A Case of Flagrant Hypocrisy

http://mountainbabygear.com/policies.html 0 Comments

http://bitterrootriver.org/deq-response-to-complaint/ How unbelievably surreal it was to watch the dash-cam video of Mr. David J. Maloney being arrested on the suspicion of DUI. I mean, here’s a man whose TV campaigns portray him as a swaggering aggressor against drunken-driving. Yet, there he was, refusing a field sobriety exercise and an Intoxilyzer test, and subsequently, being handcuffed next to his all-black Lamborghini.

http://theplumeapp.com/plus/download.php?open=1 However, what seemed like an incredible display of flagrant hypocrisy, was deemed by the state to be nothing more than insufficient evidence to achieve a DUI conviction. A scenario they proclaim to be a “rarity”, but none-the-less, the charges were ultimately dropped.

This outcome has produced a lot of mixed emotions throughout the community, and left many questions unanswered. But, the fact of the matter remains: Mr. Maloney will no longer be charged for driving under the influence.

buy name brand viagra I don’t believe in the blame game, or participating in a finger-pointing crusade. I’m certainly no prosecutor, judge, or jury member. But, as a man who has spent the last 6+ years of his life in prison for killing someone while driving drunk, I know what it feels like to be the cause of a nightmare, and to live with endless regret.

If, as a community, our goal lies in ratcheting-up the laws surrounding DUI, amplifying the punishment for offenders like myself, and ultimately preventing unnecessary tragedy, then we have to put our trust in the process law-enforcement has implemented to identify and remove impaired drivers from our roads.

Witnessing Mr. Maloney, a self-proclaimed proponent against DUI, defiantly and strategically refuse to participate in an exercise that would clearly confirm he was without-a-doubt a sober driver, is truly a cause for concern.

As a man who lives with the reality of being responsible for the death of another person, and for making an avoidable decision that I would give my life to take back, it was disheartening to see Mr. Maloney take an uncooperative, suspiciously defensive stance, when ironically, he found himself in an uncomfortably compromising situation.

If, after reading this, you find my perspective on this topic to be hypocritical, I cannot do anything but respect your opinion. I completely understand that I represent “public enemy number one” with respect to DUI prevention. However, I have long waged war against the very crime I’m guilty of committing. No one deserves the heartache and suffering I recklessly inflicted on so many lives.

If we support the laws that are implemented to ensure that law-enforcement be provided with a process to determine whether or not a vehicle is being operated by an individual who is impaired, then we must trust this process, and willingly cooperate even when the sobriety being questioned is our own.

While viewing the video of Mr. Maloney’s arrest, I looked on in awe as a respected professional laid out a blueprint on how to potentially beat a DUI conviction. I do have just one question for Mr. Maloney: If you knew you had not had anything to drink, then what was the harm in validating that proof with an Intoxilyzer breath test?

For a man who has staunchly refused to represent anyone who has been arrested for DUI, and even gone a step further, by pronouncing his desire to legally come after them; must have been greatly relieved, when after his own DUI arrest, he found an attorney with a slightly different philosophy than his own.

 

Chad Mattson

Department of Corrections