Ed Oliver Arrested DWI

[LABILLBACKER]

Since Bruce this team sure is snake bit when it comes to drafting 1st round D-lineman.

[GaryPinC]

4 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

It isn’t. HIPPA laws are on those that have the requirement to PROTECT the Information. I can tell you he had NO obligation to protect the information. 
 

just like I can walk into a hospital. And if I see a Chart I can take the picture and release. HIPPA does not apply to me. 
 

so yes the Hospital Violated HIPPA. My Buddy didn’t. 
 

additionally HIPPA won’t apply because this incident falls under 2 of the 12 National release priorities 

 

Law Enforcement

Criminal Proceeding

Certainly law enforcement is entitled to Oliver's PHI in this case but it still is protected otherwise.  HIPAA still applies.

 

But certainly if your buddy managed to spot the info in the hospital that's on them.

[Rochesterfan]

51 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Unless I’m mistaken (and maybe I need to look closer at the reports) you have over 100% there. Is this what age group has the highest percentage of DUI’s/arrests? Or what % of the total they represent? You can’t have more than 100%, and I’m not wasting time delving into this. You cannot possibly be correct with numbers that total more than 100%. 

 

If some report tell me 45-50 year olds have the same level of DUI’s as 20-25 year olds, I KNOW that report is garbage. 

 

 

.

 

.

.

 

Sorry - having a lot of issues with this site tonight.

 

I do not think that data is based on DUIs per age level.  The data is a stupid data set pulled by others that look at % of DWI associated fatalities per age group.  The data set is dumb and overall meaningless to the Ed Oliver incident, but you and several others are totally missing how percentages work and that is causing a skewing of the data incorrectly.

 

There is nothing in the data saying that 45 year olds and 21 year olds get the same level of DUIs.  It does state that in fatal accidents at both age brackets the percentage that involve alcohol are about the same.

 

The numbers might be significantly lower in absolute numbers, but the percentages stay consistent.

[WideNine]

So...45 pages?

 

The kid got caught doing something stupid. I am sure he knew as soon as he was pulled over that it was not a good look.

 

Did a few bone-headed things myself at that age. Remember telling an officer who said he had trouble catching up to me that it sounded like a "personal problem". My wiseassery did not go over well.

 

Fines and various punishments along with losing friends and family to careless drivers changed me. Becoming a father sealed the deal.

 

Only time will tell if this is a one and done thing or something that becomes a problem. He is still young, will need to make some restitution. Some patience is not unreasonable.

 

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

59 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

The percentages are of the total number of DUIs. In other words, 27% of DUI's are committed by people between 21-24, 26% by people 25-34, etc.  

 

You are interpreting the percentages as indicating what percentage of the age group is committing DUIs, that is not the original claim. 

 

Incorrect the numbers cited in the data set (which in my mind is an irrelevant data set for what Ed Oliver is going through, but I did not provide the set) are fatalities involving alcohol.  
 

It is not looking at number of DUIs per age bracket, but the number of fatal car accidents involving alcohol as a percentage of all fatal accidents.  
 

Therefore based on my understanding of the data set:

 

ages 21-24 - alcohol is involved in 27% of fatal accidents 

ages 25-34 - alcohol is involved in 26% of all fatal accidents

ages 35-44 - alcohol is involved in 23% of fatal accidents 

 

Weo is trying to say that therefore it appears that people don’t learn as the percentage stays the same.  I do not think that is true because the overall numbers change it just happens that alcohol is involved in about 25% of fatal accidents from age 21-44.  
 

Again this is totally irrelevant to the Ed Oliver situation, but the percentage of alcohol to fatal accidents does not change and is the similar whether you break it down to individual 1 year blocks or 3 year blocks or the entire 20+ year block.  Each segment how ever you dice the years would be around 25% of fatal car accidents involved alcohol.

[Ralonzo]

4 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

I don't think there are enough anecdotes in this thread from which I can make an informed decision. 

