Topic: Austin Teen Ridiculed For Doing Right Thing?
started by: Uncle Ben
Posted by Uncle Ben on May 04 2004,7:33 am
Austin teen walks into police station, says he's too drunk to walkPublishing date: 05-03-2004 2:24 PM
(Austin-AP) -- Proof that too much alcohol impairs your judgment.
A 16-year-old Austin boy has been cited for underage drinking after walking into the police station early yesterday and asking officers for a ride home.
The boy claimed he was too drunk to walk.
Officers say the boy's blood-alcohol level was 0.185 percent -- almost twice the legal limit for driving in Minnesota.
Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Huh?! What was possibly wrong with his judgement. He was sick...he knew it. Was he supposed to crawl across the street and get killed? What's the message here...a ticket is worth risking ones life over?
It's good judgment to risk your life to avoid the police? He did the right thing. He removed himself from harm..what we as a society wants him to do. And, he's ridiculed for it? Huh...what?
What's wrong with this area?
Posted by LisaMarie on May 04 2004,8:27 am
Maybe they point they're trying to get across is that a 16-year-old boy had no business drinking in the first place!!
Posted by Uncle Ben on May 04 2004,12:03 pm
If that's the point, it's even worse. What's wrong with people in this area? I think they were just trying to be funny, but it came out stupid.
Posted by LisaMarie on May 04 2004,12:25 pm
So if a 14-year-old stole a car, then turned it in to the police because he realized he can't drive, he shouldn't be punished for stealing the car in the first place because he did the right thing by not driving it? You've got some serious perception issues, my friend.
Posted by Uncle Ben on May 04 2004,8:11 pm
Yes, we do, and that statement proves it. That analogy wasn't even close and proves to me you don't even comprehend the story. Nevermind, I was hoping someine else would take interest in this thread.Whoosh! Completely over your head.
Posted by Clovis on May 04 2004,8:41 pm
While I applaud this 16-year-old for getting himself out of what could have been a bad situation, and tend to think that the US makes the underage drinking situation worse by having such a high drinking age (i.e., kids grow up being told "NO" to alcohol, and so what do they want to do? Right. Satisfy their curiosity about it, drink stupidly, and get in trouble... anyway.)... it's still a law on the books that you can't drink until you're 21. So if you show up at a police station - VISIBLY intoxicated and with documentation of being on the underage side of 21 - then, sorry, in the United States, you've violated the law. And that law, at least, won't change any time soon in a predominantly conservative/Protestant nation.
Posted by LisaMarie on May 05 2004,7:23 am
So give us a better analogy Uncle Ben. Enlighten us with your pearls of wisdom, won't you?
Posted by Liberal on May 05 2004,8:43 am
It must be the weather. The police and ambulance were dispatched early last night(about 8pm?) to College street for a juvenille female passed out in the road. They took her up to the hospital by ambulance and I think the ambulance driver said she blew a .20, I know the cop said she was cited for illegal consumption.She's lucky someone saw her and called the police otherwise she might have been hit by a car.
Posted by Uncle Ben on May 05 2004,11:48 am
In Europe kids are brought up with alcohol and so rarely drink to get sick drunk, like American kids do. American kids treat it like huffing paint or something because of the way it's advertised, then withheld from them. Oh well, we'll grow up one day and realize the error of our ways and you can be sure we'll be the last to do so.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on May 05 2004,2:07 pm
Actually, ever since the government has taken over raising our kids for us, things have been getting worse and worse.You can't spank little Johnny because it may affect his self-esteem, what a load of crap! Maybe if we as parents were allowed to instill OUR OWN values into our children this type of thing wouldn't be such a huge problem.
When I was a kid, I drank just because of the fact I was told no and not to do it and I usually did drink until I was completely annihilated.
Was it right to do, no.
Was it smart to do, no.
None of those facts kept me from doing it though.
It is almost as stupid as holding parents responsible for crimes their children commit, but not allowing the parents to ever discipline their child(ren) with anything but a polite verbal request to behave. Seriously, if cops were only allowed to ask you politely to not break the law starting today, not allowed to pull you over, arrest you or shoot at you; how much do you think the crime rate would jump nation wide overnight?
