It doesn't bother me that he refused the test. Lots of people feel the necessity to "fight" the law, even though they are doing nothing wrong. Perhaps he feels a little hatred toward all police authority and thus refuses to cooperate with any of them. That is why it is his choice.
On another note, if you kill someone because you were behind the wheel of a car, drunk, then it is my opinion that you should *NEVER* have your licensed renewed in any of the 50 states. I don't even care that it was a mistake. We all pay for our mistakes, and that I feel it is justified that you never drive another automobile. So when your son needs a ride to his basketball practice, or your daughter wants to go to the mall, you will have to explain to them why daddy/mommy can't drive them. How is that for a lesson to your kids?
There's nothing I can say in defense of Little's past charge. He did, however, serve a debt to society that was in line with the sentence that would be given to a first time offender in St. Louis.
In this case there was no evidence that Little was, in fact, intoxicated. Here's the details you should look into before lynching the guy.
1. Little was pulled over for going 78 in a 55. He was not, however, pulled over for any other moving violation which includes swurving or anything of that nature that would be associated with intoxication. Living in the area, I know how things are in that part of the county. It's a rich upscale majorly white area where discrimmination against a minority in a nice car would not surpise many.
2. The arresting officer testified that Little could not walk in a straight line and was flapping his arms and leaning on his car for balance. To fail this test the person must step two inches off the line. The backup officer who was on the scene denied seeing this, as well as the arm flapping and leaning. The backup officer was asked by the defense today, something along the lines of: so in your mind Leonard Little was not intoxicated. His reply: that is correct. That was one of the three tests the officer claimed he failed and according to the other officer, he didn't fail it.
3. The only evidence the arresting officer had other than what I just mentioned was an audio tape in which Little did not slur his speech and was completely cooperative. THe arresting officer admitted you wouldn't be able to tell he was intoxicated from the tape.
4. The arresting officer administered an eye test where you flash a light in the persons eyes and ask them to follow it as you move it around. This is supposed to be done while the person is standing and facing away from traffic so the eyes aren't drawn to oncoming headlights, and the duration is 60 seconds. The officer administered this test while Little was sitting in his car, facing oncoming traffic for only 10 seconds. This was the second of three tests that Little suposedly failed, but it is clear that conditions imposed would cause many to fail when sober. I can't recall what the third test was.
In his testimony Thursday, Stork [the arresting officer] admitted that the sobriety tests he administered to Little varied from established police procedures.
5. Little was taken to the police station shortly after the arrest. A booking officer said there were no signs of intoxication. Here's a quote from a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article:
Under Rosenblum's questioning, McClure said Little wasn't stumbling, swaying, losing his balance or smelling of alcohol at the Ladue police station, where he was taken 18 minutes after the traffic stop.
So before you all pass judgement, perhaps you should look at the facts. Sounded to me like an officer looking to earn brownie points.
gimmie a break. you get pulled over and you refuse a breathalizer, then you are admitting your guilt. this guy shouldnt be allowed to play in the nfl.
Actually I've been told by a relative of mine who happens to be a lawyer, to refuse a breathalyzer because of its inaccuracies.
Last edited by ZigZagMan on Sat Apr 02, 2005 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rosenblum said during the trial that Little had consumed two beers and was not intoxicated when stopped by police, who reportedly found Little driving 78 mph in a 55-mph zone.
yes that is littles own attorney admitting that he had drank. he says "only" two. who kills someone, drinks one, two, 30 beers and gets behind the wheel? zig-zag, lets say this guy was a Falcon...are you still in love?
I'd have the same opinion if this were a player on the Seahawks. If we can't trust the wheels of justice in the best legal system on the planet, then what can we trust.
Facts are facts and from what the jury heard Little wasn't drunk. So because of an overzealous officer who pads his DUI stats, accounting for 35% of the departments DUI arrests, and the extreme rarity that another officer on the other scene will not back him up, that tells me the legal system did its job.
If it makes me a homer for wanting to see a guy who already paid his debt for a very stupid mistake, but believing that he shouldn't be jailed this time for a crime he didn't commit makes me a homer, then so be it.
As soon as I heard about this event on draft day last year I already made up my mind, mainly because of personal experiences with drunk drivers. If he was in fact driving drunk, I wanted him in jail and not able to put on a helmet again. I found it hard to cheer for the guy last year. But since the facts have shown overwhelmingly that he wasn't intoxicated that morning last year, and he was acquitted, I don't see why we should condemn him.
He plead guilty to the first charge back in 1999. He completed a jail sentence, a thousand hours of community service, and a long league suspension. These were the penalties given to him, but because people like you think he should've gotten more (when in fact I know of many other cases in the area when the person's gotten less), it must be his fault.
yes that is littles own attorney admitting that he had drank. he says "only" two. who kills someone, drinks one, two, 30 beers and gets behind the wheel? zig-zag, lets say this guy was a Falcon...are you still in love?
Have you ever had two beers? Judging from your posts it sounds like you're underaged. It doesn't impair you at all. That wouldn't even put you close to the legal limit in Missouri. Especially a big guy like Little.
But like I said in the previous post, drunk driving is a very sensative issue for me. I wanted him locked up if he was drunk. But look at the facts presented. I don't know how anyone could believe he was drunk. The thing that really gets me is the officer who wouldn't backup his partner. My father was a police officer for several years. He's told me that when a fellow police officer won't back up another, then you know something's fishy.
Same would go if this happened with a player on any other team.
ZigZagMan wrote:Have you ever had two beers? Judging from your posts it sounds like you're underaged. It doesn't impair you at all. That wouldn't even put you close to the legal limit in Missouri. Especially a big guy like Little.
Yeah, I mean he's so big he could probably have 6-7 or maybe down a few shots for the road. Oh he'll be fine.... wait a second this could lead to an accident and someone might die.
For the record, I drink, sometimes way too much, but I have a simple rule. If I touch a drink at any point during the night, I don't drive until I've slept. Its that simple. Why? Because it prevents even taking the chance of being impaired even a little, because drunk driving is that serious. Now I never really expect people to uphold themselves to my own moral standards, but this is common sense. You just don't drink and drive, whether you're drunk, buzzed, or just had one for the road, you don't do it. It's out of respect for the lives of everyone around you that you don't endanger them so, but Little is incapable of understanding this it would seem.
Now, two beers may or may not have impaired Little, but the man killed someone because he drove drunk. Now he's caught drinking and driving (at high speeds mind you) again and you think that's alright? Whether the law was broken or not, he clearly has no respect for life, nor the one he took, and apparently his punishment wasn't enough as he has not learned the severity of his actions by demonstration of his current choices.
Oh, and I'm sorry, but your defense of racial discrimination and the officer padding his DUI's is complete BS. You have no proof, no evidence, so leave your baseless conjectures to try and make this monster the victim out of the debate until you have someone at least as solid as 2 beers.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by proKrastinate » Sat Apr 02, 2005 2:02 am 
