Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Carlton Fisk charged with DUI


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
23 replies to this topic

#1 bloodysox

  • 2,648 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 04:24 PM

Hall of Fame catcher Carlton Fisk was charged with a DUI in New Lenox, Ill., on Monday after he was found unconscious behind the wheel of his vehicle, which was found in the middle of a corn field, according to New Lenox police.

"Around 7:20 (Monday) night, we received a couple of calls about a vehicle in a field," Deputy Chief Bob Pawlisz said. "When officers went over there, they found Mr. Fisk unconscious behind the wheel.

"They contacted local paramedics in New Lenox, had him examined, and the officers had reason to believe he was under the influence. He was transported to the local hospital and charged with a lane violation, driving under the influence and illegal transportation of alcohol. An open container of alcohol was found in the vehicle."

ESPN Chicago

You have to be kidding me...

Edited by bloodysox, 23 October 2012 - 04:25 PM.


#2 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,492 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 04:26 PM

That really sucks.

#3 Johnny Fashion

  • 262 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 04:26 PM

Pudge is taking the Farrell signing pretty hard.

#4 pedros hairstylist


  • Allison?


  • PipPipPip
  • 5,577 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 04:28 PM

That sucks. He was one of my favorite players as a kid.

#5 geoduck no quahog


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,785 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 04:30 PM

Oh for Christ's sake. This is a baseball board, not Entertainment Weekly.

Take it elsewhere. Hopefully far away Like to the herpes thread..

#6 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16,768 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:21 PM

He was protesting against GMO corn.

#7 mauidano


  • Mai Tais for everyone!


  • 13,658 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:23 PM

Lane violation, huh?

#8 NHbeau


  • hates latinos/bay staters


  • 579 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:26 PM

Not a fuck was given after the extra innings HR...

Edited by NHbeau, 23 October 2012 - 05:38 PM.


#9 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28,367 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:14 PM

Was he looking for the field of dreams?

#10 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 43,659 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:31 PM

Looks sober to me:

Posted Image

Someone needs to gif that foul poll wave into a sobriety test.

Edited by Ed Hillel, 23 October 2012 - 06:33 PM.


#11 jacklamabe65


  • A New Frontier butt boy


  • 6,037 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:01 PM

Pudge was working on mysteries without any clues.

#12 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11,631 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:09 PM

Looks sober to me:

Posted Image


Ladies and gentlemen, the mother of all bad hangovers.

#13 EdRalphRomero


  • wooderson


  • 2,377 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:25 PM

Totally profiling. They were arresting everyone who was driving around that cornfield...

#14 fineyoungarm


  • tweets about his subwoofer!


  • 3,960 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:37 PM

This particular smart a** (me) is relieved this did not turn out so much worse - others dead, him dead - man. I hope he gets some help, because I doubt this is an isolated incident. He was a hard head and could be a pita - but he was a terrific player and clearly loved the game. He is #1 on my list of the ones "they" should not have let get away - and that is a damn long list.

#15 bosoxsue

  • 1,011 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 08:03 PM

This particular smart a** (me) is relieved this did not turn out so much worse - others dead, him dead - man. I hope he gets some help, because I doubt this is an isolated incident. He was a hard head and could be a pita - but he was a terrific player and clearly loved the game. He is #1 on my list of the ones "they" should not have let get away - and that is a damn long list.


I completely agree. I was in love with him as a girl and had a poster of him on my wall when my classmates had Leif Garrett's. Now I'm worried about what is up with his lip.

#16 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 38,403 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 08:12 PM

If only he'd just stuck to smokeless tobacco...

Posted Image

#17 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 38,403 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 08:31 PM

But no, he just had to dip into the beer cooler...

Posted Image

#18 Grunherz54

  • 1,341 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:00 PM

Lane violation, huh?


Yeah, Armbrister cut him off.

#19 YTF

  • 3,689 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:25 AM

Seriously......wondering exactly what the definition of a lane violation is. Obviously Fisk was shit faced and I think we can assume that he didn't intend to turn off into that corn field, but if he went from his lane directly into the corn field without evidence of crossing into any other lane (and I don't know if that to be the case) would that be a violation? Just curious.

#20 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 38,403 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:38 AM

Seriously......wondering exactly what the definition of a lane violation is. Obviously Fisk was shit faced and I think we can assume that he didn't intend to turn off into that corn field, but if he went from his lane directly into the corn field without evidence of crossing into any other lane (and I don't know if that to be the case) would that be a violation? Just curious.


