Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Richard, Houston on May 14, 2007:

Uh Patrick, Richard here. What the police officers did by releasing this person's photo is not standard protocol. The department that I worked for would have taken action against the officers that posted this photo.

However, I do take exception to some of the remarks you make about law enforcement officers. Like any profession there are always going to be some questionable ones in the bunch. But would you rather return back to the days of the "ole" west? Most police officers, (myself included) take their jobs very seriously and deal with every kind of person and personality that you can imagine and yes would lay down their life for them.

I was a Narc. All I saw were the people that polluted our streets and cities with drugs, most used alcohol to the extreme as well. This Fireman's days of serving the public should be up! If he served in my town I would make it my business to be such a fly in the oniment to the fire department that they would have to get rid of him. Then I would go after his license through the state. He has no business serving the public. It is time that we stand for something again.

Now back to you Patrick, I am so sick and tired of people that think the government, police, armed services, and the like are all out to get them. If you really think so little of our justice system, government, and armed services then why don't you move to some place like, oh maybe China or North Korea? Then maybe you will get to experience some of the percieved oppression that you hinted at.

---

I didn't remember anyone bashing the cops, so I went and read Patrick's post. He did not say anything about the cops (or anyone else) being out to get him, or anyone else. He did say, "There should be zero tolerance for drinking and driving, but there should also be zero tolerance for law officers misusing their power" by releasing the photos -- which YOU agree is wrong. The only paranoia displayed here is (you guessed it) yours.

You go on to say you'd go outside the legal system to harass bikini boy. That's called misuse of power -- you're not part of the solution here, Richard, you're part of the problem. -rc

Posted by Richard, Houston on May 14, 2007:

Sorry Randy, I misread Patrick's comments. However, I do stick to my guns when I say that I would do what is my God given right in this country and that is to remove someone from an area of responsibility that is sacred. Protecting people and risking your own life to do it is a calling. It takes a special kind of person to do this. Much like a nurse, doctor, teacher, and any other profession which you give more of yourself than you ever expect to get back in return. I don't think this gentleman has that on his mind when he downed nearly a 12 pack, waxed himself, or whatever and began driving about like a child. Narrow minded, maybe, going out of the system to seek justice I don't think so (clearly this person does not desire to wear the badge).

We as a country should hold people who choose these professions to higher standard, let's face it you just might owe your life to them one day. Nuff said.

---

I appreciate your checking back to admit you misread Patrick's post. AND I appreciate that you took my slam in stride.

I agree people in public service need to be held to a high standard -- it's what I did to you. I think it's up to his chief to decide what to do here, not you. That said, I also agree that you have a right, perhaps even a responsibility, to convey your professional opinion to the chief if you've seen outrageous behavior. -rc

Posted by Dave, Colorado on May 16, 2007:

Back in 1991, my car was totaled by a drunken old skank. (I was unscathed. GOOD Toyota, have a biscuit!) She abruptly turned across the double yellow line trying to beat oncoming traffic, even though there was no traffic behind me for half a mile. No turn signal, naturally. As she got out of her car she said to me in great wonderment,

"Didn't you SEE me turning?!"

When we walked into the nearby tire store, where she was going to pick up her son, he hollered, "Maw did it again!" Then I learned:

It was her fourth such "accident" in a year.

Her license was suspended, of course.

The car was not hers, but belonged to her truck-driving boyfriend who left the keys at home.

Its insurance policy explicitly denied coverage if she was driving.

The DA requested a victim's statement from me for her sentencing hearing. Under "what sentence do you feel the judge should impose, and why?" I wrote,

"Put her on her knees and shoot her in the head, or she will do it again until she kills someone."

She got six months in jail. I've no idea how much time she actually served.

What to do with repeat drunk drivers, or those whose first offense causes serious injuries?

1. Confiscate their cars until their sentence and/or probation are served.

2. Create a nationwide online database of Vehicle Identification Numbers belonging to cars that have been involved in DUI convictions, and forbid licensed mechanics to repair them. I sure won't lend MY car to a drunk who may render it unserviceable!

But instead, our dully (sic) elected representatives just keep lowering the arbitrary blood-alcohol limit, criminalizing more people who do not necessarily harm others. They "step up enforcement efforts", wasting cops' time most of the time and interfering with the free traveling of law-abiding citizens.

But that buys the votes of MADDs.

Posted by Roger, Texas on May 16, 2007:

I was looking at the photo, and you are all correct, he does look pretty comical, but if I were on his jury I would not consider it indecent, and I would have a hard time believing he could look so clear eyed and poised with .172 BAC. Most people are throwing up and very drunk at that point. I would be wondering about how accurate the report is.

---

Not me: I'd be wondering how long he took to get "used to" being that drunk all the time. -rc

Posted by Bird, San Jose, CA on May 17, 2007:

So far I haven’t been able to find the original article to see what it actually said about the indecency charges. His attire doesn’t qualify as “indecent” by any law that I know of, just in poor taste. If he was truly running around without the bikini before he got caught, it might be hard to prove, but it explains the charges.

