VAQ RAG CO relieved of duty...

[helolumpy]

Lots of ways to be a dangerous or distracted driver. Not to condone drunk driving in any way but the bar is pretty all over the place and to destroy a 20+ year career without due process is Un-American.

Not implying guilt or innocence of the CO in this case, but what does the Commodore do with a CO who just got arrested for DUI and before he relieves him?
You would have to assume that he got a Navy JAG (or someone on his staff) to make some calls to find out what evidence the cops/DA has...

So, if the suspect decides to fight the arrest it in court, that may take 4-5 months before the judge makes a decision on guilt or innocence.

What does the Commodore do with the squadron during the 4-5 month period?? Leave the 'suspect' in command?
Have the XO fleet up to maybe bring the CO back in 4-5 months??

What if the suspect pleads down to a lesser charge (a VERY common occurance in first time DUI offenses)? Does the charge being reduced to something like reckless driving change the mind of the Commodore?

Talking with some buddies, how do you 'unring the bell' if you relieve someone and it turns out that the arrested individual was completely innocent? I would like to think that the Commodore (or JAG) did some legwork to determine what evidence is actually there before pulling the trigger and relieving this CO.

If the Commodore did relieve someone and it turned out the Commodore jumped the gun, then it will look badly on the Commodore for acting without determing what facts/info was available and then the Commodore can expect a call from CNAF....

The CO was relieved for "loss of confidence". The Commodore relieved a subordinate because he feels he is no longer the right man for the job. That's the perogative of Command, you can reassign your subordinates.

It does suck that a CO has been relieved. I don't know that individual, but to go this far in the Navy and have it ruined is a shame. But, it's the way the Navy operates today.
Agree or disagree, it's just how it is...

 

[KBayDog]

The CO was relieved for "loss of confidence". The Commodore relieved a subordinate because he feels he is no longer the right man for the job. That's the perogative of Command, you can reassign your subordinates.

It does suck that a CO has been relieved. I don't know that individual, but to go this far in the Navy and have it ruined is a shame. But, it's the way the Navy operates today.
Agree or disagree, it's just how it is...

This sums up the thread.

 

[Pugs]

Agree or disagree, it's just how it is...

Yep and that's why Homey don't play there anymore.

 

[squorch2]

We had a golden boy LT

Full stop there.

 

[BACONATOR]

So yes Otto, people have calibrated their moral compass off the laws of the land. What better suggestions do you have?

My point was that people DO the above, but don't think about why those laws are laws in the first place. When a law was orginally enacted for a less-than-savory reason, that's a pretty piss-poor way to build your set of morals. Our societal norms will always guide our morality, but we need to decide how we built our societal standards in the first place.

And color me dense, but you completely lost me on your argument about cigs and driving. Break it down, barney style.

 

[Recovering LSO]

My point was that people DO the above, but don't think about why those laws are laws in the first place. When a law was orginally enacted for a less-than-savory reason, that's a pretty piss-poor way to build your set of morals. Our societal norms will always guide our morality, but we need to decide how we built our societal standards in the first place.

And color me dense, but you completely lost me on your argument about cigs and driving. Break it down, barney style.

"...These days, the only reason MJ is illegal is enormous lobbies from Alcohol and Tobacco (both of which are FAR more dangerous) and other more "moral majority" type lobbies...." You just kinda confused me here. Are you implying that driving while smoking a cig is more dangerous than driving high?

What is the group's general consensus of the validity of a field sobriety test? If there are concerns that .08 might be arbitrary, is a field test more conclusive?

 

[Harrier Dude]

What is the group's general consensus of the validity of a field sobriety test? If there are concerns that .08 might be arbitrary, is a field test more conclusive?

I think they're of dubious validity, but that doesn't matter. Generally speaking, there is a rough relationship between what a registered BAC is and decisionmaking/driver performance. I think that's clear. What isn't clear are all of the other variables (skill, age, etc) that effect those things. I know I could pound a six pack and still be a much better driver than my wife. But the law can't possibly cover all if those variables, so they isolate just one: BAC.

The simple fact is that the law lives in a world of defined terms. A line had to be drawn somewhere. Our legislators have chosen various BAC levels as that line. Cross it, and as far as the law is concerned, you're drunk.

There is only one sure way to avoid this: don't drink ANYTHING with alcohol in it and drive a car. Ever.

Is it fair? Is it right? Does this affect our lifestyle and series of choices?

Who knows?

It is what it is. This officer, who I don't know and may be an awesome guy, certainly knew this. If he didn't, he definitely should have.

 

[BACONATOR]

"...These days, the only reason MJ is illegal is enormous lobbies from Alcohol and Tobacco (both of which are FAR more dangerous) and other more "moral majority" type lobbies...." You just kinda confused me here. Are you implying that driving while smoking a cig is more dangerous than driving high?

Ok, that makes more sense, and is what I thought you meant.

That being said.... come ON.... you know what you did there. That's not the argument I was making at ALL in terms of the "danger" aspect of it. That contention was COMPLETELY divorced from the DUI issue.

My point is that there is not a single recorded case in history of someone dying from Marijuana. As you read this post, people are dying from cancer, emphysema, and sclerosis from tobacco and alcohol. I was talking strictly health-wise, not environmental considerations, and you know it.

Although I'd be interested to see a study comparing driving while drunk and driving while high.

I postulate that the fatality rate for folks high on THC is FAR lower, as they are generally driving under 10MPH at the time of impact.

 

[Flash]

Of 37,261 traffic fatalities in the United States in 2008 11,773 involved a driver who had a BAC of .08 or above. While there might be mitigating circumstances in some cases it is hard to argue with the facts.

 

[MasterBates]

How does that number change when you go to .09, .10, .11 etc?

 

[Flash]

How does that number change when you go to .09, .10, .11 etc?

Like it or not .08 is the law of the land and that is what they are going to use for the numbers. If you more info you can always contact the NHTSA, they do work for you.

 

[Pags]

What is the group's general consensus of the validity of a field sobriety test? If there are concerns that .08 might be arbitrary, is a field test more conclusive?

Mrs. Pags, she of the physiology background, says that it's easy to disprove a field test in court. The way the body processes alcohol results in a higher concentration of alcohol in the lungs, resulting in a higher BAC than would be achieved by using a blood test. But you have to go to court to get those results.

 

[MasterBates]

And by the time you have gone to court, the Navy has already flushed you down the drain.

 

[CommodoreMid]

I guess if you're in one of those states that has a judge on standby at DUI checkpoints if you get pulled over you can refuse the breathalyzer and have the judge order a warrant for your blood right there. I think Florida does that, but I'd have to double check on that.

 

[SynixMan]

I thought you could refuse the breathalyzer and request the blood test?