What an Idiot!

Raging Rider · #1 08-02-2003, 02:40 PM

I justwanted to say something about my new candidate for dumba** of the year. A local high school football/baseball star from Valparaiso, IN may have done the stupidest thing he could have done. Jeff Samardzija, a wide receiver who earned a full football scholarship to Notre Dame, was just a couple weeks from leaving for Notre Dame. Then, all of the sudden he was all over the local sports pages. He had attended a party where there was plenty of underrage drinking, and the police showed up and crashed the party. Not only was he arrested for underrage drinking, but also for "assaulting an officer", reportedly punching a cop. He may still keep his scholarship, but it could be taken away. Even if he still gets his scholarship, he's still got my vote for dumba** of the year. He may still keep his scholarship, but it could be taken away. Even if he still gets his scholarship, he's still got my vote for dumba** of the year.

cedarpointfreak · #2 08-02-2003, 03:07 PM

sorry to tell you this but it happens a lot more than you think, High schoolers party cops come they get in trouble. If he doesn't get the scholarship taken away then he is just like millions of other highschoolers out there in that they get busted for underage drinking

**Phil** · #3 08-02-2003, 03:12 PM

My highschool gives an automatic week suspension if at a party with underage drinking going on.

Raging Rider · #4 08-02-2003, 03:13 PM

I know it happens a lot, but you have to know if there's a big party that somethin's going to happen. Neighbors call the cops, someone invited has parents find out and their parents call cops. I mean, he was just a couple weeks from the opporotunity to live most football players' dream of playing for Notre Dame. Even if his scholarship is taken away, he'll still be picked up by some other school, or he may even play minor league baseball.

Skye · #5 08-02-2003, 05:37 PM

this is so funny! I can't imagine not being be able to drink at whats your high school age. Underage drinking here is just accepted (although stll considered a bad thing, nothing is done about it), your not going to get arrested! (unless you do something bad). the allowed age is 18, so 18+ is legal, but i don't think its against the law to drink at say 15. You just can't buy it (or attempt to buy) it thats all. Worse thing you have it taken away from you.

cedarpointfreak · #6 08-02-2003, 05:45 PM

where i live the cops aren't crashing the parties as much anymore cause if there is drinking they'd rather have them stay there and drink than have everyone run and drive home drunk risking lives of others. Which is smart.

Fastardo · #7 08-03-2003, 05:04 PM

Leeloo, where I live (Wales) we used to go to pubs at the age of about 16. If we ever got refused at the bar we'd just move along to the next pub and get served there. If the police ever did turn up, you'd see the pub empty in about 30 seconds! They would only call the parents if somebody was drunk and disorderly.
I first visited the US when I was 22 and got carded everytime I bought alcohol. It is a whole different culture.
Do you not think that setting the legal drinking age so high forces kids to drink "underground"?

Skye · #8 08-03-2003, 05:25 PM

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by leeloo1953 [/i]
[B]Skye, quick question, as you said if underage and get caught, the worse they do is take it away from you. But do they contact your parents about it, I think they would at least let your parents know. Do they? [/B][/QUOTE]

In thoery they should. Theres no law as such, but social services might have an interest.

In reality, they would NEVER do that for anyone over say 13/14. They can't solve big crimes, they can't even begin to cope with a few kids having some beers. the resources they have are so stretched they don't even go out to burgalries and car thefts until its too late (usually about 3 days later).

Edit: just saw the post above^. I agree with that, most people start around 15/16. if you get refused at a shop, you just go next door! lol.
The shops are very strict though, although some don't care. This is cause they get massive fines if they are caught (thousands of pounds, plus risk of losing their licence).

In other words, there is massive punishment for the sellars, but almost none, if any really, for the people buying.

Buying or attmepting to buy is an offence under 18, but GIVING it away or just drinking it isn't really.

The police just don't care bascially.

**Phil** · #9 08-03-2003, 05:26 PM

Wow, thats pretty sad.

coasterguy1 · #10 08-03-2003, 09:19 PM

Actually, the system over in europe is smart. See, if the drinking age here was say 16 and the driving age was 18, kids could understand the effects of drinking before they start to drive, unlike right now where they dont know really, and if they do its because they obtained it illegaly and dont really care about the effects as long as they get to have fun. On the other hand, there will always be fools who drink and drive and kill other people who are just trying to get somewhere. And for that they should burn in hell.

Lancelot · #11 08-04-2003, 05:43 PM

a lot of my family have been killed in drunk driving accidents. So i'm glad they caught him and i hope he loses his scholorship and becomes a wal-mart employee for the rest of his life.

Diesel · #12 08-05-2003, 01:26 PM

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Skye [/i]
[B] They can't solve big crimes, they can't even begin to cope with a few kids having some beers. the resources they have are so stretched they don't even go out to burgalries and car thefts until its too late (usually about 3 days later).
[/B][/QUOTE]

Of course, the country has a strict gun control policy, and crime has flourished all over the UK. I've heard you're nine times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City.

GUN CONTROL KILLS!

Fastardo · #13 08-05-2003, 03:12 PM

[b]Gun Death - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)

* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun

Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network

Additional data can be found in Table A.10 of the World report on violence and health, published by the World Health Organization on 3rd October 2002. [/b]

Still 34 times more likely to die from a gun-related homicide in the USA though Diesel.

:heart:

Diesel · #14 08-05-2003, 03:43 PM

Ahhh, very good Fastardo. You present your statistics well, even quote the source. And make it all clear, and even provide your own analysis. Good job!!

However, people are quite different in the USA as compared to Canada, Japan, Switzerland. We have people like Snoopy Dogg Dogg that endorse dope-smoking, woman-beating, and killing. Japan has...well, whatever they have there.

Let's go apples to apples. Let's compare the UK in 1997/1998 to the UK in 1999/2000 (after handguns were banned).

"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned...The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000."

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm[/url]

One other thing, I botched my first post, you're not 9 times more likely to be mugged in London than New York City. It's actually only six.

"Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."

[url]http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml[/url]

Skye · #15 08-05-2003, 05:00 PM

statistics can be used to prove anything. only living in a place can you really feel what its like. Basically, crime is out of control, the hospitals are at breaking point and schools are failing as funding is cut every year. add fire strikes, train strikes (is it me or does this happen every other week?) postal strikes and loads of other stuff. only the military don't get cuts. Well they do but only for stuff they didn't really need anyway (like 8 submarines).

At this rate, we might have to vote the conservatives into power.