I hope this guy and the women that he hired rot in hell. The cops that are supporting this kind of entrapment are scum too IMO.

http://sanramon.patch.com/a...n-in-clayton-concord

quote Report: 'Dirty DUI' Sting Nabbed Men in Clayton, Concord The San Francisco Chronicle identifies Clayton, Concord men arrested for DUI charges after a private investigator hired women who wooed them over drinks and then called the cops when they left. A Danville wine bar was also used for the alleged DUI stings. By Patrick Creaven | Email the author | March 14, 2011 Two residents of Clayton and Concord told a San Francisco newspaper they believe they were targeted by the so-called "dirty DUI" operation, where a Concord-based private investigator hired attractive women to help tarnish the reputations of men going through divorce proceedings. In an article in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, the paper showed how the Concord private investigator, 49-year-old Christopher Butler, hired attractive women to drink and flirt with the targeted men and then invite them to drive somewhere. The paper gave examples of the operation taking place at bars in Concord and Clayton. After the men got into their cars, both were pulled over and arrested on DUI charges. The DUI was then used by San Ramon family law attorney Mary Nolan against the men in divorce proceedings. Nolan did not immediately return a call for comment. The Chronicle says the cases can be traced back to Butler, who was arrested last month along with a state narcotics agent, Norman Wielsch. Both have been charged with stealing and selling drugs. Stephen Tanabe, 47, of Alamo, a Contra Costa County Sheriff's deputy who worked as a Danville Police officer, was accused in an affidavit of participating in a DUI sting at Danville's Vine wine bar. He has not been arrested or charged in that incident. Tanabe, arrested on suspicion of possessing drugs and an illegal assault rifle in connection with the drug task force case, resigned from the sheriff's department last week. A former officer with Concord Police Department, Don Lawson, was named by the Chronicle as one of the officers who arrested one of the men on DUI charges. He currently runs an identity-theft consulting firm in Clayton and hasn't been arrested. One of the targeted men told The Chronicle how the arrest affected his life. "It devastated me," David Dutcher, a Lockheed Martin engineer, said of his DUI conviction. "I went from father of three, past Cub Scout master, stable provider and homeowner to criminal and deadbeat dad in 16 months." Dutcher, who was arrested after drinking with a hired woman at E.J. Phair's in Concord, said a judge reduced the time he could spend with his children. Declan Woods was arrested on suspicion of a DUI in Clayton after drinking with women at Ed's Mudville Grill and Clayton Club Saloon, according to the Chronicle. Woods suspected right away that he had been tricked. "I've been set up," Woods told the arresting officer. Clayton Club Saloon owner Steve Barton told Patch he found the 'dirty DUI' scheme "reprehensible." "We spend 365 days a year trying to keep everyone sensible," Barton said. "So for people to come in here and to actually solicit trouble is terrible. We don't condone that behavior and we don't want them back in here." Clayton Police Chief Dan Lawrence emphasized his department has nothing to do with Butler and that his officers were just doing their jobs. "The fact is the guy drove drunk and somebody called us," Lawrence said. "It isn't unusual to get a phone tip for drunk driver, it happens all the time, and we just went out there and investigated the crime." After the arrest, Nolan filed a document to the court saying there are "concerns regarding (Declan Woods') ability to fulfill his parental responsibilities" and cited his drunken-driving arrest, The Chronicle said. Woods' ex-wife, Louise, said she wasn't aware of the operation against her ex-husband. "If that's really what happened, I would be pissed off," Louise Woods told the Chronicle. "I wouldn't have been on board for that. I have no knowledge of it."

Saying that there are extenuating circumstances that would get a drunk driver out of a DUI conviction is, IMHO, the same as saying that there extenuating circumstances that would get a child molester off a pedophile conviction. Like greasemonkey's thing, that don't fly with me. Regardless of circumstances, a decision to drive drunk is still stupid because that decision transfers risks to everyone else who has to share the road.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Saying that there are extenuating circumstances that would get a drunk driver out of a DUI conviction is, IMHO, the same as saying that there extenuating circumstances that would get a child molester off a pedophile conviction. Like greasemonkey's thing, that don't fly with me. Regardless of circumstances, a decision to drive drunk is still stupid because that decision transfers risks to everyone else who has to share the road.

