sprout Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 from profootballtalk.com: BENSON CLAIMS HE ACED SOBRIETY TEST Posted by Michael David Smith on June 9, 2008, 9:13 a.m. Bears running back Cedric Benson, whose job is in jeopardy after he was arrested for drunk driving, claims that he aced the field sobriety test after a police officer pulled him over in Austin, Texas. The Chicago TV station WMAQ reported Sunday night that Benson sent a text message to one of its reporters saying, “I aced the field test, check the video.” So far no video of the incident has been released, but an Austin police spokeswoman offered a different version of events, saying Benson was arrested as a result of poor performance in the field sobriety test. Benson refused a Breathalyzer and would not provide a blood sample. Benson’s lawyer says that Benson wasn’t drunk but did consume two or three drinks. Benson is expected to participate in the Bears’ organized team activities today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bear trap Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 from profootballtalk.com: BENSON CLAIMS HE ACED SOBRIETY TEST Posted by Michael David Smith on June 9, 2008, 9:13 a.m. Bears running back Cedric Benson, whose job is in jeopardy after he was arrested for drunk driving, claims that he aced the field sobriety test after a police officer pulled him over in Austin, Texas. The Chicago TV station WMAQ reported Sunday night that Benson sent a text message to one of its reporters saying, “I aced the field test, check the video.” So far no video of the incident has been released, but an Austin police spokeswoman offered a different version of events, saying Benson was arrested as a result of poor performance in the field sobriety test. Benson refused a Breathalyzer and would not provide a blood sample. Benson’s lawyer says that Benson wasn’t drunk but did consume two or three drinks. Benson is expected to participate in the Bears’ organized team activities today. Yeah, if my job was on the line I'd lie my butt off too! Just like briggs lied after his accident. The only difference is that briggs didn't wrap another car around a pole and run 5 weeks later. I'm really getting sick of this crap from these stars saying they are right. An innocent man would have taken the blood test and proved his innocence. It's like these guys think they can go out and drink and if they get pulled over refuse to do anything but the fst then claim they passed it, because they know they have the money to beat these things. I don't care anymore whether guilty or not. The moron was once again out until the hours of 3 - 4 in the morning and stated he had 2-3 which in reallity terms was probably 5-6 cause you always cut the number in half when in trouble and it was only 5 weeks after the prior arrest. Not to mention the whole speeding debacle, he hasn't and never will learn his lesson. I would hope that JA and Lovie aren't so stupid to buy into his B.S.!! Cut him take the cap hit and send the message to the other guys that you're not going to be a parole officer team! Pretty soon people are going to call us the bengals of the North. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Yeah, if my job was on the line I'd lie my butt off too! Just like briggs lied after his accident. The only difference is that briggs didn't wrap another car around a pole and run 5 weeks later. I'm really getting sick of this crap from these stars saying they are right. An innocent man would have taken the blood test and proved his innocence. Obviously you have never discussed this with an attorney. Every attorney I've ever spoken with on the subject says to refuse the BAC test even if you only had 1 drink and it was hours ago. Breathilyzers are notoriously inaccurate and blood samples can be corrupted too. They say that in EVERY circumstance, you should refuse and take the statutory suspension. I suppose that in your world, that only celebrities should take it everytime because celebrities vs. the cops is a spectator sport. The actual interests of the people involved must be irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Obviously you have never discussed this with an attorney. Every attorney I've ever spoken with on the subject says to refuse the BAC test even if you only had 1 drink and it was hours ago. Breathilyzers are notoriously inaccurate and blood samples can be corrupted too. They say that in EVERY circumstance, you should refuse and take the statutory suspension. Huh??? If you're innocent you should refuse it? Either way, Cedric saying this is far from shocking. So far with Cedric we've had: 1. Draft day he cried because he said he was put under unfair scrutiny. 2. He openly complained that his teammates were out to get him and that his offensive line wouldn't block for him (unfair) 3. The was mistreated and pepper-sprayed unfairly when he was sober not doing anything wrong. 