After reading Barbara in Utah’s statement, I went back and looked at the photos. While it is difficult to tell with the resolution of the pictures, I think she’s right. I don’t see any body hair on the man anywhere. I was wondering why he was drunk *before* going to the bar, but waxing his entire body may have required him to numb things a bit. If that’s the case, it probably took him a lot longer to un-fur himself than he had anticipated. It still doesn’t explain why he was at the park. Does he do all his body waxing there? Was he hiding the fact that he was going to a gay bar from his family?

I haven’t had alcohol in over 14 years and I don’t intend to ever again. I have no tolerance for it and I know it. Even when I did drink, I was never so stupid as to try to drive anywhere. I agree that drunk driving is similar to firing a gun into a crowd. He might hit someone. He might not. Why wait until he does? Throw the book at him!

Posted by Mike from Dallas on May 17, 2007:

Dave, you're right. I've seen a number of civil court cases in which a defendant had something patently wrong and using the [losing] defense, "Weren't you supposed to looking out for me?"

I'm not so sure that "dully elected representatives" was a typo. And thank you, I can knock back 25 shots in 3-4 hours and look clear-eyed, but still not be fit to back out of a parking space, let alone drive on the street. The cloudy-eyed ones are those who perpetually live in a drunken stupor everyday.

Posted by Lisa from Trenton on May 18, 2007:

I feel we are too lax on our drunk drivers. We would have less of them on the streets if the vehicle they are driving were to be seized (unless it's reported as stolen, in which case they face GTA charges) and the proceeds used to combat alcoholism. If the government can do that with regards to drugs at the border I don't see why it can't be done when people put other people's lives in danger.

We cannot do enough to stop impaired (of any sort) driving, but it's treated too much like a right to drive. First offense? Many places will arrange to get you off with no loss of license. Driving is not a right and should not be treated like such.

Posted by Kat, at a midwestern law school on May 18, 2007:

In your followup you asked -- largely rhetorically, I'm sure -- "WHY are there people with dozens of DUI convictions still out there driving?"

I don't know, but I can tell you part of the problem is attitude. People just don't get it. I'm a law student, a lot older than most of my classmates, and I recently took my Professional Responsibility course. There was some class discussion about how many DUIs would or should keep one from getting bar admission, or get a licensed lawyer disciplined. The general feeling was that one, maybe even two, shouldn't be that big a deal, because hey, that could happen to anyone. I think there was even a remark or two along the lines of "hey, the only reason I don't have one already is that I've been lucky enough not to get caught."

I was astounded. I had previously been dismayed by how much of law school social life revolves around drinking, but now I felt like I was on an alien planet. See, I quit drinking over a decade ago, when I realized I always drank more than I started out to. But even when I did drink, I never started drinking at all if I might be driving. So I don't have so much experience and maybe I am the one who doesn't get it. Maybe I'm the alien one. But if that's what the typical 23 year old thinks, this problem isn't going to get any better.

Having said that, I'm not advocating that a single DUI should result in automatic disbarment (or permanent loss of license). People do make mistakes, and sometimes they realize it and they don't do it again.

My problem here is the attitude that it's no big deal, when in my view it's a serious mistake that should result in the person thinking really hard about how they let it happen and what they need to do to make it not happen again. Anyone who gets a DUI and thinks it's no big deal sure needs some kind of wake-up call, whether it's jail or fines or treatment or attorney discipline or having dorky photos posted on the Internet.

---

No, you get it -- probably because you are older. It's the kids who don't get it, but they will if they don't shape up. -rc

Posted by Richard Calgary, Alberta, Canada on May 19, 2007:

What's really bizarre here is how the notion that driving is some sort of divinely-ordained "right" has gotten enshrined in the popular mind. Driving is a PRIVILEGE, earned through demonstrated mechanical proficiency and understanding of the laws and rules of the road. And maintained by an ongoing record of respecting those rules and the persons and property of other drivers and pedestrians. As tarnish accumulates on my youth, I've more and more become a fan of the tenet "abuse it, and LOSE it." And believe me, here in Canada you'd swear we were the mother lode of Morons Behind The Wheel.

Referring to Kat's posting, I wonder what the smartass 23-year-old who figured he'd not gotten a DUI because he was "lucky" enough to not be caught would think if HE was hit by a drunk driver, and his attending physician at the Emergency ward or EMT ambulance staff arrived, reeking of alcohol because they figured "it wasn't their night to get caught..." If a dimwit inbred 23-year-old gets to do it, ad hoc, then why not attending physicians? Why not your airline pilot...and where does the list end, and who referees it?

I'm taking an ad hoc survey to determine if there is really an upper limit to the amount of STUPID it is possible to cram between two ears on the same human head. Kat's own observation supports my own - that, alas, there does not seem to be such an upper limit. In the words of C3-PO, "we're doomed!"

Posted by Mike from Dallas on May 19, 2007:

"WHY are there people driving with dozens of DUI convictions?" I'm all for giving a second chance. The expression is that "good judgement comes from experience, and a lot of experience comes from bad judgement." But just HOW far do you extend 'second chances'?

Well, look at the way we raise our kids: "I'm telling you for the ABSOLUTELY LAST & FINAL time..." What, was that after saying it at least a dozen times before? As someone previously said, it's Attitude, and we ingrain it in our children.

---

And it's time to put a stop to it. -rc