's office". ONLY THEN did his voice soften and a glint of human respect came through.

He told me to drive up to a parking lot about 100 feet further down the road, park there and get some sleep. He just wasn't sure if I was going up or coming down, but he didn't want to take the chance. So I did as asked, however after 10 minutes I continued in my way.

I wasn't drunk. The officer insisted I was, simply because I was speeding and he smelled alcohol. However every test he did proved otherwise. Alan refused the test I took, and failed the ones I couldn't take. Until he's in court or there's a ruling, I'm going to pesume his innocence.

Just my 2 cents worth.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 12:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Never, ever did I expect to find myself siding with AuRaptor against Chris....
EVER.

When you're right, ....

Quote:
I haven't been following the actual story, so I have to ask - was Alan convicted of DUI? Until then, I wouldn't say he f'd up at all.

Well, earlier up, I DID ask if there's been any further developments. I agree, that it's wrong to "convict" Alan of anything before the facts. I hope it all 'washes' out ( sorry ), and the charges are dropped, but in the real world, the odds are against it.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

RIONAEIRE

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 12:47 AM

Dear Lily, thanks for correcting me on that, I don't know that much about the blood alcohol thing so I'm glad you set me straight, what you say makes sense, that calculation comment of mine was silly and ill thought out.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 1:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Stegasaurus:

I wasn't drunk. The officer insisted I was, simply because I was speeding and he smelled alcohol.

You were guilty, he just couldn't prove it.

The laughing Chrisisall

11THHOUR

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 1:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Say it ain't so Wash.

Not Cool.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/01/30/dodgeball-alan-tudyk-dui-firefly-chp-lan
d-cruiser-speeding/#comments-anchor

Rather than go to the TMZ site and risk getting an WTD (Web Transmitted Disease), I found another article regarding Alan's DUI arrest:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17250566?nclick_check=1

And the part of the story that was particularly ironic:

"A female passenger who was sober drove the Land Cruiser after the arrest, Smith said."

This means there was a sober passenger in the vehicle who really should have been driving in the first place. The entire extremely unfortunate incident would have been avoided.

11th

>>>}———————————————)))======<[]>======(((———————————————{<<<

"Because teenage pranks are fun when you're about to die!" - Hoban Washburne

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 1:52 AM

exactly

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

TWO

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 2:00 AM

Alan Tudyk is a Jedi Chef Apprentice. The Jedi Chef greeting is "May the Sauce be with you, friend." - www.jedichefs.com/
In the distant past, Jedi Chef Masters were known for drinking bars dry for over 5000 years. I do hope this does not prejudice any potential LA jurors for Alan's trial because 6 other crew members are also Jedi Chef Apprentices. - www.fireflyfans.net/sunroomitem.asp?i=22365

Not one of Alan's better photos. It has a mugshot quality about it. - www.jedichefs.com/jca/pages/JCA306_Alan.html

Jewel's blog about indulgence at Rustic Canyon Winebar. I wonder who drove afterwards?
http://happyopu.net/2011/02/07/rustic-canyon-winebar/

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two