[QUOTE=Desertpuma;163802]I meant he is worse off than his son because he is having to deal with the emotions and psychological effect of what he has done.[/QUOTE]
I understand what you were saying, my entire response was in response to your "if his son dies from his injuries" part because he is not physically in danger of dying (which is why it was bolded in my original response). Therefore...Puck who is sitting in the hospital with broken bones is in worse physical shape than his son. My comment had nothing to do with mental and emotional states.
As for dealing with the emotions...doubted. He's probably wondering where his next beer is coming from.
I haven't seen anything saying alcohol [I][U]caused[/U][/I] the accident nor what his BAC was. I am no fan of his but I am at least open to the possibility that they two are not closely related. There is at least the possibility that if he drank soon before the wreck then he was not technically intoxicated until after the wreck or that the trauma caused the alcohol to be released into his system more rapidly than it would have sitting at a bar. Give the guy a break and let the process play out before passing judgment.
[QUOTE=SeanDaniel;163818]I haven't seen anything saying alcohol [I][U]caused[/U][/I] the accident nor what his BAC was. I am no fan of his but I am at least open to the possibility that they two are not closely related. There is at least the possibility that if he drank soon before the wreck then he was not technically intoxicated until after the wreck or that the trauma caused the alcohol to be released into his system more rapidly than it would have sitting at a bar. Give the guy a break and let the process play out before passing judgment.[/QUOTE]
The police said "alcohol was involved" so since he's over the age of 21, he had to have been over the legal limit (.08). If he was under the legal limit, it wouldn't have been considered a factor. Alcohol doesn't need to "cause" the accident but if he was driving over the legal limit, it's considered a factor.
[QUOTE=molds13;163820]The police said "alcohol was involved" so since he's over the age of 21, he had to have been over the legal limit (.08). If he was under the legal limit, it wouldn't have been considered a factor. Alcohol doesn't need to "cause" the accident but if he was driving over the legal limit, it's considered a factor.[/QUOTE]
If one were to slam a half-liter of vodka, jump in their car, and hit a tree down the street swerving to miss a dog, then it is possible that the person was not intoxicated at the time of the wreck and the alcohol did not cause the accident nor be a factor in it though they would be legally drunk by the time they got to the ER and blood was drawn which is why the "I stopped drinking an hour before felt okay" excuse never works. The guy may have been plastered for all I know--I just think people should give him the benefit of the doubt for now. As for the comment about just worrying about his next beer, that could be said for a great number of reality television folks who make their living as paid club patrons. I cannot stand Puck, but he is no worse in my book than a whole lot of the others just because he is less affiable.
[QUOTE=SeanDaniel;163833]If one were to slam a half-liter of vodka, jump in their car, and hit a tree down the street swerving to miss a dog, then it is possible that the person was not intoxicated at the time of the wreck and the alcohol did not cause the accident nor be a factor in it though they would be legally drunk by the time they got to the ER and blood was drawn which is why the "I stopped drinking an hour before felt okay" excuse never works. The guy may have been plastered for all I know--I just think people should give him the benefit of the doubt for now. As for the comment about just worrying about his next beer, that could be said for a great number of reality television folks who make their living as paid club patrons. I cannot stand Puck, but he is no worse in my book than a whole lot of the others just because he is less affiable.[/QUOTE]
I understand your point, although highly unlikely...but if the police say "alcohol was involved", then he had to have been over the legal limit by the time his blood was drawn...meaning if he hadn't got caught, he'd still be driving drunk in the first place. Why give him the benefit of the doubt if the cops have already said alcohol was a factor? The guy was driving drunk and had his son in the car. Not cool.
I don't know what "affiable" means, by the way.
[QUOTE=molds13;163842]I understand your point, although highly unlikely...but if the police say "alcohol was involved", then he had to have been over the legal limit by the time his blood was drawn...meaning if he hadn't got caught, he'd still be driving drunk in the first place. Why give him the benefit of the doubt if the cops have already said alcohol was a factor? The guy was driving drunk and had his son in the car. Not cool.
I don't know what "affiable" means, by the way.[/QUOTE]
Sorry I meant "amiable" I guess I should not post and play Mafia Wars at the same time.
I say give him the benefit of the doubt because the cops have been known to be wrong and I imagine that there is a whole world of crap coming his way already so why pile on......
Saying alcohol is involved can also mean there were 5 of 6 cans in a 6-pack. I have a friend of mine who is cop and he has said before to me that unless it says "under the influence" there is certainty anymore.
If Puck was intoxciated, I would say that makes a VERY strong case alcohol should be legal at 18. i was reading my local paper and a 47 year old man had recieved his 18th DUI and was to be sent to prison.
I used to like Puck but if this is true, he is useless and should have his kid taken away.
Well, if he goes to prison, then he, in effect, "loses" his kid for the duration but I thought he was still married to Betty and she would retain certainly custody.
Puck made a mistake when he made the choice to drive after drinking and he definitely is paying for that mistake. But I don't see why his son should be taken away.
[QUOTE=GoldenWarrior;163868]Puck made a mistake when he made the choice to drive after drinking and he definitely is paying for that mistake. But I don't see why his son should be taken away.[/QUOTE]
I doubt they would go that far. If he is found guilty of that, he would probably have to go to parenting classes and have restrictions on him like no driving with the kid; no drinking around the kid; pay a fine; maybe do some community service and maybe some jail time.
[QUOTE=Blake;163860][B]If Puck was intoxciated, I would say that makes a VERY strong case alcohol should be legal at 18.[/B] i was reading my local paper and a 47 year old man had recieved his 18th DUI and was to be sent to prison.
I used to like Puck but if this is true, he is useless and should have his kid taken away.[/QUOTE]
Um...what? How?
[QUOTE=andrewsz1991;163195][url=http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/puck_in_the_hospital#tab=most_recent]Puck in the Hospital | Celebrity Photos | TMZ.com[/url][/QUOTE]
These photos are sickening. I can't believe someone would take photos of a dude sitting in a hospital bed. I can understand photos before and after or exiting the building, but [I]really!?[/I]
Glad they're OK though..
Pages