Matt Park DUI in Clemson | Page 7 | Syracusefan.com

Matt Park DUI in Clemson

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would hope that Matt is a guy who unwisely took one drink, (maybe a beer?) too many and, knowing what he has been through with this, is highly unlikely to do this again, as opposed to a guy with a serious drinking problem. And if that is the case, i hope he retains his job. He seems like a likable guy and does a good job doing the games and interviews. That he was charged with DUI rather than the more serious DWI, (if I've got this right: I'm not a lawyer), suggests this might be the case.

But, again, if he'd gotten in a serious accident and somebody had gotten hurt we wouldn't be forgiving him or questioning the law. And the law sets the bar where it does because it must have been shown that the potential for something like that to happen is unacceptably high at that level. And he must have been stopped by the police because he was driving erratically in some fashion. Matt's lucky his current troubles are all he's facing.

That said, I hope he does return to be the "Voice of the Orange". I like him. I wish IMG or the school, (who surely has major input in this) would announce his status.
 
oldpinepoint said:
For those of you who think DWI isn't serious please reevaluate your thinking. It's pretty insulting actually, I've had friends who died in drunk driving accidents. It's deadly serious.
Expand...
It is serious. But in this case there was no accident and no damage (reportedly). So let's take it a day at a time ... he's charged with DUI not vehicular manslaughter.
 
reedny said:
It is serious. But in this case there was no accident and no damage (reportedly). So let's take it a day at a time ... he's charged with DUI not vehicular manslaughter.
Expand...
my own opinion of the severity of drunk driving depends on just how drunk the person is

often times i don't think the law is smart in that regard - the steps are too big, it needs to be more continuous

most fatal accidents involve people way more drunk than .08 so i think the punishments should be way worse for .15

i'm just not that worried about .05 drivers. i'm worried about .2
 
Millhouse said:
my own opinion of the severity of drunk driving depends on just how drunk the person is

often times i don't think the law is smart in that regard - the steps are too big, it needs to be more continuous

most fatal accidents involve people way more drunk than .08 so i think the punishments should be way worse for .15

i'm just not that worried about .05 drivers. i'm worried about .2
Expand...
exactly right. And the (relatively small percentage of) worst offenders drive (;) policy for the vast majority (much less serious offenders). N.Y. law does have gradations -- there is impaired over .05, DWI .08 and aggravated DWI .18. That's an improvement. As are the predicate penalties (repeated offenders that are causing the problems get harsher penalties). In Matt Park's case (I think the reports were .10) this is slightly over the legal limit and the margain of error of the breath test equipment. So I'm not minimizing the seriousness of intoxicated drivers ... just saying be patient in this case and see how it plays out. He didn't hurt anyone or cause any damage.
 
reedny said:
exactly right. And the (relatively small percentage of) worst offenders drive (;) policy for the vast majority (much less serious offenders). N.Y. law does have gradations -- there is impaired over .05, DWI .08 and aggravated DWI .18. That's an improvement. As are the predicate penalties (repeated offenders that are causing the problems get harsher penalties). In Matt Park's case (I think the reports were .10) this is slightly over the legal limit and the margain of error of the breath test equipment. So I'm not minimizing the seriousness of intoxicated drivers ... just saying be patient in this case and see how it plays out. He didn't hurt anyone or cause any damage.
Expand...

You seem to be defending Matt pretty staunchly, so I don't mean to offend you if he is a friend, family member, or if you are just a big fan, but there are a couple of things about this post that irk me a little bit.

You said you aren't trying to play down the seriousness of drunk driving, but you seem to be qualifying things by saying he was only 'slightly over' the legal limit and he 'didn't hurt anyone or cause any damage' -- but a .10 is a decent amount of booze in his system. The rule of thumb that I've always heard, for your average sized male, is that one drink (a shot, a beer, a glass of wine) will raise your BAC by .02 and your body will metabolize .02 of that BAC per hour. A .10 is like taking six shots of jack (or the equivalent of three-quarters of a can of coke) at midnight and getting behind the wheel an hour later at 1 AM. That's a lot of booze.

Next, when talking about getting caught driving drunk, you shouldn't be saying 'but he didn't hurt anybody'; you should be saying 'he's lucky he didn't hurt anyone.' The fact of the matter is that he was driving around an area that he was probably unfamiliar with with a pretty substantial buzz going on. He's lucky he didn't miss a stop sign or some kid didn't go chasing a ball into the street. The issue with drunk driving isn't that you can't stay between the lines, it's that you react terribly to abnormal circumstances. He's just lucky nothing worse happened.

Individuals that get arrested for DWI generally are serial drunk drivers. Hopefully Park straightens things out and rights the ship. It's gotta suck going through something like this in the public eye.
 
oldpinepoint said:
For those of you who think DWI isn't serious please reevaluate your thinking. It's pretty insulting actually, I've had friends who died in drunk driving accidents. It's deadly serious.
Expand...
Same, I have lost 2 friends to it. It isn't something to make light of...
 