So you support the actions of the private I, hired women and police in this story. There is nothing wrong with what they did at all? There was no coercion used?

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 04-05-2011).]

From reading that article, it would appear to fit the legal definition of entrapment.
It's going to be an interesting court case, since they'll say they encouraged the men to drink, but didn't encourage them to drive.

If those men had not been stopped, and run over and killed someone, should the private eye and the women be held liable?

yikes! makes you appreciate the honesty of a strip club, eh?

entrapment? well - it is being done completely by private individuals, not law enforcement officers. and, the victims are 100% in cooperation with the secnarios. this is just one step sideways from doing the exact same thing to get pictures of men behaving in a "less than married" way.

this works on the basic principal described best by Chris Rock: a man is as faithful as his options

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: So you support the actions of the private I, hired women and police in this story. There is nothing wrong with what they did at all? There was no coercion used?

Of course I don't, as explained below. If you carefully reread my post you'll see that I only addressed the drinker's decision to drive drunk. Nowhere in my post did I comment on or even mention the actions of the other parties involved, and certainly you'll note that I didn't condone anyone's actions, not the attorneys, not the prosecutors, not the drunk driver's. How you got that I "support the actions" of the PI, woman, or police in this story I have no idea.

Here's a complete statement of my thoughts on the entire story: I do not condone the actions of the attorney, PI or hired woman in this case. What they did was unethical and dishonorable, though without knowing specific laws in that state I cannot say if it was technically illegal. I suspect that the PI may have violated ethical rules of his profession and if so would hope he loses his license. If the woman was of legal drinking age it's not illegal to share drinks with someone. Not saying what she did was right so don't misinterpret what I write on this, but I'm not sure she could be convicted of any crime. The attorney may have violated ethics rules of his profession but again, without knowing the laws I can't judge the legality of his actions. If it were the police setting up the chain of events then an entrapment defense such as used by DeLorean would probably be effective, but it wasn't and the drinker's voluntary decision to drive drunk overrides all the other issues.

What do I hope the outcome is for the various actors in this? Drunk driver? No different. Here in Texas we say "Drink, drive, go to jail". For the attorney(s)? Disbarment, or at least severe sanctions by his bar association including penalties. PI? Lose his (her?) license permanently. Woman bait? Dunno there, she didn't break the law and wasn't part of any civil body that could sanction or de-license her. Bar owner? Same issues.Bar tender? In Texas it's a criminal violation to serve alcohol to people that you have any reason to suspect are intoxicated, and bartenders can, and are, routinely prosecuted on this basis. It may be possible to revoke his alcohol license but that would be a stretch IMHO.

As to the police, in this case they were doing their job. I have my reasons for disliking the police but in this case I can't fault them.

------------------
Bring back civility and decorum!

It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?

I think if the police are in on the scheme ahead of time it can blow the case out of court. I seem to vaguely remember it being discussed somewhere that the police cannot allow citizens to do the entrapment for them.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: I think if the police are in on the scheme ahead of time it can blow the case out of court. I seem to vaguely remember it being discussed somewhere that the police cannot allow citizens to do the entrapment for them.

that may be - but it is the mans WIFE who put this all in motion to get a nice divorce settlement.

the police did nothing but respond to a complaint. at least how the story is presented.

I agree. Was just thinking out loud on the entrapment angle.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: that may be - but it is the mans WIFE who put this all in motion to get a nice divorce settlement. the police did nothing but respond to a complaint. at least how the story is presented.

At least one of the ex-wives claimed no knowledge beforehand. No mention was made in the article if that wife offered to give back any money or visitation rights.

If the hired women aren't guilty of any crime, then the PI should walk too. But exactly how all this came out is interesting. Allow me to conjecture, Your Honor:

The PI is clearly a dirtbag. He was arrested for stealing and selling drugs along with his State Narc buddy. In an effort to weasel out of this as far as possible, he rats out another dirty op he's been running, the DUI Sting. A local cop is implicated, but he's not going to be arrested for "just doing his job." Meaning, there's no visible money trail from the PI to the cop. Here's where the dots connect:

From the article:

"The DUI was then used by San Ramon family law attorney Mary Nolan against the men in divorce proceedings."

