Tigers Not Trying To Void Miguel Cabrera’s Contract

In the aftermath of Miguel Cabrera's DUI arrest late Wednesday night, his second alcohol-related arrest in the last 17 months, Tigers GM Dave Dombrowski told ESPN's Jayson Stark (on Twitter) that "right now there's no language that can void [his contract], and we're not trying to do that." Two days ago we heard that some executives believed Detroit would try to make the contract non-guaranteed as a result of the incident.

Cabrera, 28 in April, signed an eight-year, $152.3MM contract extension before the 2008 season, not long after the trade that brought him to Detroit and before he ever played an official game for them. There are still five years and $106MM left on the deal, between $20MM and $22MM annually through 2015. It was the fifth richest contract in baseball history at the time it was signed.

Despite his off-the-field troubles, Cabrera is one of the game's premier sluggers, hitting .328/.420/.622 with career highs in doubles (45) and homers (38) last season. He's hit .317/.392/.558 in his seven full seasons, and his 247 homers before age 28 are the 12th most all-time. 

Dombrowski told Tom Gage of The Detroit News and SI.com's Jon Heyman that he'd be surprised if MLB sanctioned Cabrera in any way, though his star first baseman will miss the start of camp to be evaluated by doctors (Twitter links). The absence is not expected to spill over into the regular season.

130 Responses to Tigers Not Trying To Void Miguel Cabrera’s Contract Leave a Reply

  1. tigs_girl 4 years ago

    He needs to get whatever help he needs, regardless of how it affects the season. The organization needs to put Miguel Cabrera first, the team second. Otherwise Cabrera isn’t going to be in any position to help the team.

    • TartanElk 4 years ago

      I disagree. They need to keep them both on the same level. If we focus on Cabby and put the rest of the team to the side, they could start to struggle and get in a bad spot. If Cabrera misses some of the regular season, we need to make sure the team is ready to go.

      The FO needs to do all they can for him, but they must make him and the team the same priority level.

      • John McFadin 4 years ago

        Put your best players first. Sorry, that’s just the way it is.

        • jwsox 4 years ago

          nope put the business first sorry THATS the way it is. This is a business which means they need to worry about making money. Get miggy healthy and field a team that can try to compete without him at the same time. If he cant get his act together its best business wise to cut your ties with a bad investment

      • johnsilver 4 years ago

        This guy was Elijah Dukes and he would be gone, but since he can actually play and has some talent and gets treated with kid gloves.

  2. erm016 4 years ago

    Pathetic he is.

    • John McFadin 4 years ago

      How is he pathetic in any way? It’s pretty obvious that you don’t know too much about how addiction works. So you probably shouldn’t comment on it.

      • erm016 4 years ago

        Oh please. Addiction is fine. Drinking and driving is beyond stupid. I have no sympathy for him at all, or anyone for that matter who gets a DUI.

        Spare the “I know all” attitude.

        He’s a superstar, throw someone $100 to drive him home and NOT get a DUI.

        • John McFadin 4 years ago

          Once again you prove just how clueless you are about addiction……..

          • jwsox 4 years ago

            he has a point though. miggy knows he has a problem. He eve stated it a few years ago. Why not at that point hire one of your buddies to drive you around. ITS NOT HARD AT ALL…he admitted he had a problem he should have gone to a real treatment and stayed in treatment. And they team should have hired someone to watch over him its both of their faults

          • MSUCorner 4 years ago

            Addiction is america’s blanket scape goat. That scotch didn’t climb down his throat. Cabrera is dumb, immature, and incredibly irresponsible. Therefore he is pathetic and not deserving of respect or sympathy. He is not a victim, he is a man that racks the discipline.

        • Tko11 4 years ago

          Addiction isn’t fine but I strongly agree with that final part…These guys make so much damn money and they can’t get a driver for a night? Thats just irresponsible.

    • baseballdude 4 years ago

      i bet in your case cabrera wouldnt be pathetic if he was a brave

  3. tigs_girl 4 years ago

    erm016 – He’s an addict & has a disease & needs treatment. This has nothing to do with willpower or anything else.

    • disgustedcubfan 4 years ago

      So addicted people have no accountability for their behavior or shouldn’t be held responsible for anything?

