Brent Musburger: Party Animal?

[cartman]

I can't say I find this too surprising. You can make a pretty strong arguement that he probably does the same thing off camera in the broadcast booth...

:D

hxxp://www.theomahachannel.com/news/4989133/detail.html

Sportscaster Musburger Ticketed In Lincoln

POSTED: 7:07 pm CDT September 18, 2005
UPDATED: 7:23 pm CDT September 18, 2005

LINCOLN, Neb. -- ABC sportscaster Brent Musburger was ticketed at the intersection of 9th and T Streets in Lincoln after Saturday's Husker game.

Lincoln police said Musburger was a passenger in the ABC crew's rental car.

One witness said a traffic officer had just waved traffic through the intersection when he spotted Musberger drinking a beer.

The witness said he saw other passengers with alcohol, but Lincoln police said only Musburger was ticketed.

The driver was not drinking.

Musburger was given a $144 citation, including court costs.

[Wolfpack]

Geez, he just had to broadcast Nebraska-Pittsburgh. Cut him some slack. I'm a teetotaller and even I might have been driven to drink after that game.

[rkmsuf]

shocking that musburger would drink a beer. the nerve.

[RPI-Fan]

shocking that musburger would drink a beer. the nerve.

He did do it while in a car, which is a crime. Not saying he should be dragged to the gallows for it, but I think it is worth noting that he used some pretty poor judgement.

[Butter]

And brazenly ride in a rental car too. I'm surprised he's not in prison right now.

[scooper]

They were playing the Brent Musburger drinking game.

[WSUCougar]

Geez, he just had to broadcast Nebraska-Pittsburgh. Cut him some slack. I'm a teetotaller and even I might have been driven to drink after that game.
Yeah, the crew from the Miami-FSU game last week probably needed to drop acid afterward.

[Subby]

Musburger was later quoted as saying, "Folks, this is shaping up to be the biggest ticket in the HISTORY OF OPEN CONTAINER CITATIONS!"

[sovereignstar]

He did do it while in a car, which is a crime. Not saying he should be dragged to the gallows for it, but I think it is worth noting that he used some pretty poor judgement.

your khakis need ironing.

[Ksyrup]

He needs to hang with Pat O'Brien.

[Tekneek]

Yawn. This is the type of law that I may never agree with. I would definitely be interested in the data that demonstrates the dangers caused by a passenger drinking beer.

[cartman]

Yawn. This is the type of law that I may never agree with. I would definitely be interested in the data that demonstrates the dangers caused by a passenger drinking beer.

It used to be legal for passengers to have an open beer in Texas. But the law was changed when it became widespread that whenever a car was pulled over, inevitably the passenger would have two beers.

[Ksyrup]

Exactly. If you are against this law, you are against outlawing drinking and driving. The idea here is that the passenger is presumably less willing to cover for the driver who's been drinking if by handing him the open beer, he's also asking the passenger to break the law and get cited for it. This law is necessary, just for that reason.

[Cringer]

It used to be legal for passengers to have an open beer in Texas. But the law was changed when it became widespread that whenever a car was pulled over, inevitably the passenger would have two beers.

Exactly. I am highly against an open beers or other 'adult beverages' in a car, by anyone. It still happens plenty of times. It pisses me off I have to share the road with some jackass going down the road with a beer between his legs at 10:00 AM.

[HomerJSimpson]

Musburger was later quoted as saying, "Folks, this is shaping up to be the biggest ticket in the HISTORY OF OPEN CONTAINER CITATIONS!"



You win.

[Tekneek]

Exactly. If you are against this law, you are against outlawing drinking and driving. The idea here is that the passenger is presumably less willing to cover for the driver who's been drinking if by handing him the open beer, he's also asking the passenger to break the law and get cited for it. This law is necessary, just for that reason.

No. If the driver is drunk, find out and arrest him. If you cannot tell and actually believe the passenger is two-fisting the drinks, then maybe you don't need to be pulling him over after all? To say I am for drunk driving just because I think a passenger should be able to drink is nonsense.

[Tekneek]

Exactly. I am highly against an open beers or other 'adult beverages' in a car, by anyone. It still happens plenty of times. It pisses me off I have to share the road with some jackass going down the road with a beer between his legs at 10:00 AM.

I am against drinking-and-driving, but I am not against drinking-and-riding.

EDIT... This is a classic example of creating a NEW crime so you can say you are getting tougher on an already existing crime.

[Karlifornia]

If the passenger has a beer in his hand, give the driver a breathalyzer...

