I understand the need for punishment for an under the influence conviction but one problem I have with it is that someone with wealth or a name will skate free and clear no matter what.
Some years ago it was our former illustrious state insurance commissioner who got caught on a DWI after being turned in by an alert teen with a cell phone who saw him weaving all over the roadway. No punishment.
The U.S. District Attorney who was absolutely wasted and put a friend of mine into the hospital for 2 months after plowing into his motorcycle head on. The D.A. was driving a black car at night going the wrong way on a divided 4 lane with no lights on. Skated free and clear and was not even issued a warning after claiming he had âimmunity from prosecutionâ.
Right after I graduated from high school I was dating a young lady whose father ( a great guyâŠ) was an alcoholic. A raging alcoholic at that. While visiting relatives in OK City one weekend he drove the brother in lawâs car to the country club and got tanked up. On the way back to the house he ran a red light and got stopped by the OKC PD.
While running a check on the vehicle license plate the PD discovered it belonged to a long time U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge who passed away just a few years ago.
Arrest him? Impound the car? Issue a citation? Nope. The PD called in another car and they provided a flashing light escort back to the house for him to make sure he would make it in one piece. And this was all in a very high traffic area.
Everyone except the privileged share your feelings. The most egregious example IMHO was Ted Kennedy in 1969 (Chappaquiddick), although Justin Bieberâs Miami street racing is pretty egregious as well.
Another good example is Chris Christie. When he was US Attorney for the District of NJ, he was involved in multiple traffic accidents, including one where he hit a motorcyclist head-on while he (Christie) was driving the wrong way on a one-way street. The biker was fairly seriously injured, as you would expect in a head-on with a BMW 7-series.
On another occasion, he was driving on an expired registration, and without insurance. There was also another incident, but I donât recall the circumstances. In every instance, he skated without a ticket, simply by playing the âDo you know who I am?â card, and intimidating the cops.
No, he was not intoxicated on alcohol or drugs in any of those situations, but he was probably on a sugar highâŠ
Yeah the great lakes get a little confusing. Thanks to Lake Superior, surprisingly Minnesota also borders Michigan in addition to Canada, North and South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. You canât drive from Minnesota to Michigan but you can take a boat there. Co workers used to complain that the only way to get to some parts of their territory in Minnesota was either by boat or through Canada. I guess thatâs why we are so diverse.
I guess I forgot what the original question was, but yeah the guy was probably under the influence of some kind at the time. In Minnesota if you have a CDL, you can lose it if you are driving a snow mobile under the influence. So if you are in Minnesota and have a CDL, stay off your snow mobile, horse, lawn mower, and motorized easy chair if you are going to have a couple beers at the local. Iâm not sure if walking yet is covered but it wouldnât surprise me.
If that guyâs last name wasnât Kennedy, the judge would have thrown the book at him, and he would have done a long stretch in prison . . . and rightly so
I was way, way beyond just drunk driving. After going off the bridge and plunging into the water, Kennedy swam to shore to save himself and didnât notify authorities until the next morning, through his attorney. He let the lady drown to save his own ass. Thatâs manslaughter as a minimum. He should have gone to prison for very a long time. Hopefully heâs paying for his crimes now, in Hell.
Aha! You said nothing about a boat. So you could cross Lake Superior in a rowboat or canoe to Michigan while you are muy stinko barracho and everything is cool. Just wear a life jacket.
I donât think he had alcohol in her system at the time but thatâs not the point.
The point is when someone drinks alcohol and gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and theyâve had multiple DUIs that indicates in the future that person is likely to continue the same behavior which this drunk did he popped all kinds of pills he was all hopped up and then he went flying in the air balloon.
Itâs called an alcoholic attitude, these people think they are above the law and do not care who they hurt if they do hurt someone they have every excuse in the world why it wasnât their fault or they didnât mean to do it but they never take responsibility for their actions.
Alcoholic attitude is a new one to me, now I am not perfect, but usually have a 2 beer limit, then I do not drive, on the third beer, friends stop over, propane tank was empty for the grill, ladies wanted to broil up some veggies, then we were in charge of italian sausages, now I know 2 beers than 1 beer an hour for my weight from bartender licensing I was ok, but had senior safety hat on, being ever vigilant for anything while driving to get the propane tank filled, was it wrong, in my book yes, was it legal, in my book yes, there is black and white and gray, but seeing 3 or more DUI offenders, might make me rethink Alcoholic attitude.
If someone gets a DUI they are more likely to smoke, drive without insurance, have more accidents, get fired, go through bankruptcy etc. . Bad decision making is bad decision making.
Before you cite examples of someone who got One DUI and lead an otherwise exemplary life, remember I said more likely, not doomed to.
Well what is it then DB? If people drive intoxicated what is their thinking behind that? People know darn well that driving under the influence is illegal, so why do they continue to do it?
You are a continued apologist for drunken drivers. I donât fault someone for their past indiscretions so long as they change their behavior. I find it alarming that you continue to defend and support drunk drivers, and frankly im a bit a bit confused and concerned.
I cant answer that. All I can say is if you were above the limit it was against the law. I would say likely you were below the limit, but we must remember that even at .04 to .06 you are affected from the alcohol.
People drive with alcohol and their system all the time and donât have a problemâŠuntil they do.
Im under the .04 rule as I have a CDL. I am held to a higher standard, but I receive no benefit from it. I.E. Lower insurance rates ectâŠ