      • hoagiebuchanan 4 years ago

        No, but in this case, nobody got hurt…so what is there to be accountable for? He got caught.

  4. Tko11 4 years ago

    Its because he has to live in Detroit

    • Motor_City_Bombshell 4 years ago

      Wow…because someone has actually been there to see how “bad” it really is. I can name at least four cities worse than Detroit in Michigan alone, so dont give me that bull. Detroit is a great city, and a great sports city at that, and anyone dissing it has obviously never been there…so much ignorance…

      • Motor_City_Bombshell 4 years ago

        Edit to my last post: and if you had any kind of factual knowledge at all, you would know that Miguel Cabrera actually lives in Birmingham, Michigan, which is one of the nicer Detroit suburbs, which there are a lot of nice Detroit suburbs, surprising to some, but true. The ignorant hate around Detroit really ticks me off because there are so many people who haven’t been there and yet think they can take a crack at the city.

        • Guest 4 years ago

          u were dead on with these comments. birmingham is not only one of the nice suburbs in detroit, but one of the nicer suburbs in the mid west.

          • Tko11 4 years ago

            Every city has its nice parts and then you also have the parts that people tend to avoid for various reasons.

        • Tko11 4 years ago

          A black comedian can make a joke about white people but I doubt the comedian was at one point white…just saying.

          • Motor_City_Bombshell 4 years ago

            what does that have to do with anything?

          • Tko11 4 years ago

            “The ignorant hate around Detroit really ticks me off because there are so many people who haven’t been there and yet think they can take a crack at the city.”

            You don’t have to go there to make a joke about it…it is after all just a joke.

      • Tko11 4 years ago

        Relax lol, it was just a joke! Obviously there are worse cities than Detroit all over the country but I’m just saying there hasn’t been any positive news out of Detroit in a while…especially when it comes to the economy. At least you aren’t in Cleveland!

    • j6takish 4 years ago

      I am from the Detroit area and I thought this was hilarious

      • Guest 4 years ago

        define “detroit area.” anything north of lapeer or west of ann arbor is not the detroit area.

  5. CommissionerBart 4 years ago

    Agree his recovery is the priority. But his problems are complex. Not every athlete (or anyone for that matter) who has an alcohol problem has repeated physical encounters with the police or situations which are or may border on domestic abuse. He is going to be a tremedous distraction on this team. If the Tigers can’t void his contract, he should take a leave of absence until he truly has his problems under control. Or the Tigers should trade him to some other team with a strong need for his bat and hope the change of scenery along with competent counseling can help heal him emotionally.

  6. erm016 4 years ago

    He drove drunk, why should I feel sorry for him if he’s addicted to alcohol.

    • You don’t “have to” feel sorry for him. Just realize, at this point, it’s not in his control. He has serious mental issues that makes him addicted to alcohol, and it’s hard to overcome. Either way, it’s a sad situation for such a great athlete.

    • John McFadin 4 years ago

      Are you trying to say that someone is forcing you to feel sorry for him?

    • Pawsdeep 4 years ago

      Don’t. I don’t feel sorry for him. I just hope he gets the help he needs and I would offer that same hope to any person who is hurting.

  7. Cabrera’s actions were deplorable. But I’m not going to judge a man until I’ve walked a mile in his shoes. We have no idea what’s going on in his personal life, nor do we deserve to know. But from what I’ve read, I see a man that needs help. As a person that’s experienced how alcoholism can affect a family firsthand, I wish Cabrera the best of luck in figuring things out.

    • tiger313 4 years ago

      I like this comment. No matter how much money someone has doesnt always mean you have a great life. he is blessed with talent but lacks common sense. he needs help and just because he has a ton of money doesnt mean he isnt human.

  8. Shame some Joe Blow off the street will lose his license and serve jail time + hours upon hours of community service and fines, yet this clown is gonna get off with a slap on the wrist. WTG Cabrera setting a grand example for all the kids.

    Alcoholism may be an addiction/disease, but driving drunk just goes to show the lack of brain cells this d-bag has. I know people who make 20k a year and don’t go out drinking without a plan and this clown makes 20 million and can’t have the decency of having a dd/hiring a cab/walking to a hotel to spare the danger to others.

