ROR arrested for impaired driving; trial date set for July 11-12

[Jim Bob]

That kind of suggests that regardless of the Court outcome and/or action by NHL, the Sabres probably won't impose their own form of suspension or punishment as some thought may occur when the news first came out. Unlike the Bills' situation with the assistant coach, it sounds like Brandon/Pegulas/Murray may accept O'Reilly's apologies and it being a first-time offense.

I never thought the Sabres would do anything other than talk to him and perhaps suggest he take some steps to ensure this is a one time thing.

Especially given the fact that ROR hit a building and not a person.

 

[Jim Bob]

http://www.buffalohockeybeat.com/cody-franson-happy-long-summer-ends-with-sabres-contract/

In other news, Sabres center Ryan O’Reilly’s impaired driving case in Lucan, Ont., has been put over until Oct. 1, according to CFPL-AM.

O’Reilly, 24, was arrested July 9 and charged with impaired driving and leaving the scene of an accident after his pickup truck allegedly hit a Tim Hortons. He signed the biggest contract in Sabres history – a seven-year, $52.5 million extension – July 3.

Murray said he isn’t worried about the case taking long.

“That’s what we do in Canada,” he said. “We remand, we remand and we remand. The lawyers get paid. As long as the end result is what he believes is the truth to be and what we’ve been told. Would it have been better that it ended on August 10 or today? Maybe, but as long as it’s done right versus done in a speedy fashion, I’m fine with it.”

Murray said O’Reilly was “as disappointed as any of us.”

“We were disappointed here,” he said. Our fans probably were disappointed. He was legitimately distraught over it and disappointed, and he made some mistakes that he’s owned up to with us, that … what has been reported and what is the truth, we’ll see what the discrepancies are. He says there are some discrepancies, so he’ll have his day in court. Hopefully, it’ll get resolves to the point where it doesn’t affect his travel or his ability to play for us, and I am confident that will be the case.”

 

[TehDoak]

That kind of suggests that regardless of the Court outcome and/or action by NHL, the Sabres probably won't impose their own form of suspension or punishment as some thought may occur when the news first came out. Unlike the Bills' situation with the assistant coach, it sounds like Brandon/Pegulas/Murray may accept O'Reilly's apologies and it being a first-time offense.

I'm willing to bet we'll see a Ryan O'Reilly drunk driving PSA at some point in the season, at a minimum.

While he might not get suspended, I wouldn't be surprised to see a hefty fine + some community service.

The young guys need to know that kind of stuff isn't acceptable.

 

[Jim Bob]

I'm willing to bet we'll see a Ryan O'Reilly drunk driving PSA at some point in the season, at a minimum.

While he might not get suspended, I wouldn't be surprised to see a hefty fine + some community service.

The young guys need to know that kind of stuff isn't acceptable.

Young guys won't learn that they aren't bulletproof if ROR has any sort of punishment.

The Heatley/Snyder accident didn't make young guys drive less recklessly.

 

[rtfirefly]

The Heatley/Snyder accident didn't make young guys drive less recklessly.

It certainly had no effect on O'Reilly.

 

[ihadtochangethename]

http://www.buffalohockeybeat.com/cody-franson-happy-long-summer-ends-with-sabres-contract/

So nothing has been settled, and its as i thought oreilly has his own version of events. perhaps he wasnt that flustered after all.

 

[FearTheBeard]

It certainly had no effect on O'Reilly.

Maybe because ROR was 12 at the time

 

[OkimLom]

So nothing has been settled, and its as i thought oreilly has his own version of events. perhaps he wasnt that flustered after all.

"O'Reilly has his own version of events" is such a funny phrase to me. It's like the guy that actually was involved in the accident might know what went on. But of course, that doesn't mean anything when we can just imagine what happened due to media information and we can spin it the way we want and believe THAT is what happened.

The guy's not denying what happened, just saying that some events need to be cleared up about what happened. He's taking full responsibility for what happened, but there is some information out there that needs to be cleared up. And when I say he's taking full responsibility I'm not talking about what we THINK he did, but what he ACTUALLY did.

 

[brian_griffin]

I would myself describe my observations as obdurate or stubborn. I believe strongly, resolutely, unwaveringly, unyieldingly that drunken driving is a dangerous, irresponsible, narcissistic, and potentially deadly act, and one deserving of far more than the light taps on the wrist that are most often administered to violators.

I agree.

Nor do I believe that such acts should be overlooked simply because the perpetrator is "a top three defensive forward" (as has been suggested).

I agree.

And further, as far as extrapolating one incident into any assumption of a pattern of conduct, in my many decades of experience I have never, ever, known a person who drove drunk just once. Ever.

I agree, with qualifier that the people I either know or strongly suspect have driven drunk are a much smaller subset of the people I know who have driven after drinking.

(I would take issue with prickish since, as far as I can determine, there's no such word.)

prickish means easily irritable. I intentionally chose it - perhaps unfairly, and so apologize - because it has, IMO, a poor connotation because it might be assumed to mean or imply something else.