[Ksyrup]

I am against drinking-and-driving, but I am not against drinking-and-riding.

EDIT... This is a classic example of creating a NEW crime so you can say you are getting tougher on an already existing crime.
"The enactment and enforcement of uniformly strong Open Container laws provides another potential means to help reduce drinking and driving, and could lead to further reductions in the numbers of alcohol-involved crashes. Previous research on the relationship between Open Container laws and traffic safety is limited; however, there is evidence that, from a traffic safety perspective, the most dangerous form of alcohol-consumption is drinking in a vehicle (Ross, 1992). For example, a study of drivers who were arrested for DWI in San Diego, California, found that more than half of the violators had consumed alcohol in their vehicles soon after purchasing it from liquor stores, convenience stores, or gasoline minimarts.<SUP>2</SUP> The study found that the incidence of alcohol drinking in cars was nearly three times greater when the beverages were purchased at gas stations, compared to all other outlets (Segars & Ryan, 1986; Wittman, 1986). Similarly, a study of DWI offenders in Santa Fe County, New Mexico found that 37 percent of the offenders who bought package liquor prior to arrest bought their alcohol at a drive-up window, compared to 14 percent at a convenience/drug store. Further, the offenders who bought at a drive-up window were 67 percent more likely to have been drinking in their vehicle prior to arrest, and 67 percent more likely to be problem drinkers, than those who bought package liquor elsewhere (Lewis, Lapham, & Skipper, 1998).

In addition to problem drinkers, officers report that underage youth exhibit a preference for drinking in vehicles. The danger asso&shy;ciated with underage drinking and driving is compounded by a tendency to con&shy;sume all of the alcoholic beverage available (because usually it cannot be stored). Other factors, including a lack of driving experience and skill, exacerbate this problem."




And then from the conclusion section, after their own analysis of new data:

"Comparisons of crash data showed that states that lacked Open Container laws had significantly greater percentages of alcohol-involved fatal and single-vehicle crashes than the states with partially or fully-conforming laws. Although the differences cannot be attributed with certainty to the presence or absence of Open Container laws, the results of the analyses suggest that conformance with some or all of the six elements of the Federal requirements contributes measurably to traffic safety.

Further, states that enacted conforming laws in 1999 and 2000 experienced the lowest proportion of alcohol-involved fatal crashes of the four categories of states, suggesting that public consideration and subsequent adoption of proposed laws may increase awareness of the issues and lead to safety benefits. Perhaps equally important when considering whether such laws should be enacted, the national survey found that a substantial majority of the driving-age public support Open Container laws, and thus, appears to recognize their value in contributing to traffic safety."

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/OpenContainer/preliminary_data.htm

[JonInMiddleGA]

Exactly. If you are against this law, you are against outlawing drinking and driving.

Not bad ... although I'd probably go with something more like "you aren't interested in actually preventing drinking & driving". The difference being that its pretty easy to claim you support outlawing it, the evidence comes with whether you're willing to actually try to stop it.

[Tekneek]

Not bad ... although I'd probably go with something more like "you aren't interested in actually preventing drinking & driving". The difference being that its pretty easy to claim you support outlawing it, the evidence comes with whether you're willing to actually try to stop it.

If you repeal the open container laws, how many other laws are repealed?

I claim to be on the side of liberty and freedom, not on the side of drinking and driving. I think the sentences for driving drunk should be far worse than they currently are. At the same time, I don't see how somebody NOT driving the car has anything to do with it. Instead of creating new crimes, let's get hardcore and serious about the real criminal act. Let's make it a felony on your first conviction and you lose your license forever. That would be taking a much tougher stance than giving tickets to the guy in the backseat for drinking a beer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Tek, we just have different views of what's important here.

If you can't wait 'til you get home to have a beer, then maybe you shouldn't be running around in public in the first place.

[Tekneek]

If you can't wait 'til you get home to have a beer, then maybe you shouldn't be running around in public in the first place.

A valid point, but just because you and I don't see the reason to drink in the backseat of a car doesn't mean it has to become criminal.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A valid point, but just because you and I don't see the reason to drink in the backseat of a car doesn't mean it has to become criminal.

And obviously, a significant enough portion of society disagrees with you that these laws exist.

[Tekneek]

And obviously, a significant enough portion of society disagrees with you that these laws exist.

Seriously? A significant enough? What might that be? There is a whole lot of law out there that doesn't get the support people presume it does. A significant segment of the population thinks they can't do anything about this sort of thing and therefore doesn't even try. Another significant segment believes it everytime the government says they need something "to protect the children." I wouldn't say the existence of any law implies that a whole lot of people agree with it.

