Tt's three beers over three and a half hours, according to the story.

Then again, as (at least just about) any cop will tell you: "about three beers" is an amount of alcohol that, amazingly, tends to get anybody pretty much stone drunk, as opposed to about three beers, which usually won't.

Sorry Andrew, no correction from me. Booze and guns don't mix. He knew he had consumed alcohol, as such he knew he shoulda stayed away from the incident or left the gun at home. He said 3 beers-did he tell the truth? I know many people who understate their consumption-especially in LE presence. I have my opinion and stick by it...just like you do yours. I didn't throw him under the bus-he did that himself. I thought I worded my responses appropriately in the PB comments. Hey, I'm the one who said hang with him as long as possible-the alcohol did it for me...

4:30 to 7:00 is 2.5 hours. It is even possible that he truly had three beers, ad not "three beers." Time will tell.

Nope. This is not an opinion:



That's a misstatement of fact. The article said "about three," and if that turns out to be true, it almost certainly DIDN'T put him over the limit. It is dishonest to knowingly leave an untrue statement uncorrected.

Impairment and guns don't mix, but there's no evidence yet that he was impaired.

This guy's biggest mistake was DRINKING while in possesion of a gun. Or drinking period!!

Quote all the specs you want, but again alcohol's effect produced a victim.

This idiot deserves whatever they throw at him.

You're wrong. At that rate of intake, it's likely that the only appreciable effect of the beers was the need to urinate.

And since you weren't there, and many fact remain thin and highly ambiguous, I think you have no basis for judging much of anything.




Gee, I'm sorry to have confused you with the facts.

We don't need the anti-gunners -- we are apparently our own worst enemies.

I think some poor judgement was used, but I am going to wait and see exactly what the facts are.

C'mon Andrew, the word "probably" is not precise in meaning. "About 3" in the article is also not precise-could've been more. I didn't say it DID put him over the limit. I said "probably" because I'm no expert and it was my opinion. This is not a court room Andrew. Both the PB comment section and this forum are about opinions. In my opinion, this man had alcohol in his system (close to, if not over the thresh hold depending on how much he had) and I don't think that alcohol and guns should be combined. If you feel so strongly feel free to post your own "opinion" in the comment section of the article. I hope the cross examination is over for now...if you look close enough you can discredit anyone Andrew-even me. We don't all think like you...even though you are gifted.

I give permit holders the benefit of the doubt. Where would this situation have gone had the permit holder held himself at bay, and the driver had backed away from that tree and sped off thru the crowd, killing and maiming many. IF as the article says, he (Rose) truly believed some kid had been run over, and the driver was getting ready to do it again, I say bravo.

Jim, I do not know your history, but for the vast majority of people, alcohol is not satan in a liquid form. Millions and Millions of people consume adult beverages with UTTER responsibility. Never driving when drinking, never hitting their wives while drunk or any of the other horrors that a few people who are unable to control themselves do. The law was written at .04 instead of .oo because its proven that the vast majority of people who consume, do so without putting other people at risk of death and injury.

+1

I'm sure that RPD had his blood alcohol level with in 15 minutes of him hitting the ADC. The fact that it has not been disclosed tells me that he was well under the limit.

Sure it is. It means, roughly, "more likely than not."


Could've been less. The numbers indicate that he could "probably" stay under .04 with as many as six beers in that time.



And I'm guessing that you had no idea and simply guessed that three beers in almost three hours would put a large man over .04. You guessed wrong, as it turns out. There's nothing wrong with that, but adamantly sticking to your wrong guess is.



Good idea, and I did.



Facts are facts. This guy is going to have a hard enough time, and he doesn't need pro-gun people misstating facts to his detriment.

But thanks for the compliment. I know I should save my "cross examinations" for the antis...it's just that everyone seems to be anti-this-guy in the absence of a whole lot of facts.

No matter what the facts proof out to be I think that there has been some very poor judgment in play here. When I say "here" I mean here (the forum). Why are so many waiting to pounce on a permit holder with incomplete or no facts at all? I really cannot understand that mentality. I for one will give this guy the benefit of doubt.

From Ayoob IIRC

ETA: Found the article with the quote.

Almost: