This story wasn't immediately of special interest to me, other than my obvious concern about drunk drivers on the same roads I travel. Where it got interesting was in the discussion following the article, where respondants seemed split between certainty that McLaughlin would get a special treatment/a slap on the wrist and confusion over what he really did wrong.
These comments are representative of the latter point of view:
- He was drunk, so what, he didnt kill a puppy, DUI's are a revenue stream plain and simple.
- Looked like he had a good time. I agree, how can something be a crime without a victim?
Checkpoints amount to an illegal search.
- Drunk driving is not a crime. In order to have a crime, you have to have a victim. Who is the victim in this case? I thought so. Oh, so you want to start criminalizing POTENTIAL crimes? God help us all.
- Anyone who drinks has probably driven home when they shouldn't have, so I would not claim otherwise. I don't know this guy or his drinking habits and I don't think most of these people do either. Could it be he was out with friends and went over his limit by one or two?
- Could've happened to anyone after a glass or two of wine in this spread-out town . . .
Every now and then I'm confronted with evidence that others see the world very differently than I do . . .