 

I would like to get the perspective of people over 30 who still drive impaired and have never gotten a DWI.  Thanks.

 

We need to get our cars back to the house.

 

 

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Incorrect the numbers cited in the data set (which in my mind is an irrelevant data set for what Ed Oliver is going through, but I did not provide the set) are fatalities involving alcohol.  
 

It is not looking at number of DUIs per age bracket, but the number of fatal car accidents involving alcohol as a percentage of all fatal accidents.  
 

Therefore based on my understanding of the data set:

 

ages 21-24 - alcohol is involved in 27% of fatal accidents 

ages 25-34 - alcohol is involved in 26% of all fatal accidents

ages 35-44 - alcohol is involved in 23% of fatal accidents 

 

Weo is trying to say that therefore it appears that people don’t learn as the percentage stays the same.  I do not think that is true because the overall numbers change it just happens that alcohol is involved in about 25% of fatal accidents from age 21-44.  
 

Again this is totally irrelevant to the Ed Oliver situation, but the percentage of alcohol to fatal accidents does not change and is the similar whether you break it down to individual 1 year blocks or 3 year blocks or the entire 20+ year block.  Each segment how ever you dice the years would be around 25% of fatal car accidents involved alcohol.

 

I don’t really like the format/vagaries of the report, but this says to me that 21-24 year olds represent more than  3 times the fatal accident rate than the other groups. That also makes the common sense meter feel about right. 

[scuba guy]

So for all tbd members we used 47 pages of space to say boys (young will be boys)

 

There will be a AP statistics test tuesday

Please bring your number 2 pencil

 

And this is why Dean does not post here anymore 

 

And yes I was directly after by 2 dwi's 

Fience killed by one

And my attorneys wife was killed by another

 

 

The greatest statement that can be said is your friends should be responsible and take big Ed's keys away

[Royale with Cheese]

48 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

The number doesn’t matter if you are comparing percentages.  The percentages take the absolute number out of the equation.

 

You are looking at absolute numbers of TD passes - then yes the larger number of players win, but if as the numbers provided is a TDs as a percentage of passes thrown - it does not matter how many QBs make up the cohort - it only matters The % how many TDs were thrown versus how many passes thrown by each age bracket would be much closer.

 

Just a quick look using NFL.com 2019 stats and ages showed the following (did not include everyone because some guys would really throw the numbers off because of limited throws)

 

21-25: ~ 5.3% of passes were touchdowns the highest %, but because there were fewer players the actual number of TDs was only 155

25-34: ~ 4.9% of passes were TDs, but the highest absolute number due to sheer volume with over 200 for the players included.

over 34: ~ 3.8% of passes were TDs and the smallest overall number with 126 TD for the big 6 old guys that played a lot.

 

That is why percentage matters - it balances the entire number set over the age range making the absolute numbers meaningless.  It does not matter that more people are in the 25-34 bracket and it does not matter that it is larger as long as what you are using as a number and a denominator are the same idea - the percentage balances that out.

 

As to the other point - I can not then say well if we look at it in 3 year blocks for 25-34 each 3 year block only only threw 1.6% - it makes no sense - each block would remain ~4.9% until you pull the actual data and review that block and it will still be close to 4.9%.

 

The data is the breakdown of total DUI's per age group and doesn't get any more specific than that as you can see with unequal age ranges in the data.

So then if 21-24 make up 34% of the DUI's with less people....what does that tell you?  That age range of only 3 years going up against age rages with 9 years and still own 1/3 of the total DUI's.

[Richard Noggin]

46 minutes ago, WideNine said:

Remember telling an officer who said he had trouble catching up to me that it sounded like a "personal problem".

 

I really needed that.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

37 minutes ago, scuba guy said:

So for all tbd members we used 47 pages of space to say boys (young will be boys)

 

It *is* the off season

[Rochesterfan]

9 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

The data is the breakdown of total DUI's per age group and doesn't get any more specific than that as you can see with unequal age ranges in the data.

