MGB: Former UNT QB Riley Dodge arrested

UNT90 · March 25, 2016

22 hours ago, oldguystudent said:

There is a big part of me that sees any trials and tribulations coming the way of the perfect husbands and fathers Dodge family and enjoys some serious lulz.

The more rational part of me, however, if the Dodge side of this story is correct, points to the absurd levels some laws have been taken. I would argue that the vast, vast majority of people on this board are guilty of worse after any given UNT football game.

There are physical tests given before arrests for DWI. It's not like the officer just smelled booze on him and arrested him. I guess he could argue concussion syndrome affected his balance.

Wont matter, as blood was drawn and we will all know the hard, indisputable results soon enough.

Two beers with a full dinner doesn't get you arrested. Two beers is the story of every drunk that interacts with police, whether they have had 5 or 25 beers. It's always 2 or the every so murky "a couple," which by definition means 2, but by drunk definition could mean anything from 5-50.

Mistake by Riley, any way you want to slice it.

And yes, Brett, after all the grief you took from Dodge, we know you reported this with at least a slight smirk on your face.

Edited March 25, 2016 by UNT90

Army of Dad · March 25, 2016

27 minutes ago, cwb said:

Were they in a Buick?

I don't know, but I think Mac could take that car and drive it to the Olive Garden never ending soup and salad bowl.

Vito will then write endlessly about that only worked when DT was a passenger.

emmitt01 · March 25, 2016

4 hours ago, UNT90 said:

There are physical tests given before arrests for DWI. It's not like the officer just smelled booze on him and arrested him. I guess he could argue concussion syndrome affected his balance.

Wont matter, as blood was drawn and we will all know the hard, indisputable results soon enough.

Two beers with a full dinner doesn't get you arrested. Two beers is the story of every drunk that interacts with police, whether they have had 5 or 25 beers. It's always 2 or the every so murky "a couple," which by definition means 2, but by drunk definition could mean anything from 5-50.

Mistake by Riley, any way you want to slice it.

And yes, Brett, after all the grief you took from Dodge, we know you reported this with at least a slight smirk on your face.

Shhhh...bringing context and reason to this conversation totally ruins the "those damn Barney Fife cops are railroading this paragon of virtue that was oh so brave while he played here" narrative.

Nevermind that "2 beers" actually IS the Pavlovian response of every person who has been detained for suspicion of impaired driving. And nevermind that, while we are all so quick to parrot the "let's wait until all the facts are known" mantra to defend young Mr. Dodge, we can easily jump to the assumption that the arresting officer was a hapless buffoon acting on a wild guess.

You should know better

Army of Dad · March 25, 2016

12 minutes ago, emmitt01 said:

Shhhh...bringing context and reason to this conversation totally ruins the "those damn Barney Fife cops are railroading this paragon of virtue that was oh so brave while he played here" narrative.

Nevermind that "2 beers" actually IS the Pavlovian response of every person who has been detained for suspicion of impaired driving. And nevermind that, while we are all so quick to parrot the "let's wait until all the facts are known" mantra to defend young Mr. Dodge, we can easily jump to the assumption that the arresting officer was a hapless buffoon acting on a wild guess.

You should know better

There was that narrative? I saw lots of people taking smart Alec pot shots...

foutsrouts · March 25, 2016

38 minutes ago, emmitt01 said:

Shhhh...bringing context and reason to this conversation totally ruins the "those damn Barney Fife cops are railroading this paragon of virtue that was oh so brave while he played here" narrative.

Nevermind that "2 beers" actually IS the Pavlovian response of every person who has been detained for suspicion of impaired driving. And nevermind that, while we are all so quick to parrot the "let's wait until all the facts are known" mantra to defend young Mr. Dodge, we can easily jump to the assumption that the arresting officer was a hapless buffoon acting on a wild guess.

You should know better

There are still some Barneys out there so who knows about Riley at this point. I remember running into one back in my youthful semi-outlaw days, while stupidly sitting in the car off of the interstate on a hill listening to the 9th of a distant Astro playoff game. We were on our second beers of splitting a 6-pack, which was still perfectly legal in your vehicle at the time, but off to jail we went because Barney wanted an arrest and our $200 for PI. The engine was running at the time, and I begged for a breathalyzer to prove my innocence, but Barney would have none of that. Luckily what happened in Podunk stayed in Podunk, so we took our $100 lumps rather than dealing with it in court.