4. He aced a field sobriety test but was unfairly asked to give a breathalizer. Cedric has a history of claiming "not my fault!" This just seems like more of his typical BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprout Posted June 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Obviously you have never discussed this with an attorney. Every attorney I've ever spoken with on the subject says to refuse the BAC test even if you only had 1 drink and it was hours ago. Breathilyzers are notoriously inaccurate and blood samples can be corrupted too. They say that in EVERY circumstance, you should refuse and take the statutory suspension. I suppose that in your world, that only celebrities should take it everytime because celebrities vs. the cops is a spectator sport. The actual interests of the people involved must be irrelevant. I don't blame him for turning down the BAC tests. I'm just amazed that he would put himself in that situation. I don't have a problem with him being out drinking at 3:00am on a Saturday night . I do have a problem with him driving after drinking anything, considering the situation he is in. Take a cab, hire one of your buddies to be your driver, whatever. I think it really does indicate that he either doesn't get it or doesn't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Huh??? If you're innocent you should refuse it? If you've only had one drink and think that you (and everyone around you too) are sober, yes you should refuse. Read more here about how they are inherently inaccurate: http://www.drunkdriving-california.net/blo...cohol_test.html An all too common misconception, and also the main cause of erroneous blood-alcohol readings, is that the person being tested is average in all of the physiological qualities which affect the results of the test. Acquiring a precise level of alcohol content in the blood is determined based entirely on a list of certain scientific assumptions. More often than not, these assumptions are false, producing inaccurate readings of the individual’s blood sample. An individual tested is seldom “average” in any one of the biological traits assumed to be typical of an individual. One false assumption is regarding the relation between alcohol in the breath and in the blood such that the ratio in an “average” individual is 1:2100. All breath testing machines use this ratio when analyzing and comparing the results of breath and blood samples. In essence, the accuracy of the results obtained depends upon the accuracy of the original supposition. In reality, the blood-to-breath ratio can range anywhere from 1:1300 to 1:3000. Consequently, an individual with a ratio of 1:1700 and a real blood-alcohol level of .08 would produce a reading of .10 with a “precise” breath testing machine. Here's another one that talks about how the machines can often be inaccurate against how they are supposed to work: http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/InTheNews...1090949560.html Experts have argued that the machine’s thermometers, which must be absolutely accurate for accurate readings, weren’t properly maintained, were inaccurate, and therefore led to false readings. To reduce this problem, the state adopted regulations requiring periodic verification of the machines’ thermometers. However, the state hasn’t followed its own rules for many years, if ever. One prosecutor complained that “the rules have become our own worst enemy.” However, a new state law now specifically prohibits alcohol breath test readings from being barred from court just because they might be invalid or incorrect. The law makes it easier to get questionable, possibly inaccurate, breath-test readings admitted into court. Apparently, prosecutors want to increase their conviction rates, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the citizens suspected of driving while under the influence of alcohol. So yeah. If you've even had only one beer, you should refuse to take a BAC test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Yes, if you're innocent, it's usually a good idea to refuse it and demand the more accurate test. If the blood test was done, I'll say temporarily withhold judgement on this one...until the results come back. If he's anywhere near the legal limit (i.e. where Tank was) then regardless of the cap hit let the Cowboys take him. If he's down around .04 or something really low, then I'll buy his story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 If you might be close to the limit or obviously think youre over thats when you dont take the test. You also have to realize that results in an automatic suspension of your drivers license for 6 months so you dont decline to take it if youre innocent because that creates lots of obstacles. Some people use that as a loop hole to fight in court because then it becomes your word against the officer administering the field sobriety test. However, there is no way a judge will take Bensons word over an officers so to not take it if he was so sure he wasnt drunk is a terrible mistake. Im all for trying to manipulate the system in an effort to win your court case, but for anyone to think he did this because he was worried about the test not being accurate is laughable. When someone gets accused of operating some type of vehicle while drunk two times in a month span and both times refuses to showcase his innocence with a test it will put enough doubt in a judge or juries eyes that they wont believe him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bear trap Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Obviously you have never discussed this with an attorney. Every attorney I've ever spoken with on the subject says to refuse the BAC test even if you only had 1 drink and it was hours ago. Breathilyzers are notoriously inaccurate and blood samples can be corrupted too. They