The point I was really trying to make is that your story would have been as interesting as this thread if you’d put Chief Runamok on the spot, Mike Wallace style, by asking her if giving Nick a ticket was really a good idea, given that he might have saved a life and that the liklihood of his driving drunk was nonexistent, instead of just letting her put her spin out there unchallenged.

Think of it this way: it wouldn’t have even been a story if they hadn’t given Nick the ticket…unless, of course, the girl died. What made it a story was that giving him a ticket was contrary to the actual desired result that kids do the right thing when they see someone in trouble.

Journalists need to work a little harder to justify the title. Merely writing or showing what other people say doesn’t make you a journalist. It makes you a stenographer.

I wonder why the prosecutor didn’t drop it– that would have seemed to be the wise choice here. Probably because the story showed up in the paper the morning before court. Nick did plead guilty. I think he could have fought it– if he wanted to pay for an attorney- and possibly won. But he pled guilty.

That said, I don’t quite follow the syllogism “If he doesn’t get a ticket, he’ll kill my grandmother.” Furthermore, I don’t like you calling her an ugly bag.

this isn’t much of good deed vs. bad deed either. he was underage and drinking. this isn’t morally wrong. maybe if he was of age and supplying booze to a minor, or yes, driving — or stabbed someone — then the cops should have taken some enforcement action, but he didn’t, not even close. The cops have the discretion, and they made just as bad of a judgment as the kid. And, yes the chief does have to back them up. So now they will continue to respond to underage party calls, but now they have the added bonus of responding to the potential increase in unresponsive individual/overdose medical calls.

Incidentally, Chief Rikala used to be the chief at the U.

Inferring that the cops should have just blythly overlooked that is, well, imbecilic!

If they did and he plastered your granny on his way home, Rikkala is left holding a rather ugly bag.

And, J, I did watch the story. Did you ask the chief if she really thought the guy was going to drive off while the police were there? If he were going to drive drunk, he would have done it before the police got there, don’t you think? By not asking her that, and letting her make that bullshit excuse for giving him a ticket, you accord her argument credibilty it doesn’t deserve.

While we’re on the topic of unasked questions, why didn’t the girl get a ticket, too? How about asking if the cop warned Nick that answering the question of whether he’d been drinking would incriminate him?

Finally, examine your logic on your stabbing question. I don’t think Nick forced the alcohol down the girl’s throat, which would be the analogous situation.

The answer to the stabbing question, though, would be the difference between aggravated assault (or perhaps manslaughter) and second degree murder.

Look, the U has a massive interest in encouraging kids to call 9-1-1 on campus when someone is drinking. I could see them weighing both sides– and deciding– we don’t want people to hesitate to call. I wonder if Minnetonka has that large of an interest.

Where do you draw the line? If you stab someone, but then call 9-1-1 because you’re worried they’ll die, should you be let off the hook for the stabbing?