EagleGreen · March 25, 2016

Interesting that in Texas you get a felony (min. of 180 days in jail) if you are convicted of a DWI with a minor under that age of 15 in the car. I just asked a DC judge if they see that a lot and he said not only does he see it a lot but they convict persons of DWI with any alcohol in their system if a minor <15 is in the car with them. That's steep. No more drinks at dinner...

emmitt01 · March 25, 2016

1 hour ago, foutsrouts said:

There are still some Barneys out there so who knows about Riley at this point. I remember running into one back in my youthful semi-outlaw days, while stupidly sitting in the car off of the interstate on a hill listening to the 9th of a distant Astro playoff game. We were on our second beers of splitting a 6-pack, which was still perfectly legal in your vehicle at the time, but off to jail we went because Barney wanted an arrest and our $200 for PI. The engine was running at the time, and I begged for a breathalyzer to prove my innocence, but Barney would have none of that. Luckily what happened in Podunk stayed in Podunk, so we took our $100 lumps rather than dealing with it in court.

Thank you so much. Your anecdotal evidence clearly justifies the propensity to believe officer misconduct as more probable

MeanGreenTexan · March 25, 2016

10 minutes ago, emmitt01 said:

Thank you so much. Your anecdotal evidence clearly justifies the propensity to believe officer misconduct as more probable

This eloquent proclamation is a North Texas education, manifest.

oldguystudent · March 25, 2016

16 minutes ago, emmitt01 said:

Thank you so much. Your anecdotal evidence clearly justifies the propensity to believe officer misconduct as more probable

You know how when you're faced with a routine traffic stop, you just never know whether he's going to be a good, compliant citizen (99%) or a violent crazy nutcase out to kill you (1%)? So you have to treat all drivers with the same amount of caution because you just never know.

That's kinda how I look at police. When I'm forced to interact, I am all yes sir, no sir, of course officer. But I avoid contact as much as humanly possible because I never know when or if I'm going to encounter that 1%. Over the years, I've come to have a zero tolerance for drinks to driving ratio just as an insurance policy. If you see me having so much as a 12 oz can of Bud Light at a tailgate, I'm taking uber. I've got to treat all traffic stops with equal caution.

Greenrex · March 25, 2016

1 hour ago, EagleGreen said:

Interesting that in Texas you get a felony (min. of 180 days in jail) if you are convicted of a DWI with a minor under that age of 15 in the car. I just asked a DC judge if they see that a lot and he said not only does he see it a lot but they convict persons of DWI with any alcohol in their system if a minor <15 is in the car with them. That's steep. No more drinks at dinner...

No more dating the young ones.

TreeFiddy · March 25, 2016

1 hour ago, EagleGreen said:

Interesting that in Texas you get a felony (min. of 180 days in jail) if you are convicted of a DWI with a minor under that age of 15 in the car. I just asked a DC judge if they see that a lot and he said not only does he see it a lot but they convict persons of DWI with any alcohol in their system if a minor <15 is in the car with them. That's steep. No more drinks at dinner...

Especially if your date is 15 or under.

UNT90 · March 25, 2016

4 hours ago, foutsrouts said:

There are still some Barneys out there so who knows about Riley at this point. I remember running into one back in my youthful semi-outlaw days, while stupidly sitting in the car off of the interstate on a hill listening to the 9th of a distant Astro playoff game. We were on our second beers of splitting a 6-pack, which was still perfectly legal in your vehicle at the time, but off to jail we went because Barney wanted an arrest and our $200 for PI. The engine was running at the time, and I begged for a breathalyzer to prove my innocence, but Barney would have none of that. Luckily what happened in Podunk stayed in Podunk, so we took our $100 lumps rather than dealing with it in court.

PI and DWI are 2 very different charges. Don't get people confused.

Rudy · March 26, 2016

On 3/23/2016 at 4:01 PM, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

On 3/23/2016 at 4:07 PM, meanJewGreen said:

20 hours ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

You're charged based on the officer's report, such as "he said he had a couple drinks at dinner." Once blood tests come out they can a subquently drop those charges. No outline, but this one was suspect from the onset.