say that in EVERY circumstance, you should refuse and take the statutory suspension. I suppose that in your world, that only celebrities should take it everytime because celebrities vs. the cops is a spectator sport. The actual interests of the people involved must be irrelevant. No I believe in my world that if I was truely innocent I would take the damn test. Yeah there have been times I've been pulled over and asked to take the test. Instead of refusing and arguing about the results of my fst I took the stupid thing. People who believe they might be guilty take your way. I don't care how you see it if he truely believes he's done nothing wrong he takes the bac test and shuts everyone up and is released. Your opinion is that of a lawyer trying to protect their cleint who feels they may be borderline over the limit. So yeah benson took your approach cause he thought he may be over the limit. SO in all actuallity he did do something wrong. He drove and couldn't definitly justify being sober. After the first one that may not be a huge deal, but since he hasn't even gone to court for the first and now this it's a huge deal and should be taken care of. I don't care about the "could be off arguement of the breathalyzer or the bac test" Statistically they're more accurate than not, and if he was truely innocent he'd take it. And with the position he was already in there's only room for the truely innocent no if, ands, or maybes about it!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiLoc69 Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 I have a few people close to me that are cops and they all told me that if I even had one beer to refuse the test because they are very innacurate. Sure, you'll get a suspension, but that's better than being found guilty of DUI. Benson sounds confident about passing the test, at least on video so I hope that comes out to either clear him or expose him. Lets pretend for a second everything he said about the incident on the boat is true. Now lets pretend he is being honest here too. He passes the field sobriety test and now is being asked to jump through yet more hoops and he decides, enough is enough, shuts off and stop cooperating. Possible? Not defending him, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm pissed that he didn't play it safe and have a driver, even if he is telling the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 If you might be close to the limit or obviously think youre over thats when you dont take the test. You also have to realize that results in an automatic suspension of your drivers license for 6 months so you dont decline to take it if youre innocent because that creates lots of obstacles. Some people use that as a loop hole to fight in court because then it becomes your word against the officer administering the field sobriety test. However, there is no way a judge will take Bensons word over an officers so to not take it if he was so sure he wasnt drunk is a terrible mistake. Im all for trying to manipulate the system in an effort to win your court case, but for anyone to think he did this because he was worried about the test not being accurate is laughable. When someone gets accused of operating some type of vehicle while drunk two times in a month span and both times refuses to showcase his innocence with a test it will put enough doubt in a judge or juries eyes that they wont believe him. Bingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 I have a few people close to me that are cops and they all told me that if I even had one beer to refuse the test because they are very innacurate. Sure, you'll get a suspension, but that's better than being found guilty of DUI. Benson sounds confident about passing the test, at least on video so I hope that comes out to either clear him or expose him. Lets pretend for a second everything he said about the incident on the boat is true. Now lets pretend he is being honest here too. He passes the field sobriety test and now is being asked to jump through yet more hoops and he decides, enough is enough, shuts off and stop cooperating. Possible? Not defending him, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm pissed that he didn't play it safe and have a driver, even if he is telling the truth. I suppose that's possible, just highly unlikely. Unless Benson just happens to run into ALL the cops who just feel like screwing with someone...also highly unlikely. The more likely situation is that he was guilty both times, and past performance/actions/words indicate he's a dumbass who has yet to learn his lesson. The sad thing is, if he ends up getting cut, he will get picked up soon thereafter, and still won't learn his lesson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selection7 Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 A breath test is immediate, so if you fail it, you can then have a blood sample taken. If the blood sample passes I can't see a judge choosing to believe the accuracy of a breathalyzer over a blood test. What am I missing? Seems like it's not rocket science. That's all assuming the Bears would've waited for the blood test results rather than just cutting him for poor judgement rather than an outright DUI. But as it turned out, he got cut anyway so in hindsight, I guess his only chance was to take the breath test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.