Our government has crept into the very fabric of our lives ever so slowly over the past few decades that it is only now that we can see what is happening. If the government wants to raise our children so damn bad, maybe all of us parents should sue the government for back-due child support. I hear that the going interest rate for back-due support is somewhere in the 20% range.
Posted by jimhanson on May 05 2004,2:22 pm
Great Post, Ole-Wan!
Posted by irisheyes on May 05 2004,4:15 pm
After testing at 0.185, that kid would be so gone he wouldn't even know what he was doing. Sure it was smart for him to have someone give him a ride home, but obviously having a cop do it would get him a ticket. He's lucky he didn't wind up in detox. Maybe he did the right thing once he realized how drunk he was, either way, he had to have been slamming shots like a frat-boy or doing a beer bong to get that wasted.If I knew the 16 year old, I would agree that it was better he got a ride instead of passing out in a park, or lay unconcious on a street. But what do you expect the police to do? If they give him a ride, and look the other way on the law broken, pretty soon every kid who gets hammered will go straight from the party to the police station. They would start to think, "well, if I take the chance of getting caught on the way home, I might get a ticket, but if I walk right into the police station and confess, they might look the other way and give me a ride home".
Posted by Clovis on May 05 2004,5:10 pm
| Quote |
| Seriously, if cops were only allowed to ask you politely to not break the law starting today, not allowed to pull you over, arrest you or shoot at you; how much do you think the crime rate would jump nation wide overnight? |
It's like the line from Robin Williams's routine (paraphrased) about the cops in England (who didn't have - and still don't have, IIRC - firearms as standard issue weapons): "How do they keep order? They say "Stop!" And what happens if the criminal keeps going? They say "Stop! Or I'll say STOP again!"
Posted by irisheyes on May 05 2004,5:58 pm
| Quote (Clovis @ May 05 2004,5:10:pm) |
| about the cops in England (who didn't have - and still don't have, IIRC - firearms as standard issue weapons): "How do they keep order? |
I haven't heard of that happening in England, what does IIRC mean? I do however remember being in London and seeing a squad of about 5 cops doing a routine security check. I have a feeling I know how they would keep order, they were each carrying sub-machine guns in open view, hanging from shoulder straps.
Posted by Clovis on May 05 2004,8:39 pm
Sorry - IIRC is "If I Recall Correctly" (which I obviously didn't!). The Robin Williams routine is from his "Live at the Met" album recorded in the late 70s/early 80s, and it's well possible that English cops do now carry guns. I was just speaking on the situation as I last knew it/heard about it... I don't stay as up to date on British gun laws as I do on other world events /legistlation 
Posted by Uncle Ben on May 05 2004,11:26 pm
The message is, if you find yourself more intoxicated than you'd anticipated and are underage, you're on your own. Don't ask the police for help, they'll just ticket you and we'll ridicule you. Instead, put yourself and others in danger by wandering out in the road. Of course he did the right thing. Remember the 26 year old who slammed into a tree last winter, rather than getting arrested of OWI. If baby boomers grew up into todays world, they'd have 5 OWI's before college and everyone who tried pot would have been tagged drug dealers and users for life. Many people never would have gone on to good jobs and rich lives.
The Republicans do to our own people, what they are doing to the Iraq prisoners. Only they are directing their hate over there for the time being. When that war is over, they'll be back fighting another war against their fellow citizens.
Posted by Spidey on May 06 2004,12:58 am
What should have happened to this boy ... did happen. He went out and got *hit faced and then asked the police for a ride home. He's 16 years old ... what did he think was going to happen? A pat on the back and get tucked into bed? There are other consolation prizes for him ... he can feel good about not getting behind the wheel after illegally drinking and/or he can perhaps learn from this experience and not drink again until he is of legal age and can abide by the laws.