So then if 21-24 make up 34% of the DUI's with less people....what does that tell you?  That age range of only 3 years going up against age rages with 9 years and still own 1/3 of the total DUI's.

 

Unless you are looking at totally different data - I am not seeing what you are seeing maybe you are looking at a different graph, but the one quoted earlier was looking at drivers involved in fatal crashes with BAC greater than 0.8 2007 versus 2018.  There is no specific data for DUIs by age bracket.

 

the data states that in 2017 for an age bracket of:

21-24 - out of 5007 fatal accidents 1347 involved alcohol ~27% for that age group

25-34 - out of 10876 fatal accident 2843 involved alcohol ~26% in that bracket

35-44 - out of 8217 fatal accidents 1862 involved alcohol ~23% in that bracket

 

The data does not support or disprove either your or Weos argument because it is looking at a specific data set and it in no way matters that there are more years because it is a percentage based on the years included.  Now if you want to compare them you would look at each year as a percentage of total fatal accidents and you could make some claims.

 

for example

21-24: 1347 alcohol fatalities out of 24,100 total fatalities- 5.6% total or 1.4% each year

25-34: 2843 out of 24,100 - 11.7% total - 1.2% each year

35-44: 1862 out of 24,100 - 7.8% total - 0.8% each year

 

so you do see a small drop off in % of fatal accidents involving alcohol in each age group, but it is small and the additional data suggests previous speeding and previous crashes are a bigger indicator of people causing fatal crashes than BAC or previous DWIs.

 

Again - based on the data you can not draw any real conclusions that people learn or do not learn to drive under the influence.  The data is not looking at DWIs per age group per total drivers or anything that could validate either position.  It is merely looking at involvement of alcohol in fatal crashes and the data suggests that the numbers stay fairly consistent whether you are 21 or 44 - just a small decrease as we age - which could be attributable to things like the ability to own a better vehicle as you get older - larger SUV versus performance car or it could be attributable to differences in speed - younger people like to drive faster perhaps.  It does not prove or disprove how many arrests are made at each age for DUI.

 

Sorry, but I think it is nearly useless as data for the Ed Oliver case.

 

What was interesting to me is that overall in the last 10 years at each age bracket mentioned the data suggests a significant decrease in cases especially in the 21-24 age bracket (drop of 7% of fatal crashes involving BAC greater than 0.8) - which does suggest fewer people now drive drunk than did 10 years ago - which is one promising stat.

 

 

[Cripple Creek]

11 hours ago, MJS said:

So there's a significant portion of the population that has never broken the law while driving under the influence of alcohol.

That is, literally, virtually, unpossible.

[Rochesterfan]

9 hours ago, Augie said:

 

Unless I’m mistaken (and maybe I need to look closer at the reports) you have over 100% there. Is this what age group has the highest percentage of DUI’s/arrests? Or what % of the total they represent? You can’t have more than 100%, and I’m not wasting time delving into this. You cannot possibly be correct with numbers that total more than 100%. 

 

If some report tell me 45-50 year olds have the same level of DUI’s as 20-25 year olds, I KNOW that report is garbage. 

 

 

.

 

.

.

 

Yes - unfortunately you are mistaken- the numbers are not taken out of a total number of fatal crashes, but out of the total number for the specific age bracket.  Therefore because it is a percentage of that smaller data set you can not add each group together and equal 100% because the number sets are not related in that way.

 

I did some quick math for Royale and if you want the data out of the same total number of fatal accidents it breaks down as:

 

21-24 - 5.6% of fatal accidents (age21-44) have BAC above 0.8

25-34 - 11.7% of fatal accidents (age 21-44) have BAC above 0.8

35-44 - 7.8% of fatal accidents (age 21-44) have BAC above 0.8

 

Now that we are using the same total number of fatal crashes - you can use that to determine the per year total to balance the data out (now you can divide the percentage because you are comparing the same data).  This data can not exceed 100% because now you are comparing to a total number of something - so these are cumulative and should = ~ 25% which was the average of the 3 data sets originally.