I agree with the poster that said Mothers Against Drunk Driving shouldn't be the one's formulating the law. Good friends of mine lost their mother to a serial drunk driver who blew a .23 on a Tuesday afternoon after plowing into the side of their car. He also had no license because of previous violations but that didn't stop him from borrowing a car and drinking himself into oblivion.

My point is that the casual drinker shouldn't be punished on the same scale and it doesn't matter how many laws you put on the books it's not going to stop a drunk from getting behind the wheel. It's past time to find a different way to deal with the problem instead of painting everyone with a broad brush
 
CuseLegacy said:
Not trying to nitpick but he was charged with a DUI. In SC there is a difference in the two , DUI or DWI, because of blood alcohol level. I looked up the typical penalties for a DUI. If he is a first time offender supposedly he has to pay a $400 fine, do 48 hours of jail time or community service and obtain a three year SR-22 insurance policy, whatever that is. Maybe he's down there doing community service.
Expand...

Does South Carolina still have chain gangs? If so put Park in one for 48 hours.
 
kirbivore said:
Does South Carolina still have chain gangs? If so put Park in one for 48 hours.
Expand...

More likely wearing an orange jumpsuit, picking up trash/debris off the sides of the road while a Sherriff deputy stood by with a shotgun.
 
DeGrozz said:
You seem to be defending Matt pretty staunchly, so I don't mean to offend you if he is a friend, family member, or if you are just a big fan, but there are a couple of things about this post that irk me a little bit.

You said you aren't trying to play down the seriousness of drunk driving, but you seem to be qualifying things by saying he was only 'slightly over' the legal limit and he 'didn't hurt anyone or cause any damage' -- but a .10 is a decent amount of booze in his system. The rule of thumb that I've always heard, for your average sized male, is that one drink (a shot, a beer, a glass of wine) will raise your BAC by .02 and your body will metabolize .02 of that BAC per hour. A .10 is like taking six shots of jack (or the equivalent of three-quarters of a can of coke) at midnight and getting behind the wheel an hour later at 1 AM. That's a lot of booze.

Next, when talking about getting caught driving drunk, you shouldn't be saying 'but he didn't hurt anybody'; you should be saying 'he's lucky he didn't hurt anyone.' The fact of the matter is that he was driving around an area that he was probably unfamiliar with with a pretty substantial buzz going on. He's lucky he didn't miss a stop sign or some kid didn't go chasing a ball into the street. The issue with drunk driving isn't that you can't stay between the lines, it's that you react terribly to abnormal circumstances. He's just lucky nothing worse happened.

Individuals that get arrested for DWI generally are serial drunk drivers. Hopefully Park straightens things out and rights the ship. It's gotta suck going through something like this in the public eye.
Expand...
My purpose was not to make excuses or downplay the seriousness, as I said. So if you prefer your language, yes he's lucky no one got hurt and there was no damage. That also may have been a function of his sobriety level .. which was certainly not off the charts (see below). Many people get arrested for traffic violations with no booze in their system. So his alleged violation may have been a function of ETOH, maybe not. You're assuming the worst.

Second, your assumptions about the BAC values with drinks are off. A beer is .025, a hard liquor shot or high ball is .04. That's about 2.5 drinks, possibly more ... depending on what he had and over what period of time. He could have consumed the drinks the night before and thought he was ok. Clearance rates are variable .. so before you get out your calculator again, there are many factors that go into clearance rates and BAC .. body type, state of rest, internal body temperature, absorption, etc..

Third, perhaps the biggest error in your post is the claim that DWI's (he was a DUI) are "generally ... serial drunk drivers". It's actually the opposite. And as I said in response to another post, the bad-actors, chronic alcoholics that you're concerned about (and rightly so) are the minority.
 
Last edited:
reedny said:
Third, perhaps the biggest error in your post is the claim that DWI's (he was a DUI) are "generally ... serial drunk drivers". It's actually the opposite. And as I said in response to another post, the bad-actors, chronic alcoholics that you're concerned about (and rightly so) are the minority.
Expand...

So DUI is worse than DWI? The DUI's are the "serial drunk drivers" and the DWIs are the guys who just had one too many on a particular night?
 
KellySyracuse said:
I agree with the poster that said Mothers Against Drunk Driving shouldn't be the one's formulating the law. Good friends of mine lost their mother to a serial drunk driver who blew a .23 on a Tuesday afternoon after plowing into the side of their car. He also had no license because of previous violations but that didn't stop him from borrowing a car and drinking himself into oblivion.

My point is that the casual drinker shouldn't be punished on the same scale and it doesn't matter how many laws you put on the books it's not going to stop a drunk from getting behind the wheel. It's past time to find a different way to deal with the problem instead of painting everyone with a broad brush
Expand...
There is no other way to deal with it. That's the problem. Until we begin to view alcohol for what it is, a mind altering drug, it will never be taken seriously enough. Getting drunk is far too accepted in our culture. And because so many people have driven drunk at one time or another, they condone it for fear of indicting themselves in their own minds or being hypocritical. I haven't so much seen that in this thread, but I've certainly heard it from too many adults.
 