Marked lane violations aren't limited to the lines between lanes. They can also be applied to the solid white lines on the outer border of the pavement that separates it from the shoulders.

Edited by mabrowndog, 24 October 2012 - 11:39 AM.


#21 Rovin Romine

  • 2,953 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 07:43 AM

Dunno about the IL laws, but in FL there's a "readily operable" clause - meaning if you're either impaired (physically drunk) or over the limit (whether or not you show signs of actual impairment) and *could* turn on the car, then you can be found guilty of DUI, whether or not there was any indication you were actually driving the car. The scenario jurors definitely don't like, and often acquit, is when someone gets in a car, thinks, "had too much" and sleeps it off.

I don't know the facts of this one, but what has been reported seems very defendable (as long as he didn't make statements). How do we know he wasn't incredibly sleepy, may nearly have had an accident, then pulled of the road and had a couple slugs of vodka to calm the nerves and help him completely zonk out till morning? Not likely - but completely possible. It'll probably end up with some kind of probation.

BTW - a friend of mine (and co-worker) tried a DUI in Miami with Pedro Martinez on the jury. I went to watch. It was absolutely awesome. At one point where the cop was obviously lying (to the experienced listener) but before it had become obvious to the rest of the jury, Pedro just smirked and covered it with his hand. That was pretty gratifying to see - the man's quick on the uptake.

Edited by Rovin Romine, 25 October 2012 - 07:44 AM.


#22 YTF

  • 3,689 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:23 AM

Dunno about the IL laws, but in FL there's a "readily operable" clause - meaning if you're either impaired (physically drunk) or over the limit (whether or not you show signs of actual impairment) and *could* turn on the car, then you can be found guilty of DUI, whether or not there was any indication you were actually driving the car. The scenario jurors definitely don't like, and often acquit, is when someone gets in a car, thinks, "had too much" and sleeps it off.

I don't know the facts of this one, but what has been reported seems very defendable (as long as he didn't make statements). How do we know he wasn't incredibly sleepy, may nearly have had an accident, then pulled of the road and had a couple slugs of vodka to calm the nerves and help him completely zonk out till morning? Not likely - but completely possible. It'll probably end up with some kind of probation.

BTW - a friend of mine (and co-worker) tried a DUI in Miami with Pedro Martinez on the jury. I went to watch. It was absolutely awesome. At one point where the cop was obviously lying (to the experienced listener) but before it had become obvious to the rest of the jury, Pedro just smirked and covered it with his hand. That was pretty gratifying to see - the man's quick on the uptake.


Yeah, this is sort of along the lines I was thinking when I asked about the definition of a lane violation. Without witnessess or evidence such as skid marks, busted guard rail, etc......how do you disprove a scenario similar to what Romine has laid out here or something even more outrageous that just becomes one man's word against the officer who found the truck in the corn field? Granted under the influence, an open container and a truck parked in the middle of The Field of Dreams isn't exactly something that goes without some reasonable suspicions.

#23 The Boomer

  • 2,047 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 12:45 PM

Subject to an upcoming appeal, the law in Virginia is that Operating means driving a motor vehicle from one place to another; starting the engine; or engaging the machinery of a vehicle which alone or in sequence will activate the motive power of the vehicle without actually putting the vehicle in motion; or manipulating the electrical or mechanical equipment which alone or in sequence will activate the motive power of the vehicle without actually putting the vehicle in motion. There is conflicting case law about whether this must be on a highway or public road. It's never been definitively decided if you can operate in a private driveway or a corn field. The most recent case law is that, even if just the radio and nothing else is on, this constitutes operation. I would hope that the law in Illinois is much better than this.

#24 Rovin Romine

  • 2,953 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 01:08 PM

Here's the Illinois DUI Statute

It's an "actual physical control" statute. There's a '97 case which defines it, here: Naperville v. Watson. I don't have an Illinois subscription to Shepardize it, but if it's still good law, we're on the crappy FL end of the spectrum, which is "access to keys/access to vehicle" instead of the more "progressive" VA approach. FL requires the vehicle be operable - this case suggests the same for IL.

It still irks me that there's no "sleep it off" safe harbor. Way to encourage drunks to drive instead of pulling over.