 

21-24 - 1.4% average per year of fatal crashes involved alcohol.

25-34 - 1.2% average per year of fatal crashes involved alcohol 

35-44 - 0.8% average per year of fatal crashes involved alcohol 

 

That is all the numbers show.  You can go further and add in the rest of age brackets and redo the math and things will change slightly - the percentage at each will drop slightly because the total data shows that 20% of fatal accidents at all age groups together involved alcohol.

 

The data set does not talk at all about how many DUIs are issued per age bracket or where we see that breakdown and the data is not garbage- it is vital statistics to show the impact that drug laws and anti drunk driving campaigns have on people over a 10 year span related to fatal crashes.  You see overall a 2% decrease in the decade included and the biggest drop is in the youngest age brackets - where you see no impact or an actual increase is in people over the age of 45 - which is not the people generally targeted for anti drunk driving ads.

[Rochesterfan]

10 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

The percentages are of the total number of DUIs. In other words, 27% of DUI's are committed by people between 21-24, 26% by people 25-34, etc.  

 

You are interpreting the percentages as indicating what percentage of the age group is committing DUIs, that is not the original claim. 

 

No that is totally incorrect.

 

The data is the percentage of fatal accidents that involved alcohol for each age bracket.  I am not interpreting the data in any way - all it says is that 27% of fatal crashes involving people age 21-24 involved alcohol with a BAC above 0.8.  That number becomes 26% of all fatal crashes involved alcohol for people 25-34 and 23% for age 35-44.

 

It most certainly is not the percentage of DUIs at each age out of a total and it does not indicate anything to do with levels of drinking and driving or even repeat drinking and driving cases.  It is merely a statistical data set by the government looking at alcohol involvement with fatal crashes.

 

The data is right in the link Royale provided and is easy to see and should be easy to interpret.  I just think it has very little to do with the overall discussion- the issue I had was a small group was trying to prove a point by dividing percentages to get per year totals - when that is not how the data sets work. People were making judgements on data they used incorrectly and that is all I am pointing out.

[CLTbills]

On 5/17/2020 at 7:18 AM, plenzmd1 said:

How in the he’ll is that an issue?

 

How is a guy freaking out on his head coach, having to be physically restrained, over a COAT, an issue?

 

All of this while knowing that all eyes are on you, as a projected top-ten draft pick?

Listen, I'm not saying that the coat incident makes him a degenerate, but it was concerning to a bunch of people.

[plenzmd1]

6 minutes ago, CLTbills said:

 

How is a guy freaking out on his head coach, having to be physically restrained, over a COAT, an issue?

 

All of this while knowing that all eyes are on you, as a projected top-ten draft pick?

Listen, I'm not saying that the coat incident makes him a degenerate, but it was concerning to a bunch of people.

Hmm, how his it related to this incident and has there been one little peep, even 1, that he has had an issue with the coaching.  
 

 

[CLTbills]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

Hmm, how his it related to this incident and has there been one little peep, even 1, that he has had an issue with the coaching.  

No. There hasn't been one peep about the issue with the coaching.

 

But do you find it slightly ironic that the ONE guy that we were worried about potentially having character issues, just so happens to be the guy that gets pulled over and arrested for DWI and weapons charges? 

[Uncle Joe]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

It *is* the off season

I'm still trying to process home ownership when a baby mama is involved. ?

[BillsFan17]

33 minutes ago, CLTbills said:

No. There hasn't been one peep about the issue with the coaching.

 

But do you find it slightly ironic that the ONE guy that we were worried about potentially having character issues, just so happens to be the guy that gets pulled over and arrested for DWI and weapons charges? 

No one worried about him having character issues.

 

The problem on the sideline was over Oliver wearing a coat. The coach, Applewhite gets the benefit on the doubt why? Especially when people like Simms called out how poorly Applewhite treated him while at Texas...

 

Remind me again, where is Applewhite is coaching these day, because it certainly ain't Houston.