EDIT... Besides that, I don't judge the validity of a law by how many people like or tolerate it.

[JimboJ]

You really can't enforce the law if it applies only to the driver and not passengers. Suppose a cop pulls over a car with a driver and passenger in the front seat, and there is a beer in the cupholder in the center console. What is the cop supposed to do? Ask the driver if that's his beer?

I think the law is designed to err on the side of caution. If a passenger in the car has an open beer, then there's a very good chance the driver has been drinking too.

[Shaun Sullivan]

So if Brent AND the driver were sitting at a resturant then they could both be drinking, yet if they were in a car and only Brent was drinking then its against the law?

We have modern technology people that can detect if someone is drunk. I'd hate for a designated driver to come under scrutiny just trying to get a friend home.

[Shaun Sullivan]

You really can't enforce the law if it applies only to the driver and not passengers. Suppose a cop pulls over a car with a driver and passenger in the front seat, and there is a beer in the cupholder in the center console. What is the cop supposed to do? Ask the driver if that's his beer?

I think the law is designed to err on the side of caution. If a passenger in the car has an open beer, then there's a very good chance the driver has been drinking too.

Actually, that is a pretty good point.

[JimboJ]

We have modern technology people that can detect if someone is drunk. I'd hate for a designated driver to come under scrutiny just trying to get a friend home.

If there is someone drinking in a car, then the driver should come under scrutiny. Like I said, if one person in the car has been drinking, then it is likely (but not necessarily true) that the driver has been drinking too. If the driver turns out to be sober, great. But its up to the cops to investigate if there is any suspicion.

[Tekneek]

You really can't enforce the law if it applies only to the driver and not passengers. Suppose a cop pulls over a car with a driver and passenger in the front seat, and there is a beer in the cupholder in the center console. What is the cop supposed to do? Ask the driver if that's his beer?

If he pulled them over because of a violation, then he proceeds as he normally would. If he suspects the driver is drunk, he proceeds as he normally would with a field sobriety test, breathalyzer and/or blood test. The crime would be driving drunk, not having a passenger that is riding drunk.

I think the law is designed to err on the side of caution. If a passenger in the car has an open beer, then there's a very good chance the driver has been drinking too.

Err on the side of caution? Sounds more like it is about getting more citations, especially when they are issued and there are no charges for the driver at all. I think I could see the point if the existence of an "open container" was used as probable cause to make a drinking-and-driving investigation on the driver, but if the driver is clean then there should be no crime.

[Tekneek]

If there is someone drinking in a car, then the driver should come under scrutiny. Like I said, if one person in the car has been drinking, then it is likely (but not necessarily true) that the driver has been drinking too. If the driver turns out to be sober, great. But its up to the cops to investigate if there is any suspicion.

Investigation is fine. Go ahead and use the existence of that "open container" as probable cause to ask the driver for consent on a field sobriety test and breathalyzer. However, don't issue tickets to the passengers when the driver comes clean. Respect the fact that they have someone sober to drive them and move on to the real criminals.

[JimboJ]

Investigation is fine. Go ahead and use the existence of that "open container" as probable cause to ask the driver for consent on a field sobriety test and breathalyzer. However, don't issue tickets to the passengers when the driver comes clean. Respect the fact that they have someone sober to drive them and move on to the real criminals.

Makes sense to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Y'know, thinking about this for just a quick second this morning while browsing the board, something that doesn't appear to be considered in the thread yet is that this law doesn't neccessarily have to be connected to drinking & driving on the face of it (even though I believe that's the actual motivation). It also falls into a similar category of open container laws period -- which exist in numerous places on the street (i.e. for example, there are places where you can't leave the bar with your drink).

I wonder what the container laws in Nebraska are in general, nevermind whether there's a car involved or not.

[Ksyrup]

I claim to be on the side of liberty and freedom, not on the side of drinking and driving. I think the sentences for driving drunk should be far worse than they currently are. At the same time, I don't see how somebody NOT driving the car has anything to do with it.
Did you even bother reading the study I quoted? It shows a correlation between alcohol in an automobile and increased alcohol-related accidents. That's what it has to do with it. You're belief that the typical scenario would be a guy driving and not drinking while his passenger drinks, isn't what usually happens. It's usually everyone in the car is or has been drinking, and the availability of an open container in the car creates an increased chance that the driver will drink (more) as well. Personally, I'd rather just stop people from having access to alcohol in the car, passenger or not, rather than testing a drunk driver who was sharing drinks all night in the car with his buddies, after he's killed a family of four. The cops see the open container in the passenger's hand and they do something about it, that eliminates the rest of the driver's opportunity to get drunk while driving around for the rest of the night.