In any case, when we're provided with links to those unseen reports (alluded to in an earlier post) proving that the incident didn't happen as it was reported, we'll all have a better sense of the events. I hope they're posted soon. I'm sure I'm not alone in being very eager to read them.

As to any / all other behaviors and details associated with the incident: what constituted fleeing - both the action and intent - the property damage, etc., I can envision those actions, reactions, and behaviors from a 24yo male in the middle of the night for BAC's ranging from 0.00 to 0.08 to "blotto drunk" >0.20. I'm not aware ROR's BAC has been publicly reported. Once it is, I'll form my opinion then as to whether he was "drunk" vs. "hammered" vs. some other colloquialism in the spectrum of BAC descriptors.

I posted very early in this thread that someone like ROR (~200lb body weight male) likely has to "work at it" to get above a 0.08 BAC. I am not being soft on the drinking and driving.

Regardless, I understand your view better. Thanks.

 

[Sabres Dynasty]

I would myself describe my observations as obdurate or stubborn. I believe strongly, resolutely, unwaveringly, unyieldingly that drunken driving is a dangerous, irresponsible, narcissistic, and potentially deadly act, and one deserving of far more than the light taps on the wrist that are most often administered to violators. Nor do I believe that such acts should be overlooked simply because the perpetrator is "a top three defensive forward" (as has been suggested). And further, as far as extrapolating one incident into any assumption of a pattern of conduct, in my many decades of experience I have never, ever, known a person who drove drunk just once. Ever.

(I would take issue with prickish since, as far as I can determine, there's no such word.)

In any case, when we're provided with links to those unseen reports (alluded to in an earlier post) proving that the incident didn't happen as it was reported, we'll all have a better sense of the events. I hope they're posted soon. I'm sure I'm not alone in being very eager to read them.

Are you suggesting locking up first time offenders? The punishments are already fairly harsh.

Also, you post some of the most long-winded responses I've ever read on a message board. Keep this one brief.

 

[Gras]

Are you suggesting locking up first time offenders? The punishments are already fairly harsh.

Also, you post some of the most long-winded responses I've ever read on a message board. Keep this one brief.

THis is what 1st time offenders get here.

Penalties for a Standard DUI

For a 1st offense of a standard DUI, you may face:

10 days in jail.
A fine of $1,250.
Required completion of an alcohol/drug screening, treatment, and education program.
An ignition interlock requirement for every vehicle you drive.
Community service.


For a 1st offense of an extreme DUI, you may face:

30 days in jail.
A fine of at least $2,500.
Required completion of an alcohol/drug screening, treatment, and education program.
An ignition interlock requirement for every vehicle you drive.
Community service.

 

[SamuraiArt]

prickish means easily irritable.

I believe you're thinking of prickly.

 

[Mattilaus]

THis is what 1st time offenders get here.

Notice the word "MAY" before both of those. Ever wonder why it says "may" instead of "will"?

 

[Gras]

Notice the word "MAY" before both of those. Ever wonder why it says "may" instead of "will"?

There is not very much "May" if you're in Maricopa County with Jo around.

 

[rtfirefly]

Are you suggesting locking up first time offenders? The punishments are already fairly harsh.
Also, you post some of the most long-winded responses I've ever read on a message board. Keep this one brief.

Obviously, the circumstances of every crime are different. In some specific cases, I would, indeed, be in favor of locking up first time offenders. The maintenance of a safe, civil society is dependent on the shared belief in the power of the state to protect the health, safety, and well being of all citizens from those who would disregard that compact and damage others. In that regard, the administration of the law serves two parallel purposes. The first is to establish that justice, in an abstract sense, can provide for punitive deprivation to those responsible for doing harm to others. This is done with the—often tenuous—approval of a populace desirous not only of protection, but of the maintenance of a shared set of moral and cultural values. That can be a tricky business. And one that violates one person's sense of justice while reiterating another's. But a second, and perhaps more important function, is preemptory and dissuasive. The innocent depend on the state to protect them from injury and impairment, as well as to act punitively toward transgressors. I think it would be universally agreed that protection before the fact is more important than punishment after the fact. The argument could be made that the commission of a particular crime should result in a fixed and constant punishment regardless of circumstance. In reality, that addresses the punitive but, perhaps, not the preemptory. It is indeed a delicate, perhaps impossible task for "the law" to balance those two imperatives in vastly different circumstances, even in the commission of an identical transgression. (A particular action, after all, can be an act of desperate self-preservation, a hateful, vindictive, sadistic outburst, or simply a callous, selfish disregard for others.) The matter is further complicated by the reality that we live in so vast and varied a society. It is increasingly difficult to define a consensus on the appropriate role of the state in interpreting and enforcing what—to many—is an externally based moral code, versus creating statutes that empower the secular institution of the state itself to be the arbiter of its citizens' (as well as its own) well being. Different political systems interpret their responsibilities—and powers—in radically different ways. The Soviet Union, in the old days, denied the existence of a moral code outside of the one that the state devised to best serve its own interests. Thus, it was illegal for a person to kill his neighbor, and it was illegal for a person to make a xerox. The state did not see either of those acts as inherently, morally more or less serious than the other. Each of those acts was a transgression against what an all-powerful, and by implication, all knowing state had decreed. In our own democracy, the most complicated questions, and the ones subject to widely different points-of-view in the pursuit of law and order are: "what was the harm (real or potential)?" and "what's the consequence?" (of too much or too little punishment). The very same disregard for a law could, for example, result in the smashing of a coffee shop window, or the killing of a child. How do you punish the first sufficiently to try and prevent the second from happening? I believe that, in the long run, the severity of punishment should take into account the efficacy of dissuading the commission of that crime in the future. It could be argued that, on a case-by-case basis, the underlying goal of that philosophy is the benefit of the many despite the impairment of the one (regardless of whether or not that one is a "top three defensive forward").

