Taylor Not Guilty on DUI

"The alphabet test, to me, is kind of confusing," McClain said. "I don't think anybody's asked Mr. Taylor to say the alphabet since fourth grade."

Now that's funny. I can understand if they asked him to recite it backwards but come on, you simply don't forget the alphabet.


My cousin, who is 2 and a half, knows the alphabet. If they asked him to go from A-Z and he didnt get it, he was either drunk or hes a idiot. However, if they did ask him to do it backwards, I think that is a bougus test because I cant say the thing backwards right now.

Weather he really was drunk or not (I have no idea seeing as I wasent there), I'm not at all shocked with this ruling.

Saden: It depends on what the officer asks. Some ask you from Z-A, some ask you to pick up. All of them ask you to go backwards. I can't go backwards, can you?


I was saying doing it backwards would be harder and I can understand if he screwed it up. Almost all would falter if they were asked to recite it backwards..

And no, I can't do it backwards, in timely manner anyways.

For me to do it backwards I can go Z, Y, X then I have to start at A, go all the way up and see what the next letter would be, and just keep doing that. It would take like 5 mintues.

A....B....E....G....C.... Hell I have not said the alphabet in a while myself. Too difficult for me. Regardless of if he was drunk or not, by refusing to take the breathlizer or blood test should be enough to be found guilty, but then you throw in the lawers and get him out of it. Our justice system at it finest.

Skins_fan: How many times do you hear "don't do anything without a lawyer" this is a bigtime name and he was probably confused. You can't take cops advice, most of them lie to get their way. If he didn't know what to do take it to court. Step 1: Never give a cop the right to search or otherwise even do anything to you that he doesn't have a warrent for. Ignorance isn't an excuse, but it's better than saying something stupid that gets misconstrued. From a legal standpoint he probably did the right thing.

Bottom line - it was the judge's call and based on the report in the paper, it looked like a reasonable person could have (but not neccearily) reached the same conclusion. From the report in the papter, and even if he wasn't a pro athelete, a judge could have thrown it out based on what he saw on the tape.

Truth is, without seeing the tape it is hard to say whether or not this judge cut Taylor slack.

Regardless of if he was drunk or not, by refusing to take the breathlizer or blood test should be enough to be found guilty, but then you throw in the lawers and get him out of it. Our justice system at it finest.

Taylor does get penalized for failing to take the test; his driver's license - a state granted privilege to drive - was automatically suspended. Same as you and me. BUT, just like you and me, Mr. Taylor cannot be forced to give evidence against himself in a CRIMINAL DWI proceeding.

Personally, I take that whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not allowing the state to force me to give evidence against myself pretty seriously. Yes, it makes it harder to prove guilt but our system is pretty much designed around the principle that it is better to let 99 guilty people go than to imprison one innocent person. Being a generally innocent person - I find that reassuring.

Further, as I said earlier, and from what I read, it is quite likely that anyone (high priced lawyers or no) could have been found not guilty based on what the judge saw on the tape.

You can't take cops advice, most of them lie to get their way. If he didn't know what to do take it to court.

Daseal, while generally agree with your post, I find this remark really offensive. My experience with police officers (and I have dealt with a lot of them over time) is that, in general, they take their job and their oath seriously. As in any profession, their are some bad apples who ruin it for the rest and, undoubtedly, you can point to both personal and famous examples to contrary (at least I would hope you could point to some person experience- otherwise your statement is just ignorant in addition to being offensive). But, the vast majority of law enforcement officers (90-95% of the couple hundred wiith whom I have dealt) are honest, stick to the book types.

True - If they believe you have committed a crime, a cop will not give you a road map on how to get out of it. Will they work to the limits of the law to get incriminating evidence against you? Yup - that's part of their job. But, in doing so, they don't "lie to get their way".

JoeRedskin: I've seen too many friends get caught from an officer lying. They like to saying they have confessions they don't, etc. Are all of them evil? Not at all, just don't take their advice if you're in trouble for a hill of beans. Maybe not most of them, but quite a few I've seen, at least in this area (which isn't exactly the best area to grab them from.)

Funniest thing in the WP article is how LC said he was watching ST closely at the party cuz he suspected Taylor was bonking the same woman as LC.
so much for team chemistry LOL