    • InLeylandWeTrust 4 years ago

      Actually in Florida you harldy ever serve jail time for a 1st time DUI, so there’s that.

      And it has already been mentioned that Cabrera will likely lose his liscense for a year, so there’s that too.

      He also had to pay a fine, that while is pocket change to him, was near the ceiling in terms of fines for 1st offense.

      He will have to enter some sort of 30 day (most likely) treatment program that will probably last right up until the start of the season.

      So in terms of 1st offense DUI’s, Cabrera is hardly getting a slap on the wrist. Anyone else would be getting the same punishment.

  9. Vote_For_Pedro 4 years ago

    He may not be able to stop the urge from drinking but im sure the urge to drink and drive could be controlled. He needs to get a personal driver for when he drinks to drive him home. Its that simple. Now about him to control his drinking he should go to a shrink then rehab if his problem escalates. He could have gotten seriously hurt or even worse in a car crash. Josh Hamilton could tell him a thing or two about addiction. Maybe he could help. I dont know but he needs help one way or another. Hope you the best of luck Miguel.

  10. please void his contract…ill give anything to have him on the mets

    • Infield Fly 4 years ago

      ill give anything to have him on the mets

      Right. Well you better start with your entire salary, then take up a collection, because the Mets are not forking over cash for any elite players this season. It’s all on you bro.

      Besides, the Mets already have their highly paid problem-child in K-Rod. Spread the ‘love’ around (someplace else).

  11. Backup_Slider 4 years ago

    Of course the Tigers won’t void Cabrera’s contract – he’s an elite productive ballplayer. Now, if on the other hand he were a scrub, he’d be SOL and they’d void it whether the language was there or not (and take their chances with the appeal process).

  12. Ben Roth 4 years ago

    Anybody who even thought about the fact that they would consider this is stupid. There is absolutely no reason to even have that thought in your mind. You need to stick with him and get him help, and thats all that you can do. Imagine all of the Tigers fans feeling like Rays fans did with Hamilton. No wonder they dont have any guests. We need this guy, and voiding his contract wont do anything good.

  13. Franchises get rewarded when they stick with a talented player through tough times. As a Royals fan, we watched Zack Greinke walk away from baseball, come back, win a Cy Young, and live happily ever af…. wait… where’d he go?

  14. baseballdude 4 years ago

    Stop hating on cabrera!!!!!

  15. East Coast Bias 4 years ago

    Has any team ever even succeeded in voiding a contract after an altercation? I seriously cannot think of any…

    • Threat_Level_RedSox 4 years ago

      Me niether, i imagine if Cabrera misses time for rehab/suspention the Tigers will go the same route as the mets did with K-Rod and not pay him.

      Why would they void a player of his magnitude? They essentially have four options in his case.
      1.Void his contract, Save 108 mil
      2.Trade for half value, pay $35-$50 mil
      3.Trade at dead line for 75-100% of value paying 10-30 mil.
      4.Suspend him, fine him, make him go to rehab, make him do community service, and hope Espn does a special on how much he’s changed and hope he’s abel to rturn in time to help the tigers make a run at the division title.

      • tiger313 4 years ago

        They arent going to do any of those four. They will help him, keep him on the team, and let him back when he is ready and has a clear head. Though if he misses time his production will be greatly missed but Strieby will be able to hold the spot for a while.

        • Pawsdeep 4 years ago

          Strieby’s injured wrist would shatter trying to hack at major league pitching…he is no where near major league level until his wrist heals.

          • tiger313 4 years ago

            I thought i read a little while ago that it was better and hes ready for a full season.

          • Pawsdeep 4 years ago

            Could be but i would still rather have him figure out his swing in the minors….He has been playing with that injury for a long time. It has had to have affected his mechanics at the plate to some degree.

            I think he is going to need to spend more time in toledo–i know he is 25 but that injury has really set him back some years.

      • They CAN NOT void his contract, period. Can’t do it. No way to do it legally. None.
        He got a DUI during what was still the off season. Not possible even if it was during the season. Total non starter.

    • Backup_Slider 4 years ago

      Shawn Chacon?