No, I'm quite sure I know how DWI's work.

6 hours ago, EagleGreen said:

Interesting that in Texas you get a felony (min. of 180 days in jail) if you are convicted of a DWI with a minor under that age of 15 in the car. I just asked a DC judge if they see that a lot and he said not only does he see it a lot but they convict persons of DWI with any alcohol in their system if a minor <15 is in the car with them. That's steep. No more drinks at dinner...

When I was still in field training, we had a guy driving from Amarillo to Kansas, at 4:30PM, not only tanked, but his toddler daughter in the car and not only was she not in a child seat, she was bouncing around in the truck.

foutsrouts · March 26, 2016

5 hours ago, emmitt01 said:

Thank you so much. Your anecdotal evidence clearly justifies the propensity to believe officer misconduct as more probable

You're welcome, but shouldn't we presume arrestee guilt before innocence? That seems to be the modern American way.

3 hours ago, UNT90 said:

PI and DWI are 2 very different charges. Don't get people confused.

Naw, we're supposed to be educated folk around here.

UNT90 · March 26, 2016

19 minutes ago, foutsrouts said:

You're welcome, but shouldn't we presume arrestee guilt before innocence? That seems to be the modern American way.

Naw, we're supposed to be educated folk around here.

No one said he was guilty, just that he failed or refused to take physical tests and a cop just didn't decide on a whim to arrest him.

I also wonder if you guys said anything to piss Barney Fife off. Like maybe calling him Barney Fife. That is usually how you get a PI when you aren't legally drunk.

ChristopherRyanWilkes · March 26, 2016

Officers on the thread, I like you all and I back the blue 100%, but you know it's not your job to make a final determination of guilt and innocence with every arrest. This officer was doing his job, he saw whatever evidence and made the arrest. Now it's up to the DA to proceed or drop. You all already know the problems with breathlyzer tests and why blood tests are used in the first place. However, I didn't read anything about him taking a breathlyzer.

1 hour ago, Rudy said:

No, I'm quite sure I know how DWI's work.

When I was still in field training, we had a guy driving from Amarillo to Kansas, at 4:30PM, not only tanked, but his toddler daughter in the car and not only was she not in a child seat, she was bouncing around in the truck.

What was incorrect? They go off physical evidence if he refuses breathalyzer or field sobriety. That includes anything he said at the scene.. Everything they observed: operated vehicle, hit pole, said he had a couple drinks at dinner, smelled a bit like alcohol (maybe). That's more than enough to arrest and charge but may not be enough to convict. That's what blood test is for.

Edited March 26, 2016 by ChristopherRyanWilkes

foutsrouts · March 26, 2016

1 hour ago, UNT90 said:

No one said he was guilty, just that he failed or refused to take physical tests and a cop just didn't decide on a whim to arrest him.

I also wonder if you guys said anything to piss Barney Fife off. Like maybe calling him Barney Fife. That is usually how you get a PI when you aren't legally drunk.

Nope. We were as respectful and sober acting as could be. He even tried to accuse us of knocking down a highway marker a couple of hundred feet back, until another officer arrived and agreed that this was not likely with our scratchless painted front bumper. It was definitely a municipality that used their cops for revenue raising purposes. The Riley street sign knockdown is kind of what brought back my memories of that incident in the first place. Oh well, time to stop my busy season late night working, and I'm ready to head out for a brew. Just hope there are no Barneys out there waiting for me. (Haha). Go low seed Gonzaga.

Rudy · March 26, 2016

3 hours ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

Officers on the thread, I like you all and I back the blue 100%, but you know it's not your job to make a final determination of guilt and innocence with every arrest. This officer was doing his job, he saw whatever evidence and made the arrest. Now it's up to the DA to proceed or drop. You all already know the problems with breathlyzer tests and why blood tests are used in the first place. However, I didn't read anything about him taking a breathlyzer.

What was incorrect? They go off physical evidence if he refuses breathalyzer or field sobriety. That includes anything he said at the scene.. Everything they observed: operated vehicle, hit pole, said he had a couple drinks at dinner, smelled a bit like alcohol (maybe). That's more than enough to arrest and charge but may not be enough to convict. That's what blood test is for.

Ok, you didn't say all of that, you just said the report. Misunderstood.