The attorney for the wives set this up. She hired the PI. Nobody is saying so, but I bet there's a "Buisness Relationship" between them. What, the PI does this for fun? He was without a doubt hired to "Get the dirt" on these guys. And the more dirt, the more he's paid. I'll also bet these are not trailer park divorces, but that there's money at stake here.

You may think the PI should lose his license. (Yes, but he's going to jail for the drug stuff, so that's moot) You may think the hired tramps are just that. (Yes) But the lawyer who undoubtably set all this in motion is the one who will walk.

You guys really have to read everything carefully, and see what's going on. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's just because I'm from New Jersey.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: At least one of the ex-wives claimed no knowledge beforehand. No mention was made in the article if that wife offered to give back any money or visitation rights.

yes - after re-reading - it doesnt clearly say WHO was the "master mind" of the scheme. there is the PI & the divorce attorney. tho, they are heavily implying the PI - BUT - someone hired him to do the deed.

From my reading of the article I got that the PI was hired by the attorney to do the scheme.

Time for the Designated Drunk!

A cop was staking out a particularly rowdy bar for possible DUI violations. At closing time, he saw a fellow stumble out of the bar, trip on the curb and try his keys on five different cars before he found his. The man sat in the front seat fumbling around with his keys for several minutes.
Meanwhile, all the other patrons left the bar and drove off. Finally he started his engine and began to pull away. The cop was waiting for him. As soon as he pulled onto the street, the cop stopped him, read him his rights and administered the breathalyzer test to determine his blood-alcohol content.

The results showed a reading of 0.0.
The puzzled cop demanded to know how that could be. The driver replied, "Tonight I'm the designated drunk."

Its not really entrapment. It wasn't done by an authority figure, They drank of there own free will and were not forced to. than were stupid enough to attempt to drive somewhere after it.

[This message has been edited by pontiackid86 (edited 04-05-2011).]

I believe it is entrapment if the po-po has prior knowledge of the scheme, which is what was hypothesized by zeb, which I can see has some merit.
I've also heard its not allowed for cops to hang around waiting outside bars to catch DUI's but seen them there doing it.
What bothers me though, is shouldn't a cop stop you before you break the law?

I think all the parties should be strung up, sounds like they were ALL guilty of something..

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: What bothers me though, is shouldn't a cop stop you before you break the law?

Should they, if they were decent humans ??...YES

they are not decent humans.

Their job is to ENFORCE the law (hence the name "law enforcement"), not play good Samaritan, and also to ensure that enough revenue is collected to keep their own paychecks fat and their employer rolling in the dough.

The slogan is "To Serve and Protect"......nobody ever thought to ask what they were serving or protecting.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: I believe it is entrapment if the po-po has prior knowledge of the scheme, which is what was hypothesized by zeb, which I can see has some merit. I've also heard its not allowed for cops to hang around waiting outside bars to catch DUI's but seen them there doing it. What bothers me though, is shouldn't a cop stop you before you break the law?

It's only entrapment if the cops set up the scheme with the express purpose of entrapping you. Some one else can set up any trap they like, and just tip off the cops when they have sprung it. If a cop just "knows about it", and doesn't stop you from breaking the law, that's not technically entrapment. A law enforcent officer will tell you, it's really hard to arrest somebody for what they might be about to do. Well, it's easy to arrest them, getting charges to stick is pretty tough. And cops hate it when you walk.

As far as not being allowed to hang around waiting for you to leave, I think that's technically legal. But generally frowned upon, even among cops. They could put a place out of business quickly if they wanted to. At least, thay're going to get lousy service at that bar if they ever go there. So is the Chief. And the Mayor. So it is a practical impossibility to station a cop outside every bar and test all drivers leaving.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: From my reading of the article I got that the PI was hired by the attorney to do the scheme.

That, obviously, is my guess also. And the wives claim no knowledge of this scheme.

Does the phrase "Plausible Deniability" ring a bell to anyone? Probably not our younger members.