    • Guest 4 years ago

      sidney ponson

  16. Pawsdeep 4 years ago

    People need to realize that he is a person. He is a father, husband, friend and he needs help. I dont care who you are, athlete, average Joe, it doesn’t matter. I don’t want to see any of my fellow man hurting. It’s just not good for us as a people.

    Having said that, I do not condone what he has done. He is incredibly lucky he dodged theses bullets and didnt hurt himself, or more importantly, someone else. This man needs help. To all of you who are bantering your rhetoric; I seriously hope for your own good that you are perfect because karma has a really funny way of turning tables.

    Get help Miguel. My well wishes extend to you and yours as well as any other souls who are battling their own demons. I really hope the best for all who are struggling and trying to find answers.

  17. Tko11 4 years ago

    Anyone know how much this affects his fantasy value?? He was a beast before his first alcohol problem so I’m assuming as long as he gets to play he will put up the same numbers he always does. Good thing Roger Goodell isn’t the commissioner of the MLB or Cabrera would miss at least a good 1/4 of the season.

  18. I think it’s fair to say that if this were the NFL, Miggy might be watching from the dugout for the first quarter of the season. MLB will apparently not be weighing in on this matter, and I’m not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

  19. tiger313 4 years ago

    Miguel needs to have a one on one discussion with Josh Hamilton. Then go his route and have someone there by his side all the time so he doesnt slip up/

  20. FrankTheFunkasaurusRex 4 years ago

    well, at least i went almost 12 hours before disqus effed up again

  21. FrankTheFunkasaurusRex 4 years ago

    thanks disqus

  22. verlander 4 years ago

    They won’t try to void his contract. I think the MLBPA would step in before that could even become a realistic option.

    Mike Ilitch is also a pretty loyal owner and I don’t see him authorizing the voiding of Cabrera’s contract. The Tigers stood by Cabrera a year and a half ago, when he entered counseling/rehab. I don’t see why they’d suddenly toss him aside now. They’ve got too much money invested in him to abandon him anyway, and I don’t see them trying to trade him.

    What I think they should do is hire someone, a la the Rangers and Johnny Narron, someone who can act as a companion and help him to stay sober. They tried to hire Andres Galarraga last winter, but Galarraga didn’t want to leave his family in Venezuela. He did keep in contact with Cabrera throughout the season though, via phone calls, and Cabrera said it helped. I think bringing someone in to stay with him (and his family, if his wife and kids stay with him in-season) might help him even more.

    He won’t face jail-time for a first time DUI, especially with no other DUI-related arrests, but he’ll probably lose his license among other things. I wonder if his previous incident from 2009 might play into a judge or prosecutor’s thinking.

  23. John McFadin 4 years ago

    LOL. Watch out. You’ll have MADD kicking in your door before long.

  24. Brad426 4 years ago

    You are my favorite poster (besides me, I mean), but that is an asinine statement. Just calling it like I see it.

  25. Ben_Cherington 4 years ago

    are you kidding? You put the lives of everyone around in danger. Tell that to the families of the 20,000 people per year who die from drunk driving!

  26. disgustedcubfan 4 years ago

    I’ll take the bait. If drunk driving should not be a crime, how should it be viewed?

  27. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    What isn’t criminal about deciding your good time is more important than the lives of other innocent motorists?

  28. jwsox 4 years ago

    how should it not be a crime? best case scenario he makes it home fine no one gets hurt. Worst case he kills him self or someone else… The second you put your self in danger or someone else it is a crime no matter how you look it at

  29. FunkyTime 4 years ago

    This is the dumbest argument I’ve ever read on the internet. Congratulations, notsureifsrs. That’s quite an accomplishment.

  30. John McFadin 4 years ago

    I agree 100 percent. What irks me are the ones who actually come on the internet with the sole purpose of ridiculing someone’s problems.

  31. Brad426 4 years ago

    Kinda early for me… say like 10am?

  32. Agree 100%. You rarely see a situation where an addiction is not someone’s fault, and there’s nothing to say it’s not his fault here. However, when the guy obviously wants to overcome it, and cannot do it, it’s tough not to feel for him.