I'm sure you've figured out that I made a long and discursive response on purpose.
No one forces anybody to read anything that anybody has to say. I assume that any person posting an opinion is as entitled to express their opinion in full as any other person. And I fully support the right of any person to disagree with me, and to refuse to read a single word of what I have to say. I would, however, never presume to expect any poster to confine their opinions to only those I agree with, or order any poster to confine their opinions to only the length that I feel like dealing with.

 

[haseoke39]

I don't think anyone's worried about the DUI charge. It's fleeing the scene.

 

[cybresabre]

I believe you're thinking of prickly.

I prefer Random House, but:

Prickish
adjective prick·ish \ˈprikish, kēsh\. Definition of PRICKISH. : easily irritated.

"Prickish." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2015. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prickish>.



+

I'm sure you've figured out that I made a long and discursive response on purpose.
No one forces anybody to read anything that anybody has to say. I assume that any person posting an opinion is as entitled to express their opinion in full as any other person. And I fully support the right of any person to disagree with me, and to refuse to read a single word of what I have to say. I would, however, never presume to expect any poster to confine their opinions to only those I agree with, or order any poster to confine their opinions to only the length that I feel like dealing with.

Thank you, good post.

 

[ihadtochangethename]

I don't think anyone's worried about the DUI charge. It's fleeing the scene.

its BOTH, smh

 

[ihadtochangethename]

"O'Reilly has his own version of events" is such a funny phrase to me. It's like the guy that actually was involved in the accident might know what went on. But of course, that doesn't mean anything when we can just imagine what happened due to media information and we can spin it the way we want and believe THAT is what happened.

The guy's not denying what happened, just saying that some events need to be cleared up about what happened. He's taking full responsibility for what happened, but there is some information out there that needs to be cleared up. And when I say he's taking full responsibility I'm not talking about what we THINK he did, but what he ACTUALLY did.

i read all statements provided and then wrote that post. we can agree to disagree, idk where you are getting my thinking he is not accepting responsibility from, but ok. he siad it will come out in court and i thought murray said something similar. i got i apologize but ahhhhh, circa, imma let you finish but ahhhh.....to be continued.

 

[OkimLom]

i read all statements provided and then wrote that post. we can agree to disagree, idk where you are getting my thinking he is not accepting responsibility from, but ok. he siad it will come out in court and i thought murray said something similar. i got i apologize but ahhhhh, circa, imma let you finish but ahhhh.....to be continued.

I didn't say you weren't claiming he wasn't accepting responsibility. Just making a statement(that's a mouth full)

From your post that I quoted, you said it's what you thought that O'Reilly has his own version of events, and that perhaps he wasn't flustered at all. I apologize if I took what you said wrong, but when I saw that statement I assumed you were siding with the media spin of things over what happened to ROR. Knowing the majority of posters on these boards that thought process falls in line the majority of the one.

I do apologize for looping you in with those.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

I don't think anyone's worried about the DUI charge. It's fleeing the scene.

Fleeing the scene only adds another charge, it is NEVER a good idea to flee a scene like that

 

[OhreallyOrielly]

Fleeing the scene only adds another charge, it is NEVER a good idea to flee a scene like that

A few years back, didn't a Bill flee the scene of an accident on Chippewa and duck a possible DWI by avoiding the cops for 24 hours?

 

[couture23]

He's signing by Canalside tonight so it's nice to see him out and about in the city for the first time.

 

[SamuraiArt]

I prefer Random House, but:

Prickish
adjective prick·ish \ˈprikish, kēsh\. Definition of PRICKISH. : easily irritated.

"Prickish." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2015. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prickish>.

Interesting, hadn't run across that in regular usage before. I took prickish as a synonym of d!ck1$h. But that is my mistake.

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

its BOTH, smh

There's no chance he's doing jail time. Never happens on first offence.