This has been on the news for nearly a month and covered here;

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F.../HTML/049707-12.html

quote Originally posted by madcurl: Okay, here we go again. Don't ya just love it when they are being paid on "administration leave." Oh yeah, how many are allegedly involved 1-2-3-4? Those are the ones that were caught. CNET is still on going. Third arrest in Contra Costa Co. narc team scandal CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Calif. (KGO) -- New allegations are surfacing after the arrest of yet another officer linked to the Contra Costa County narcotics team scandal. The investigation now claims that female decoys were used to trap men, a private investigator plotted it all, and a police officer was on the take. 47-year-old Stephen Tanabe of Alamo was contracted by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department to work patrol in Danville. He is now in a Martinez jail on $260,000 bail. A popular Danville wine bar was one of the locations where decoys, usually attractive women, plied unsuspecting men with liquor. Almost as soon as they left the parking lot, they were reportedly stopped and arrested for driving drunk by Contra Costa Sheriff's Deputy Stephen Tanabe. It was part of a scheme to tarnish of the images of the men who were going through messy divorce proceedings. Anonymous law enforcement sources told the San Francisco Chronicle that Tanabe was hired by private investigator Christopher Butler to make the DUI arrests. Butler was hired by the ex-wives. It is all tied to the same Contra Costa Narcotics Enforcement Team (CNET) scandal that landed Butler and the former commander of the team, Norman Wielsch, in jail. "The silver lining is that it has a huge deterrent value and that cops are just not going to do this if they think they can be arrested and thrown in jail," says UC Hastings criminal law professor Rory Little. "It's no fun by the way to be a cop in jail." Tanabe, Butler and Wielsch all worked as Antioch police officers in the late 90s. Tanabe was arrested Friday. He faces charges of weapons possession and conspiracy to possess and sell drugs. Butler and Wielsch pleaded not guilty in the CNET case in which they are accused of stealing drugs from evidence and selling them. "Whatever the far-reaching effects of the private investigation company had, my client's not involved with all of that. There are certain things he was involved with, but not everything," says defense attorney Michael Cardoza who represents Wielsch. Private investigator Mike Spencer occasionally referred cases to Butler because of his ability to work with video technology. The allegations shocked Spencer. He says the use of decoys in the P.I. industry is frowned upon. "It's rare in the business because it's that whole thing, if it makes you feel weird in your gut, or if it would wind up in court, it's sort of a questionable method," he says. Little says if the allegations against Tanabe and Butler prove true, the DUI cases against the men involved could be dismissed. "You've got a bribery. You've got a conspiracy. You've got a fraud. It sounds fraudulent to me that they set up these decoys," he says. Tanabe has been put on paid leave and a Contra Costa County's sheriff called Tanabe's arrest a "sad day" for the department. There are, reportedly, as many as four other officers from various Bay Area police agencies who are now being investigated for their ties to Butler. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/.../east_bay&id=7998237

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Saying that there are extenuating circumstances that would get a drunk driver out of a DUI conviction is, IMHO, the same as saying that there extenuating circumstances that would get a child molester off a pedophile conviction. Like greasemonkey's thing, that don't fly with me. Regardless of circumstances, a decision to drive drunk is still stupid because that decision transfers risks to everyone else who has to share the road.

Nice trollbait, Jazzman. I'll bite. You're acting like driving drunk is the worst decision in the world. Yet every day thousands or maybe even millions of people across the U.S. drive home drunk and don't have any problems. I'll be devil's advocate and say that driving drunk isn't any worse than driving tired. I know its a very bad idea to drive if you can't stand or even talk straight, but most people don't get that drunk and attempt to drive. The way the laws are set up, you can have 1-3 beers and still get a DUI even if you're not impaired at all. For many people, the impairment from 1-3 beers is as much or less than if you were to attempt to drive on only 4 hours sleep, or after working a couple 8 hour shifts. Driving while tired is just as dangerous but its condoned by society because apparently its "constructive" while driving drunk is "destructive" behavior. Gotta be at work at 9, but you only got 4 hours sleep last night? You're perfectly fine to drive, even though your reaction time, decision-making skills, etc are all impaired. Went out and had a couple beers with dinner, and now you have to drive home? You're a criminal! DUI's and MADD and all that shiat is just a massive witch-hunt, 100x worse than the Salem trials 400 years ago. So no, a drunk getting out of a DUI because of extenuating circumstances isn't the same as a child molester getting out of a pedophilia conviction.