  33. John McFadin 4 years ago

    Honestly, it’s great that you know you can make that distinction when extremely drunk, but I’ve known many people who didn’t (and probably never will) when it’s time to pass up the keys. I’m definitely not siding with those people, but everyone is different.

  34. TartanElk 4 years ago

    Hangovers at dawn? Mine usually stretch into the early evening. Hangovers at noon. Naps in the evening. Pistols at midnight?

  35. Vmmercan 4 years ago

    Abortions for some, miniature american flags for others

  36. Vmmercan 4 years ago

    So you would like to take no precautions whatsoever to avoid there being a victim in a premeditated crime?

  37. jwsox 4 years ago

    so does insider trading and other whitecollar crimes not count as crime to you?

  38. Ben_Cherington 4 years ago

    terrible anology…you dont have to have a victim to have a crime!

    example: driving drunk

  39. Vmmercan 4 years ago

    So should people be allowed to carry grenades on an airplane as long as they don’t use them? Or, baseball related, throw batteries at players of other teams from the stands as long as they don’t hit them?

  40. unvme7 4 years ago

    your friends dont have 20 mil sitting in their bank account either. if i had that kinda money id have someone drive me around at night all the time.

  41. Infield Fly 4 years ago

    This is a baseball site first and foremost. So while it may occur, it is highly doubtful that anyone comes here for the sole purpose of ridiculing substance users.

    Now, as for ridiculing players contracts & performance…that is an entirely different matter…

  42. Tko11 4 years ago

    Cabrera obviously knew he was intoxicated, once he puts that car on innocent bystanders and other motorists lives are at risk. He was acting recklessly and should be criminally punished (thankfully nothing did happen but there was high possibility someone could have been hurt ex. Donte Stallworth dui in which ended in an innocent man’s death). “what is criminal about not hurting anyone?” What is criminal about pointing a gun(legally registered) at someone and not pulling the trigger?

  43. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    No harm, no foul? Oh wait, this isn’t a game and real people’s lives are at risk?!

  44. Well, to be technical, it’s criminal to unreasonably endanger yourself or others. Should corporations be allowed to be negligent until their employees or customers suffer? The point is to discourage drunk driving, so people don’t get killed. I think it’s better to focus on prevention than punishing the worst result. Maybe an example could be construction requirements? I’d rather enforce precautions that prevent a bridge or tower from falling down than only punish a company once they build a disaster. Perhaps also one of the libertarian responses to the oil spill I came across about private property being able to regulate such disasters. By allowing owners to privately prosecute BP for ruining their land or water they could effectively punish the corporation. The problem is that the remedy is designed around the accident occurring and takes no measures to prevent it, which is far more important than punishing BP after the fact.

  45. Slopeboy 4 years ago

    I’ve read everything you just posted and cannot disagree more with your thinking. It’s pretty obvious that you’re fortunate enough to never have lost a dear one or been involved in an accident with a drunk. Your attitude seems to be that drunks are other peoples problems or that having to deal with them only happens to other people.

    Years ago, I was driving late at night on a Highway and was sideswiped into a
    guard rail by a drunk driver, who then took off which ensued a chase. After after a few miles at high speeds the police caught him because of the speed and his erratic driving. I was extremely lucky for the guard rail and that there was light traffic at the time, otherwise, as the police said to me I could have easily been killed.

    I’m not posting this to give a sermon or preach, but put yourself in my shoes, or better yet, next time your on the Highway, think about crashing your car into a guard rail doing 50 MPH. I guarantee you’ll think differently.
    One last point,as a baseball fan, would you have the stones to recount everything you’ve posted to the parents of Rick Adenhart?

  46. Vmmercan 4 years ago

    So by not punishing a drunk driver who has not yet potentially killed someone, including himself (which by the way, harm to yourself is a crime in most states, hence why suicide is “illegal” in most states), what would you consider a precaution?

  47. Vmmercan 4 years ago

    OK well drunk drivers are recklessly handling a vehicle manufactured by someone on a road paid for by state taxes, IE: the public. So I don’t want drunk drivers misusing my road(s), and if they do, I want them punished for it.

  48. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    It’s the no harm, no foul attitude regarding drinking and driving that leads to so, so many people unnecessarily losing their lives. How you don’t see that is beyond me.

