A couple of weeks ago, an acquaintance was telling me about meeting a couple of people that morning, and when one of them turned out to be Rep. Ted Vick, my acquaintance said, “Oh, I’ve heard of you.”
Rep. Vick, in this telling, rather ruefully replied, “I suppose you have…”
We all have our burdens to bear. No matter what I do or where I go (in South Carolina, that is), I get, “You’re the newspaper guy, right?” Sometimes these conversations take the form of the way Robert Duvall was addressed on the street in “Tender Mercies” — “Hey, mister, were you really Mac Sledge?” Yes, ma’am, I guess I was…
But that certainly beats being a lawmaker of 8 years, a committee chairman, and yet what people remember when they see you is the news stories about DUI charges.
Anyway, I got to thinking about all of that when I saw today that a judge has denied Mr. Vick’s motion to dismiss that latest charge:
Vick’s attorney, state Rep. Todd Rutherford, argued last week to drop the charge because police did not capture the reading of Miranda Rights on videotape as required by state law.
Marcus Gore, an attorney for the S.C. Department of Public Safety, said the reading was off camera because Vick wrestled the arresting office away from the police cruiser and out of view of the dash camera…
That’s a new allegation, to me. If that was in the previous news stories, I missed it.
Related Posts
Gee, originally his lawyer/fellow state rep Todd Rutherford said he wasn’t drunk, he just had a pebble in his shoe. Apparently they were unable to subpoena the pebble.
It’s situations like these that give Juan Caruso all the ammunition he needs to distrust lawyers.
Man up and stop driving drunk!
I may be jaded, but this sounds like someone who knows exactly how best to beat a DUI arrest. That’s the type of thing that ought to be a huge red flag to everyone around him that he needs help; not coddling.
All joking aside, does the legislature provide scooters to lawmakers who need them when in session? Or has a legislator never lost his or her driving privileges as a result of a DUI? If not, looks like Vick may be the first – though hopefully not the last.
I think the state of DUI jurisprudence in this state is shameful, and a lot of it has to with who our legislators are, and how they make their living.
+1 Kathryn. You are exactly 100% correct.
Until a legislator of standing loses a family member to another member of the legislature who was driving under the influence, the lax attitude Kathryn alludes to will not change. Only when the tragedy strikes close to home or direct at home will action be taken. Over the years, we have lost enough friends and family members due to DUI by them or another driver.
I won’t drink a glass of wine or a beer if I am driving afterwards, it simply is not worth the risk. All one needs to do is wake up to the sounds of a mother’s tears and cries of anguish and pain over losing her oldest son, my brother. All one needs to do is get a phone call just before Christmas and watch the facial expression of your wife change from happy to grief in a flash when she is informed that her nephew who was like another son to us has been killed in an accident and drinking was involved.
If it was up to me, the first offense would be punished by revocation of license for no less than 10 years with no provisions to lessen the time. The second offense would be permanent revocation without consideration of ever getting another license to drive.
Works for me!
Studies show that first offenders have driven drunk many many times before they are apprehended. Europe has largely gotten very tough, and incidents have dropped dramatically.
Agree.
I’ve often said our DUI laws will be tough when a prominent member of the legislature loses a child or grandchild in the process. Sad – but true.