For those that have lost family to drunk drivers, I'm sorry for your loss. But that's no reason to hold a grudge against EVERYONE who might drive drunk. My grandmother was killed by a tractor trailer, the driver was completely sober at the time. Going by MADD's logic, I should hate ALL tractor trailer drivers for the entire rest of my life, and spend time giving lectures and seminars on how/why driving trucks is bad.

------------------

quote Originally posted by Tinton: Nice trollbait, Jazzman. I'll bite. You're acting like driving drunk is the worst decision in the world. Yet every day thousands or maybe even millions of people across the U.S. drive home drunk and don't have any problems. I'll be devil's advocate and say that driving drunk isn't any worse than driving tired.

Driving impaired for *any* reason is wrong, irresponsible, and illegal. Just because people do it and don't kill someone that time does not negate the 'wrongness' of it.

quote Originally posted by Tinton: For those that have lost family to drunk drivers, I'm sorry for your loss. But that's no reason to hold a grudge against EVERYONE who might drive drunk.

I happen to disagree. They put my ( or another persons ) life at risk due to their careless actions. There is no excuse, impaired driving is not an accident, its a decision.

[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 04-05-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Nurb432: Driving impaired for *any* reason is wrong, irresponsible, and illegal. Just because people do it and don't kill someone that time does not negate the 'wrongness' of it.

lol if you're right, then about 90% of Americans are doing something wrong just by driving to work in the morning. Same thing when they drive home in the evening. The police might as well just put up roadblocks with giant paddy wagons and just start imprisoning EVERYONE! Hell, even if you're well rested and sober as a judge, you might kill someone just because of human error. Might as well not drive at all, someone might get hurt!

[This message has been edited by Tinton (edited 04-05-2011).]

Which just brings up the debate as to exactly what "impaired" is....

quote Originally posted by Nurb432: I happen to disagree. They put my ( or another persons ) life at risk due to their careless actions. There is no excuse, impaired driving is not an accident, its a decision.

So you disagree, which means you agree and say that you should hold a grudge against drunk drivers for the rest of your life if you lose someone to them? So I should hate truck drivers forever for killing my grandma? How is that logical?

I agree that its a poor decision when someone drinks 6+ beers, would blow a 0.20, can barely walk then decides to drive their car. They deserve to be locked up forever for being an idiot. However, you want to pull someone over and basically ruin their life, all because they chose to have a beer or two with dinner? Are you saying that deciding to have beer out like that is a bad idea? So what, I'm supposed to go out and have a nice steak dinner with the family and drink....Coca Cola with it? You MADD anti-drunk activists are insane and have no perspective.

[This message has been edited by Tinton (edited 04-05-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Tinton: lol if you're right, then about 90% of Americans are doing something wrong just by driving to work in the morning. Same thing when they drive home in the evening. The police might as well just put up roadblocks with giant paddy wagons and just start imprisoning EVERYONE! Hell, even if you're well rested and sober as a judge, you might kill someone just because of human error. Might as well not drive at all, someone might get hurt!

Which inevtiably leads to the "get the driver out of the car" movement led by Google's driverless cars. Remove the loose nut behind the wheel!

I'm sure THAT whole philosophy goes over REAL well with this crowd.

quote Originally posted by Zeb: Which inevtiably leads to the "get the driver out of the car" movement led by Google's driverless cars. Remove the loose nut behind the wheel! I'm sure THAT whole philosophy goes over REAL well with this crowd.

With all the problems that we (society as a whole) have with technology on a day-to-day basis, I say that's a VERY bad idea. At least a human driver can react and make decisions on the fly, even while impaired. A computer can be programmed to behave in the same way but they can't account for everything that might happen, not to mention bugs and other things that might go wrong that could FUBAR the entire system.

quote Originally posted by Nurb432: Driving impaired for *any* reason is wrong, irresponsible, and illegal. Just because people do it and don't kill someone that time does not negate the 'wrongness' of it.

Define "IMPARED".......and by who's definition, judgement, opinion....common consesus ??...relegious rules??..Emotions??...ya can be charged for driving upset in some area......lawyers looking for profit ??