  49. Guest 4 years ago

    you had so many fans on here this morning, you lost a lot of them today. i dont see your logic here on praising drunk drivers.

  50. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    Well, sorry, your no harm, no foul approach leads to serious consequences. I drove home after a pitcher but no one got hurt, so it’s all good. I drove home after a couple mixed drinks, but nothing happened, no harm, right? But if something goes wrong, then let’s throw down the hammer. That’ll make everything better.

    Or we can take drunk driving real damn serious so people give a little more consideration to how they’re getting home that night. If you can’t afford to get home safely, you can’t afford to go out drinking.

    … And you say that as if I’ve proposed taking them out and beating them on the spot?

    How about a DUI starts with 30 days in jail and serious fine? I’d be willing you bet you’ll see a huge drop in buzz driving, and in turn, a big drop in alcohol related fatalities.

  51. No he’s saying that because you’re position is (or is strikingly similar to): no harm, no foul.

  52. Guest 4 years ago

    whats that phone number

  53. Tko11 4 years ago

    Well drunk driving would be initiating violence(or potential danger) against people who are innocent. It’s a confusing argument really which isn’t really meant for MLBTR so time to move on! Either way I hope his contract is not voided because he is on my fantasy team, and a first round pick would be really hard to replace.

  54. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    What is this about initiating violence against these poor, drunk drivers who haven’t done any harm YET?

    No one is saying to hang the guy on the spot, but damn, stop pretending it’s all good as long as nobody gets hurt. That’s how and why people do get hurt.

  55. MaineSox 4 years ago

    Where did he praise drunk drivers? From what I have seen he has actually done the opposite; just because he doesn’t support current drunk driving laws does not mean that he supports the act of driving drunk.

    I personally had a close friend killed by a drunk driver, and a cousin who was very nearly killed by one. However, I happen to agree with notsureifsrs here. I don’t see any reasonable justification for arresting someone for the simple fact that something COULD happen. I would be all for making the penalty for the ones who DO cause accidents stiff enough that most wouldn’t dare take the risk, that way the act itself wouldn’t need to be illegal and it may actually be effective in cutting down on drunk driving as opposed to the current laws which apparently don’t work.

    If you are going to make the act of drinking while driving illegal why would you stop there? Driving isn’t the only dangerous thing you can do while intoxicated, heck just being intoxicated could potentially be hazardous to other people since you lose sound judgment, so why not bring back prohibition?

  56. Infield Fly 4 years ago

    You really called that one, chief.
    He didn’t just lose fans.
    He lost MLBTR altogether!

  57. This sounds like one of the most impractical ideas I’ve ever seen attached to private roads.

  58. I don’t see how you’re going to avoid violence if the drunk person refuses to accept your terms, they same way they did with the state’s terms about not driving drunk.

  59. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    Yeah, getting a drunk driver off the road for an evening is a terrible idea. God forbid he not get home in time to catch ESPN’s Top Ten.

    Sure, while we’re at, let’s get rid of any and all restrictions on weapons. Let’s only deal with the problem after someone is dead.

  60. But there are laws to prevent drunkenness in public. Driving drunk and being drunk aren’t equally dangerous, which is why some dangerous things are legal and some things that are more dangerous are not. The law tries to strike a balance, and it’s always going to be difficult to determine where to start or stop.

  61. MaineSox 4 years ago

    Where did I said getting them off of the road is a bad idea? Did you not see the part where I said I had lost a close friend and almost lost my cousin to drunk drivers? Obviously I want them off of the roads, I just think the most reasonable (and likely most effective) way to do that is to make the punishment for causing damage while driving drunk severe enough that people wouldn’t consider attempting it, instead of ineffective punishments for the act itself.

  62. MaineSox 4 years ago

    This, so much.

  63. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    Answer this question honestly if you don’t mind:

    How frequently do you drive out to a bar, have say, 4+ drinks and drive yourself home?

    You keep mentioning initiating violence against drunk drivers or how they’re being attacked … A guilty conscience?

    I’ll apologize in advanced if this is far from the case, but you seem awfully determined to downplay the behavior …

  64. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    Like what? Back that up with ANYTHING …

  65. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    “You say you will jail or fine them as if that doesn’t mean you’ll kill them if they do not submit”

    Who the hell said to kill them if they do not “submit?” Seriously man, you’re grasping at straws … If you don’t obey, off with your head!