I don't understand why people want to coddle him because he "confessed" and asked a cop for a ride home. Yes he should get a pat on the back for not driving ... but excuse me, these kids have to learn that the laws are here for a reason. I'm sure when he does go to court the Judge will take into consideration that he didn't get behind the wheel.
This is so typical of today’s world ... so many people wanting to coddle the children, give them everything, no structure, no rules, no discipline, nothing. And then we let them out into the world when they are adults and they haven't got a clue. We aren't doing these kids any favors. We will all pay for it in the long run.
Just as the crime needs to fit the punishment ... the praise needs to fit the good deed. His good deed? ... not driving while drunk. A pat on the back from his family will suffice.
Posted by Uncle Ben on May 06 2004,4:33 am
The kids not asking for special treatment. He did the right thing, they can charge him if they want. "but excuse me, these kids have to learn that the laws are here for a reason." ---- And many times the reason can't be rationally defined and is just plain stupid, as in this case. Our society causes this by its treatment of alcohol. Because it's illegal, you want him fined. To pay the court money because he violated a law. A law that isn't on the books everywhere. You just want to see him ridiculed and scolded and it be damned if gets injured crawling across the road!
Well, Piss off why don't ya!
Posted by Spidey on May 06 2004,7:24 am
| Quote |
| You just want to see him ridiculed and scolded and it be damned if gets injured crawling across the road! |
Who is ridiculing him? I think you are making up stuff as you go along to make your view on the situation stronger.
And yes, there are laws about 16 year olds drinking, not to mention getting as drunk as he did.
| Quote |
| Well, Piss off why don't ya! |
Why ... because I want our kids to grow up to be healthy, normal, productive adults with enough common sense to relise if you screw up in life there WILL be consequences?
Posted by Slick on May 06 2004,8:19 am
Uncle Ben,if you feel so strongly about the laws in our country why don't you move? move to the middle east and see how you're treated.
Posted by Uncle Ben on May 06 2004,8:57 am
Treated how? Oh! You must mean like forced to get naked and simulate homosexual acts while female GI's point and laugh. 
Posted by Slick on May 07 2004,6:02 am
hey whatever turns your crank man! female gi's laughing at you when you are naked sounds like a personal problem to me.
Posted by Mamma on May 07 2004,7:18 am
Well Uncle Minnie Mite....How about them burning our people and then dragging the charred bodies through the streets and hanging them from a bridge. And then, having a big celebration around the hanging bodies....Too bad they got caught and are in prison. They are there for a reason. Tough luck they are embarrassed. Breaks my heart. 
Posted by Uncle Ben on May 07 2004,7:42 am
Who is them? Oh I see...the dark people, the brownies. THEY are all the SAME. How about Tom McVeigh...WE all deserve the death penalty over that right, afterall, we're ALL terrorists right? 
Mamma, listen to yourself. Their IS a reason, the reason being is that they're Iraqies. Most of these men were just detained and are on the streets now. Why the hate Mamma. We attacked them. It wasn't the over way around. They didn't do 9/11. It's like I catch you beating someone over the head with a baseball bat because they stole your purse. Only, when told your purse has been found where you last left it, you continue to beat the perp like a maniac.
Posted by Mamma on May 07 2004,8:58 am
Why don't you ask your dad what war is all about? Do you suppose for one minute that had he been captured he would have been housed in an air conditioned, clean building? These people that are accused of humiliating the prisoners are not professional soldiers. Most of them are not trained sufficiently to cope with a situation like this. Of course, what they did was not right. But, on the other hand, it's been blown way out of proportion. We didn't attack them. We freed them from a ruthless man who humiliated, mutilated, and gassed his own people. We aren't there to attack them now. Helping them get their country back into a decent state is not an attack. They have even airconditioned the schools for their children. Can you remember when they used their woman and children as human shields? Then, when they were wounded, that's all we got to see on t.v....the poor wounded woman and children. I likened it to Viet Nam when they used children to carry bombs and to kill soldiers, then showed the poor dead children. It's called war for a reason.