Driving "impared" is wrong ???....then I am a truck driver running on pure hate, pure anger, pure wanting to kill my my boss, my customer, pure wanting to just make them dead so I can escapse and go home, frack anybody that gets in my way, road rage with a shotgun----thats the mindset of a guy in a service truck..........

but they used to pay me for that, and I was a top performer employee.......

so now if I have 2 beers, I am less dangerous to the public, but am impared by the rules....yeh...right

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Define "IMPARED".......and by who's definition, judgement, opinion....common consesus ??...relegious rules??..Emotions??...ya can be charged for driving upset in some area......lawyers looking for profit ?? Driving "impared" is wrong ???....then I am a truck driver running on pure hate, pure anger, pure wanting to kill my my boss, my customer, pure wanting to just make them dead so I can escapse and go home, frack anybody that gets in my way, road rage with a shotgun----thats the mindset of a guy in a service truck.......... but they used to pay me for that, and I was a top performer employee....... so now if I have 2 beers, I am less dangerous to the public, but am impared by the rules....yeh...right

Alcohol affects people differently. 0.08 for someone might be completely different for someone else. So, they shouldn't use a breathalyzer, instead they should administer field tests. Tests that actually WORK. Like, tests that you can perform perfect while sober but have extreme difficulty with while impaired by anything, substance or otherwise. Maybe they can administer the test to you when you get your license, as a baseline, then record the results on your license. Then, if you're caught under the suspicion of driving drunk, and you take the test and if you score much lower than your baseline, you get hauled off to jail. Right now the tests are pretty much designed to make you fail, impaired or not. I know I couldn't recite my ABC's backwards, sober, if my life depended on it.

[This message has been edited by Tinton (edited 04-05-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Tinton: I know I couldn't recite my ABC's backwards, sober, if my life depended on it.

Niether could I I...I cant recite my ABC backwords in a classroom, side of the rtoad, universty sleep laboratory....and I dont give a flying freaking phruk if a cop likes it or not...

As far as the drunk driving--it's open and shut. No one forced them to drink--no one forced them to drive while under the influence.

Be interesting to see what the Calif Bar Assoc has to say about the attorney's plan (if it was his/her plan) but, if I needed an attorney, that's the kind I want--one with initiative.

The PI? It's a pi--what would one expect?

quote Originally posted by Tinton: lol if you're right, then about 90% of Americans are doing something wrong just by driving to work in the morning. Same thing when they drive home in the evening. The police might as well just put up roadblocks with giant paddy wagons and just start imprisoning EVERYONE! Hell, even if you're well rested and sober as a judge, you might kill someone just because of human error. Might as well not drive at all, someone might get hurt!

A judge near here was arrested for DWI last night.

quote Originally posted by Zeb: It's only entrapment if the cops set up the scheme with the express purpose of entrapping you. Some one else can set up any trap they like, and just tip off the cops when they have sprung it. If a cop just "knows about it", and doesn't stop you from breaking the law, that's not technically entrapment. A law enforcent officer will tell you, it's really hard to arrest somebody for what they might be about to do. Well, it's easy to arrest them, getting charges to stick is pretty tough. And cops hate it when you walk.

Ya, I said it was just something I vaguely remember could be wrong, I'm no lawyer.
As far as the other thing though why is it that the only thing cops know how to do nowadays is arrest or beat down? How bout you see a guy stumbling towards his car, and direct him to a bus or a cab?

quote Originally posted by Tinton: So you disagree, which means you agree and say that you should hold a grudge against drunk drivers for the rest of your life if you lose someone to them? So I should hate truck drivers forever for killing my grandma? How is that logical? I agree that its a poor decision when someone drinks 6+ beers, would blow a 0.20, can barely walk then decides to drive their car. They deserve to be locked up forever for being an idiot. However, you want to pull someone over and basically ruin their life, all because they chose to have a beer or two with dinner? Are you saying that deciding to have beer out like that is a bad idea? So what, I'm supposed to go out and have a nice steak dinner with the family and drink....Coca Cola with it? You MADD anti-drunk activists are insane and have no perspective.

I don't think blaming 'truck drivers' is appropriate, but blaming people that were driving that shouldn't have been due to impairment, yes.

And please note i qualified it as IMPAIRED driving is bad. Does 1 beer with a meal impair you? I cant answer that question as i don't know you.