Never said a word about Suh being wrong for having a few drinks, but his decision to get behind the wheel, legally impared or not, was a poor one. That's the difference, as a team leader and representative of the University of Nebraska, and a potential first round NFL draft choice, it was obviously a poor decision. Do kids get away with it every weekend? Absolutely! Does that make it right for Suh? IMO, no. When you wear the uniform, and profess to be a team leader you are held to a different standard than the average 22 year old idiot.
You're saying that you cannot drive if you've had ANYTHING to drink. This stance is not supported by cultural mores, legal rulings, police opinion or public practice. We're not living in Amish Country here. You can have a beer and still drive. It's not illegal.
Actually I didn't say that, I said Suh as a leader of the team shouldn't have done it, I promise you his parents, his coaches and even himself after the fact would agree 100%
As far as your other comments
The law clearly says you can't drive under the influence of alcohol, or you are considered unlawful. Comments after some of the law below.
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/laws/stat...ute=s6006196000
•This section defines one offense which can be proved by any of three ways: (1) By proof that the defendant was in physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic liquor; (2) by proof that the defendant was in physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of any drug; or (3) by proof that the defendant was in physical control of a motor vehicle while having ten-hundreths of one percent or more by weight of alcohol in his or her body fluid. State v. Hilker, 210 Neb. 810, 317 N.W.2d 82 (1982).
•As used in this section, the phrase "under the influence of alcoholic liquor" means after the ingestion of alcohol in an amount sufficient to impair to
any appreciable degree the ability to operate a motor vehicle in a prudent and cautious manner. State v. Batts, 233 Neb. 776, 448 N.W.2d 136 (1989).
•It is not necessary for a conviction for driving under the influence of alcoholic liquor that a sample of blood, breath, or urine show a certain concentration of alcohol in a defendant's blood, breath, or urine, as those are alternate offenses under this section. Either a law enforcement officer's observations of the defendant's intoxicated behavior or the defendant's poor performance on field sobriety tests constitutes sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of driving while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. State v. Green, 238 Neb. 328, 470 N.W.2d 736 (1991).
Insert my own thoughts
It's also illegal to drive 1 mile over the posted speed limit, that doesn't mean you will always be charged for it.
Not getting charged with a DUI means they don't have enough to prosecute, it doesn't mean that he didn't break the law.
If everyone was charged every time they broke a law, the legal system would crumble.