  66. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    Where is this privatized system, and initiation of violence coming from?

    Is this a realistic solution? Who is advocating violence against a drunk driving? If anything, down playing the behavior only encourages it, and thus greatly increases the dangers for other motorist. Do these dots not connect for you?

  67. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    If you can’t stand the behavior, you understand the serious risks associated with it … why are you all for turning it into a slap on the wrist? How does that help save any lives?

  68. MaineSox 4 years ago

    Not submitting to arrest is called resisting arrest, which has been known to result in death or at the very least injury.

  69. MaineSox 4 years ago

    “If anything, down playing the behavior only encourages it” that’s not what anyone is advocating. If you read what he has said he says he would punish people who actually cause harm much MORE severely than they currently are, that alone could reasonably be expected to decrease the number of drunk drivers on the road for simple fear of the increased punishment making it not worth the risk.

  70. Slopeboy 4 years ago

    I’m not looking for any high moral ground or to sound holier than thou. The fact that you’re sympathetic to victims seems to illustrate my point that you feel it’s something that happens to other people and and not really important to prevent it. You seem to feel bad after the fact. The reasoning being that you act after the fact. The drunk is entitled to drive as long as he doesn’t cause any harm. As was stated before- No harm no foul. Wow.

    We agree to disagree. Here’s hoping your attitude changes.

  71. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    lol you can’t be serious?

    Back that up with anything feasible, practical, or any example in which this idea is working … You can’t.

  72. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    Grasping at straws …

    I’ll play though. Ok, so what are we to do with those that drink and drive, kill someone, and then resist their arrest?

    Relax the laws some more? lol I can’t believe adults are making this argument.

  73. tiger313 4 years ago

    not sure on who or where to insert this reply so I will go with one of the more recent comments. I agree that driving drunk and not hurting someone is different than killing/hurting someone driving drunk. Either way you are held responsible for your actions, but both cases should be handled different. He got caught, and his actions after getting caught are worse than him on the side of the road with his car broken down. Thank God he didnt hurt someone. But the punishment has to be different. How are you going to punish someone who hasnt hurt anyone but himself? What is the difference between a 80 year old lady with malacular degeneration and is partially blind that needs to get to a grocery store because she needs food and has no ride and a drunk driver at 3 am in the morning, but yet we dont throw those people in jail and im sure there are more older people that shouldnt be driving out there that can cause more harm than a drunk driver in the early parts of the morning. Both have equal consequences and I am in no way backing drunk driving. But there are situations where punishments should be handed out differently.

  74. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    So, why not make intoxicated people more fearful of simply driving their vehicle? If a DUI started with say, 6 months in jail, do the the roads not get a lot safer? Why wait until someone is dead to do something about it? What is throwing the driver in jail for 30 years going to do about the person that has died? Why not try to prevent ANY of it from happening?

    Where is the problem? Does that interfere with your weekend plans?

  75. MaineSox 4 years ago

    That’s the point though, if you make those punishments (for causing harm) severe enough it WOULD make them more fearful of driving their vehicle, and it would be punishment for a crime with an actual victim.

    And for the record no, it has no bearing on my weekend plans. I saw what alcohol did to my grandfather so I decided at a young age not to drink and I never have.

  76. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    It’s just a far more dangerous line of thinking. It blows my mind that he doesn’t get it, and the rest of the reasonable people haven’t taken mob justice and murdered him for his opinions …


  77. MaineSox 4 years ago

    Again, as someone who has lost a close friend and very nearly lost family to drunk drivers, this isn’t something that happens to other people to me and certainly is not something that doesn’t need to be prevented; it’s absolutely vital to prevent it in my opinion. However the current system of silly fines does not prevent it, as illustrated by the fact that it hasn’t prevented it…

    My opinion and, without trying to speak for him, I think the point notsureifsrs is making is that making the punishments for the ones who create victims much more severe WOULD prevent drunk driving.