SWC75 said:
So DUI is worse than DWI? The DUI's are the "serial drunk drivers" and the DWIs are the guys who just had one too many on a particular night?
Expand...
Yes and no, lol. DUI is a south carolina term. NY has DWI. However, at least in NY, being under the influence - if the influence is impairment as opposed to intoxication - is less serious (a violation not a misdemeanor).
 
Last edited:
reedny said:
Second, your assumptions about the BAC values with drinks are off. A beer is .025, a hard liquor shot or high ball is .04. That's about 2.5 drinks, possibly more ... depending on what he had and over what period of time. He could have consumed the drinks the night before and thought he was ok. Clearance rates are variable .. so before you get out your calculator again, there are many factors that go into clearance rates and BAC .. body type, state of rest, internal body temperature, absorption, etc..

Third, perhaps the biggest error in your post is the claim that DWI's (he was a DUI) are "generally ... serial drunk drivers". It's actually the opposite. And as I said in response to another post, the bad-actors, chronic alcoholics that you're concerned about (and rightly so) are the minority.
Expand...

I disagree with your math. A 1.5 oz shot at 40%, a 12 oz beer at 5%, or a 3.5 oz glass of wine at 12% all contain the same amount of alcohol (.6 oz). Granted some drinks can be made stronger or weaker or contain higher percentages of alcohol, but as a rule of thumb, the alcohol in one average drink is generally the same. Maybe my estimates about Matt's size are off, but according to these charts he would have to be 5 or 6 (if he weighs 200 lbs), or 4 or 5 (if he weighs 180 lbs), deep to blow around a .10 after an hour. http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/HealthIssues/1100827422.html#.VFqJQPnF9xw I'm not sure where 2.5 drinks would be coming from (unless he only weighs 110 lbs).

Also, when you say "chronic alcoholics that you're concerned about (and rightly so) are the minority."

I don't think that your stats are accurate about most people pulled over for DWIs:

"But nearly half the group had ongoing struggles."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/22/us-drinking-idUSBRE85L02P20120622

Again, if you have anything that says otherwise, I'd be happy to hear, because it sounds like the two of us have learned two very different fact sets related to drinking and drunk driving.
 
Point blank. Have we seen/heard the last of Matt Park "Voice of the Orange" ?

I say, No.
 
DeGrozz said:
I disagree with your math. A 1.5 oz shot at 40%, a 12 oz beer at 5%, or a 3.5 oz glass of wine at 12% all contain the same amount of alcohol (.6 oz). Granted some drinks can be made stronger or weaker or contain higher percentages of alcohol, but as a rule of thumb, the alcohol in one average drink is generally the same. Maybe my estimates about Matt's size are off, but according to these charts he would have to be 5 or 6 (if he weighs 200 lbs), or 4 or 5 (if he weighs 180 lbs), deep to blow around a .10 after an hour. http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/HealthIssues/1100827422.html#.VFqJQPnF9xw I'm not sure where 2.5 drinks would be coming from (unless he only weighs 110 lbs).

Also, when you say "chronic alcoholics that you're concerned about (and rightly so) are the minority."

I don't think that your stats are accurate about most people pulled over for DWIs:

"But nearly half the group had ongoing struggles."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/22/us-drinking-idUSBRE85L02P20120622
Expand...

DG, again (with all due respect) your information is off. Before you were talking about the general effects (on BAC) of various drinks (beer vs. hard drinks, eg.). I gave you those values, which are different than yours, meaning it takes fewer drinks to get to Matt's alleged BAC than you were predicting based on lower values.

Now, in this post, you're saying something different .. the amount of ETOH in each type of drink. This is obviously related to, but not the same as, the BAC levels generally associated with each type of drink -- which are as I stated. I agree with you that it depends on how much alcohol in the drink .. but again we're speaking of generalities.

Next, the article you quoted refers to people in one survey who had "struggles" with alcohol at other times. These were not necessarily repeat offenders having been charged with multiple DWI's -- that was the point. Most FIRST TIME offenders are not chronic offenders (or "serial drunk drivers" as you put it) -- far from it. In fact, the mean percentage of people convicted of DWI that are repeat offenders (prior conviction) is about 1/3... far from the majority as you stated. Here is an NHTSA link that is helpful.

Anything more please PM me. thx.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/traftech/1995/TT085.htm
 
Last edited:
Admins... Let's kill this thread. Matt is one of us... Cause fan... And we continue to comment on his unfortunate situation. this is not fun for him and his onlynoutlet cld be his love fore cuse sports. I don't know him or speak for him. I do suffer from what he did and had my name posted on front page of post standard. It is humiliating enough. Let's not perpetuate it
 
With 2 road games coming up I don't see SU or IMG sending Matt on the road for any more football games. So I think his football season is over and they will probably re-evaluate his status for basketball season. The fact everyone is so quiet on this is probably a bad sign for Matt
 
B2Gwh_eIEAAunN7.jpg:large

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

TexanMark
Cuse Has To Flip This
Replies
4
Views
701
HRE Otto IV
HRE Otto IV

Forum statistics

Threads
176,308
Messages
5,307,937
Members
6,196
Latest member
Cuseman73

Online statistics

Members online
60
Guests online
4,518
Total visitors
4,578
Totals may include hidden visitors.


P
Top Bottom