Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Doug, Northridge, CA on July 24, 2009:

"Three or four drinks" and this trashed? This helps to perpetuate one of the great myths of alcoholism: that only a few drinks will make someone drunk. Sorry, but no. As an addiction researcher and author, I'd suggest that to be this blitzed requires a blood alcohol content of at least .24 percent, which would require about 12 drinks over the course of four hours for a 160-pound guy (he looks like a lightweight; 15 drinks if he's 200 pounds in that time frame). To get to a BAC that high at his age, alcoholism is virtually required. (Generally, my research shows that anyone past fraternity age who drinks to at least a .15 percent has the disease of alcoholism. This is especially true if they don't show the classic signs of inebriation, for which there is admittedly no proof here.)

Responsibility requires, for the addict, self-acknowledgment of one's affliction and admission to those he has harmed, along with amends. He could start by paying the salary for the police for the time they spent responding to the neighbor's call.

---

And stop with the distracting "persecution" of whoever released the public-record evidence photos! -rc

Posted by Neil, UK on July 24, 2009:

"does not remember having more than three or four drinks" -- 1 bottle of whiskey, 1 of Gin, 1 of Rum and he's not sure about the vodka....

Posted by David, Denver, CO on July 24, 2009:

"Most people live in a myth and become violently angry when anyone dares to tell them the truth about themselves." ~Robert Anton Wilson

Posted by Martin from NoVa on July 24, 2009:

I think you have very valid points, as do the previous posters. It is very uncomfortably close to home, this situation, and I'm reminded of the Demotivator poster from Despair.com that says something like "Maybe your purpose in life is to be a warning to others." Crap. This guy has made a mess of it and needs to take full responsibility EVEN IF others have acted in less than honorable fashion.

Posted by Ryan, Ashtabula, OH on July 24, 2009:

I must take issue with Doug from Northridge's claims regarding what it takes to get the bad: Some people end up doing stuff that stupid when they're BARELY drunk in regards to legal limit of .08. My brother's proven that "three or four" of virtually anything with a higher alcohol content than your average can of beer can get one pretty blitzed, even if the BAL isn't anywhere close to the .24 he estimates (luckily my brother never did anything THAT weird, and he overall is a very controlled and smart drinker).

Doug, you have some definite working knowledge regarding this stuff, but you forgot one important factor: No two people are the same. How one guy responds to a certain BAL is not how another guy will respond to the same level.

In any case, at least this guy's taken more responsibility than most people who end up in his situation. I can kinda-sorta forgive the "BUT!" due to this fact. Willingly resigning your job over this instead of getting high-and-mighty and fighting like hell to keep it? IMO, that in and of itself outweighs his blatant failure of character in attacking the police for releasing that photo.

That said, depending on laws in the area it may not be a failure at all. I don't know about Indiana, but in these parts(translation: I don't know if it's a local or state law, only that it's a law) it is illegal to leak evidence photos unless ordered to for purposes of gaining public assistance (IE, tips) to solve a crime. With Mr. Wilder publicly admitting to the incident, there was obviously no need to get tips from the public to solve matters. If those photos were leaked around here, somebody would be losing their job.

Posted by Russ, Arizona on July 24, 2009:

A quote from your story

"Wilder was apparently intoxicated, they say, but said no crime had been committed, and officers walked him home."

Had he been charged with something, anything, I might agree with you but as your article states ". . . no crime had been committed . . ." I think the officer(s) who released the photo's to the public acted irresponsibly, perhaps illegally and possibly just to embarrass him. My father was a police officer for 20 years and a deputy sheriff for another 10 and I have several friends who are current officers so I tend to lean in favor of the police officers in general. In this case though, I feel they acted inappropriately. I also believe this may be the first time I didn't agree with your take on a story.

Keep up the good work. If my financial situation ever allows for it, I will be come a paid subscriber to your excellent newsletter.

Posted by Bernice, Columbia, SC on July 24, 2009:

I think that there is another obvious possibility as to what may have happened here. Someone may have slipped him a mickey. Three or four drinks are not enough to intoxicate him to that extent, but a little something extra from someone with mischief in mind would be. You see, I'm one of those ex-cops that never used to assume a person was drunk when they might have suddenly developed low blood sugar while driving, or some other medical condition. So, I always checked things out a bit more than others, even when some people laughed. I know, you are still going to defend your position on the other issues here, but let's at least be experienced enough to know that there's often more than meets the eye.

---

I agree with you in general, but in the specific case, not even Mr. Wilder is reported to have suspected being drugged by someone, so I have to consider that wild speculation. -rc

Posted by Allan, Sydney Australia on July 24, 2009:

With greatest respect (and perhaps this is a cultural difference from Australia) I disagree with Randy's position on showing the photos of the lawyer. While I agree that his actions should be shown in the public interest, these photos were not taken by the PUBLIC! they were taken by the police and whether they were taken as evidence or as part of their normal behaviour (which I do not object to) they were attending as Police!

The police are NOT public... they are servants to the community and should be bound by strict requirements as to probity and privacy!

Had these photos been taken by the neighbour ... I would have no objection... but from this crack in behaviour... what is to stop a policeman releasing a photo of me in a car accident with blood on my face, or my 16 year old daughter after a rape... or something equally distasteful! I realize I am using hyperbole to illustrate a point but the police should know and respect the bounds of their authority.

Posted by Jeffrey, NJ on July 24, 2009:

If a blood alcohol test and/or breathalyzer test wasn't given, then we only have the lawyer's word on how many drinks he had to consume. I know some people who have a VERY low tolerance for booze. When these people do drink, they have problems.

So, maybe this man did, indeed only have three or four drinks over the course of the evening.

Additionally, making such pictures public (especially as no criminal charges were filed) could in many jurisdictions be thought by the courts to be a violation of a person's civil rights.

Posted by Jon; Salt Lake City, UT on July 24, 2009:

As a 10-year veteran of an urban police department and a current attorney, I excoriate what has all the indicia of a puerile and gratuitous act by the police officer in publicizing the pictures of a repentant man who made a one-time mistake. Preserving a crime scene in photos for possible criminal charges is one thing, but taking pains to assure that the attorney is publicly humiliated is both unwarranted and stupid. If there is one thing that every cop learns, it is that what goes around, comes around. The officer had his fun, his bravado, his revenge, his whatever. But his pathetic lack of good judgment (to say nothing of kindness), his vindictiveness, and his penchant to play fast and loose with another's reputation will come home to roost, big time. Cops are forever in the spotlight and always kept to a much higher standard of conduct than the average Joe or Jane. Since he's publicly displayed an abysmal lack of empathy, he shouldn't expect any when it's his ox being gored. And it's just a matter of time. Keep your eye on the officer; his time in the limelight will come. Finally, the fact that he was paid with tax dollars hardly makes him a public figure of any kind. Yes, the taxpayers paid him, but the taxpayers likewise got the benefit of his education, skill and expertise. And any attorney today who agrees to work for $100 an hour is a genuine phenomenon.