    I have to believe that the man who ran into my cousin would likely not have gotten behind the wheel if he knew that instead of a fine if he got caught he was facing losing his license for life and 5 years in prison, if he injured someone. Or the man who killed my friend would likely not have risked it if he knew he could go away for something similar to murder 2, and lose his license for life, if he killed someone while driving drunk. If those were the punishments for actually causing harm, I would have to imagine the number of drunk drivers would drop dramatically.

  78. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    Lol do you seriously think this is how our judicial system works? Or are you hammered and are just destroying me?

  79. MaineSox 4 years ago

    You disagreeing with it doesn’t make it dumb, and calling it dumb doesn’t prove it wrong. Do you have anything productive to add or was that it?

  80. MaineSox 4 years ago

    A person who has killed, or injured, another person while driving drunk (or too fast or any other irresponsible driving practice) has initiated the violence themselves. Where is the justification for the police to initiate the violence in a victimless “crime” with zero violence involved?

  81. johnsilver 4 years ago

    Ain’t that a fact.. The original poster is the type that runs over someone, then blames the person for being on (or near) the road while they were driving drunk..

  82. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    If you’re drunk and violently resisting your arrest, aren’t you the one initiating the violence?

    It’s a victimless crime? No, it’s not. It’s only victimless until something goes terribly wrong. At that point, nothing can be done to rectify the life your victim.

  83. FrankTheFunkasaurusRex 4 years ago


  84. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    You’re still missing and/or ignoring a huge point though.

    So, if we change the punishment for DUI manslaughter to the death penalty, it’ll reduce the number of people willing to take the risk of drinking and driving.

    What if we changed the penalty for a 1st offense DUI to say, 6 months in jail, isn’t that going to make people take their driving arrangements more seriously? Where is the harm in trying to prevent the death before it happens? Why wait until someone is dead to acknowledge the problem; drinking and driving?

    … and I’m missing this jump from enforcing such a law, to the resisting of arrest, to a drunk driving being killed by the state, all because he was a little tipsy, but could make it home anyway.

  85. MaineSox 4 years ago

    I’m not missing or ignoring the point; I disagree with the premise. I’ll concede that upping the penalty for DUI would potentially lower the rate of drunk drivers, however I don’t agree with putting people in jail for a “crime” that has no victim.

  86. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    Again, no real argument, just more misdirection and dodging of questions.

  87. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    “I don’t see any reasonable justification for arresting someone for the simple fact that something COULD happen.”

    Arresting them for operating a vehicle under the influence would get them off the roads … But instead, let’s give them a stern warning, remind them of the death penalty if they do have a accident, and send them on their way. We’ll deal with the carnage when the sun comes up and everyone isn’t so damn drunk.

  88. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    circles, circles, circles.

    unfortunately, for your side of the argument, a large portion of our legal system revolves around preventing crimes before they happen rather than attempting to punish the offender.

    … like preventing the behavior in the first place. Not put him to death after an innocent person is already dead.

  89. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    you’ve dodged every other point and logical reasoning I’ve tried …

    And if you had said from the beginning we can’t enforce our DUI law because people might resist their arrest and be killed for it … I would have known you were drinking and just laughed.

    That said, I’m going out drinking. Driving to a friends and walking downtown of course. 😉

  90. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    This is just a ridiculous argument. We can’t enforce any law that might protect our citizens, but the person being negligent might resist their arrest and will be killed by the state.

    Instead, we must wait until something has gone terribly wrong and then attempt to remedy the situation through punishment.

    I still don’t get why we’re so concerned about protecting these poor, abused drunk drivers from our murder-happy, mob justice system … after all, these are the same people that don’t care enough about their own lives to get a sober ride.

  91. MaineSox 4 years ago

    Hopefully it wasn’t his point of view that got him banned, especially considering I voiced the same opinion and I’m still here, I’m assuming it was something specific that he said in one of his posts. If he got banned for his opinion that’s an absolute outrage.

  92. Verlander_Will_Save_Us_All 4 years ago

    Dear Lord, I did’nt realize how often this guy posted until I saw every other comment say “comment removed.”

  93. OrangeCards 4 years ago

    It does have victims. Maybe not every time you do it, but thousands of people die every year because of this line of thinking. Well, nothing went wrong this time, so it’s okay.

    No, it’s not okay.

Leave a Reply