[WSUCougar]

What if Brent had Marv Albert (wearing bra and panties) in the car, too?

[Tekneek]

You're belief that the typical scenario would be a guy driving and not drinking while his passenger drinks, isn't what usually happens.

So, even you aren't willing to say that an "open container" means the driver has been drinking 100% of the time. Why then is it a crime 100% of the time?

It's usually everyone in the car is or has been drinking, and the availability of an open container in the car creates an increased chance that the driver will drink (more) as well.

The study thinks that this is happening, but doesn't know for sure. How do you know?

Personally, I'd rather just stop people from having access to alcohol in the car, passenger or not, rather than testing a drunk driver who was sharing drinks all night in the car with his buddies, after he's killed a family of four. The cops see the open container in the passenger's hand and they do something about it, that eliminates the rest of the driver's opportunity to get drunk while driving around for the rest of the night.

Drinking and driving happens anyway. You happen to think it is a good idea to presume that everyone is up to no good. I don't.

Just because I don't agree with the "open container" law does not mean I want people to be killed. I've lost a good friend to a drunk driver who had 15 prior DUI convictions, no license, and was doing it in a state that had a "open container" law as well. The existence of that law did nothing to help him. He would still be dead without it just like he was with it. What punishment did this obvious habitual offender get? 6 months in jail before he was out on the streets again.

Why are limos and other "vehicles for hire" often exempted from these laws? Is it because the government makes more money by giving them exemptions than including them? Is it because the government trusts them more than the average private citizen? Let's make it even across the board since we want to be so serious about it. Let's stop giving them exemptions from these "open container" laws and seat belt laws as well. We want to be serious about it and put a stop to all this crazy criminal activity out there.

[Tekneek]

Y'know, thinking about this for just a quick second this morning while browsing the board, something that doesn't appear to be considered in the thread yet is that this law doesn't neccessarily have to be connected to drinking & driving on the face of it (even though I believe that's the actual motivation). It also falls into a similar category of open container laws period -- which exist in numerous places on the street (i.e. for example, there are places where you can't leave the bar with your drink).

I wonder what the motivation for those laws are anyway. The government, at least in Atlanta, has demonstrated a willigness to exempt areas from the "open container" laws. They even let some areas serve alcohol for hours longer than others. Are some areas safer than others to serve later, or is it simply that they make a lot more money by driving people to certain areas and so give them an unfair economic advantage? I'd believe the safety argument if they were applied evenly across the board. Since they aren't, it sounds like it is more about control of the population and revenue than safety concerns.

[JimboJ]

Why are limos and other "vehicles for hire" often exempted from these laws? Is it because the government makes more money by giving them exemptions than including them? Is it because the government trusts them more than the average private citizen? Let's make it even across the board since we want to be so serious about it. Let's stop giving them exemptions from these "open container" laws and seat belt laws as well. We want to be serious about it and put a stop to all this crazy criminal activity out there.

Come on, you can't seriously be comparing drinking in a limo and drinking in a private vehicle. The laws don't apply to limos, buses, etc. because they are driven by a professional who has no personal relationship with the passengers, and therefore is no more likely to be drinking on the job than any other occupation.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I'm with Tekneek on this. The study that was quoted said nothing about "passengers" who were drinking having an effect on a drinking driver, just that if the "driver" bought beer at a gas station, his intake may begin before he gets home. Which begs the question -- why not prohibit sale of alcohol at such a location SINCE THAT IS THE REAL CONNECTION THAT WAS DRAWN BY THE STUDY? Why isn't the speed limit alwasy just 5 miles an hour so no one gets hurt regardless of whether they are drinking. We know these wouldn't fly. Why? Because drinking passengers and the average joe does not have a powerful lobby group to get his laws (like MAAD) in place or to prevent similar laws (like alcohol sellers and car manufacturers). That's what its really about. You can also say part of it is a balancing test. And I fully support the safe use of drinking alcohol by passengers in a moving vehicle since it harms absolutely no one when done properly. I am thinking about getting together a PAC on this, anyone interested in contributing?

My two favorite quotes from the study were these:

"Previous research on the relationship between Open Container laws and traffic safety is limited" and "Although the differences cannot be attributed with certainty to the presence or absence of Open Container laws."

The simple fact is that the law should be against drunk driving. If the driver is not drunk, then that should be the end of it.