Posted by Tiger on May 07 2004,9:02 am
Uncle Minnie Mite, it is Timothy Mcveigh. Mamma, I don't condone anything our troops did to those prisoners. What they did to our men, dragging their charred bodies through the streets is a tragedy. I've always been taught two wrongs don't make a right. And I find what our men and women have done is repulsive. I am embarrassed for the rest of the men and women who are there fighting with honor and dignity.
Posted by Frustrated on May 07 2004,11:15 am
I agree with Tiger
Posted by jimhanson on May 07 2004,11:44 am
I agree with Mamma. This shouldn't happen, but it HAS been blown out of proportion. We take ill-trained reservists, throw them into a war, SIX bozo's decide to humiliate the prisoners--and suddenly, it's an international incident--overshadowing all the good we've done for the people there.If the situation were reversed--Iraqis captured and photographed a dozen of our men nude--do you suppose the world press (including our own sensationalized press) would make this big an issue of it? No--because they've seen much worse. Pictures of our own men (and at least one woman) captured by the Iraqis, tortured, and killed. How quickly THAT was over!
"Humiliating" prisoners is NOTHING compared to kidnapping of civilians (from MANY countries, not just the US), planting bombs on the side of the road, sniping, bombing of police stations, blowing up infrastructures created for the benefit of the Iraqi people. It is NOTHING compared to the atrocities committed by the Japanese during WW II--the Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking, the wholesale executions throughout the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". It is NOTHING compared to the people killed, the charred bodies displayed on a bridge and further desecrated. It is NOTHING compared to the 300 American Servicement (and who knows how many Iraqis) killed since the end of armed conflict--people killed in out and out murder. It is NOTHING compared to the 800,000 dead Rwandans, the 3,000,000 victims of Pol Pot, or the untold millions of Russians killed in WW II. Finally, it is NOTHING comparing these LIVE, NAKED BODIES TO THE DEAD, NAKED, EMACIATED BODIES OF THE NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS.
Stalin had the best quote on the subject--"One death is a tragedy, One MILLION deaths is a statistic".
Was it wrong? Yes--but save the moral outrage for something substantial. If every incident perpetuated by a few becomes a world-wide cause celebre, we will have lost our capacity to express outrage--it will be meaningless.
Posted by Uncle Ben on May 07 2004,4:21 pm
It shows us what Rumsfeld really thinks of us though. Somehow I get the feeling that guys like Truth, Rumsfeld, Bush and the other right wingnuts would be doing the same thing to us as they did to the Iraqi prisoners, save for this war on "terror"....d Whatever that means. 
Is Don Rumsfeld insane? He reminds me of that guy on Laugh-In, or was it Hogan's Hero's. Was he a Nazi general in a previous life?
Posted by i_am_back on May 12 2004,6:46 pm
Right on, Tiger. We attacked Iraq. We attacked the country based on teh bold-faced lie spewed forth by George W. Bush. He said the Iraq had aided the same Al Qaeda cells who attacked our country on 9/11/01. While that has now been proven to be a lie, we are still in the process of liberating a country. Funny, I don't recall the people of Iraq flooding across the borders to escape the oppression from their ruthless ruler. There have been ruthless rulers throughout history and we have let them stay in power. In today's world, Hussein would have not been allowed to invade another country as another ruthless dictator named Hitler did. The U.S. would have intervened had his army crossed a border. THe point is that Hussein took no aggressive actions. Now, by no means was he an innocent man - he did, after all, attacke his own citizens in northern Iraq with mustard gas. I am not defending any actions by Hussein but instead I am criticizing the actions of Bush. He took an aggressive stance against a country which may very well be home to terrorists but with no real proof. If there is proof, then take action. If you take action without proof, be willing to accept the criticism and have the humility to admit that you are wrong. My suggestion for Bush to save any shred of dignity that might remain is to tidy things up and get the hell out of Iraq. Focus, instead, on where Bin Laden is from... Saudi Arabia... of course that might interrupt his precious ties to the Saudi royal family.What a dilemma. Accept the truth and investigate Bin Laden's homeland (and continue to comb his allegged hideouts in Afghanistan) or continue a war where our National Guardsmen and women continue to die.