I'll Drink ('n' Drive) to That

Saw a story online 'bout a feller who lost an argument with a train the other day. The feller's name was Jason Michael Hair 'n' the altercation took place near Queen Creek, Arizona, which is a little southeast o' Phoenix. What happened was, he was speeding down the road, texting on his cell phone, 'n' broke right through the crossing arms and smacked into the side o' the train, which was already in the process o' crossing the road. One witness to the crash claimed that Hair had passed him, doing somewhere near 65 mph, so intent on his typing to whoever was on the other end o' the phone that he either didn't notice the train, er was unaware o' just how fast he was going 'n' couldn't stop in time. (Makes me wonder just what he was typing, too. "Hey! I'm going to try for one of those "Darwin Awards"!")

They said the crash was so bad that Hair had to be cut out o' the wreckage 'n' suffered a head injury. Now, you might be thinking, "Well, he got what he deserved for being so stupid, then," 'n' you might be right. The thing was, though, that his four-year-old boy was in the car with him. The son survived, too, but he also had to be cut out o' the wreckage 'n' was flown to a local hospital as a precaution. Whatever Hair may have deserved fer his stupidity, his boy sure didn't deserve to suffer fer it.

Anyways, this story got me to thinking 'bout the last time I was up fer jury duty. See, the case we was being considered to jury fer was a drunk driving case. (They didn't actu'ly say that, but when they start asking prospective jurors questions 'bout whether they've ever been convicted o' drunk driving er whether er not they er a loved one has ever been involved in an accident that was caused by a drunk driver, you kind o' get the indication that that's what the whole thing's 'bout.) More important, it was just after they'd started running news stories 'bout studies done on the dangers o' yapping on the phone er texting while you're driving.

So, once they'd picked their first dozen possible jurors 'n' sent the rest of us out in the hall while they questioned 'em a little more intensely, I sat there thinking 'bout those studies 'n' 'bout how they was some that claimed to show that yapping on the phone er texting while driving was least as dangerous, if not more so, than driving after a few drinks. Then I got to thinking 'bout how one o' these dangerous practices had been illegal fer decades while the other still didn't have no laws 'gainst it.

Well, that was the direction my thoughts was running in when it turned out that there was some o' the original twelve who'd been dismissed, so they come out to question some o' the rest of us more closely, me being one o' those they chose. They took me in 'n' sat me down in a chair 'n' started asking me 'bout the time I'd been in an accident 'caused by someone who had given all appearances o' having been three sheets in the wind at the time. (Never did learn what that feller's problem was 'cause he wound up pleading guilty to the accident 'fore it ever got to trial. But when the guy leaves the scene o' the accident 'n' then shows up fifteen minutes er so later, pushing his car in the opposite direction 'cause it ain't working so good no more, you got to wonder 'bout what kind o' state his mental faculties 'n' judgement abilities're in.) All those questions was fairly easy to answer, 'cause all I had to do was tell the truth.

Then the judge turns to me 'n' asked,"Is there any reason that you think you could not render a fair and impartial verdict in this case?" Well, I had to stop 'n' give that question some real consideration 'fore I answered it. I mean, here was a guy who was being tried fer doing something that was no more dangerous than what other folks was doing with no fear o' being hauled into court fer. So I told the judge that it just didn't sit right with me that this feller was facing the possibility o' legal repercussions fer doing something when there were studies that showed that something that was just as dangerous was considered perfectly fine 'n' legal.

To my surprise, the judge agreed with me 'bout how he also thought that yapping on the phone while driving should be just as illegal as driving while intoxicated. But, he said, as a judge, his concern had to be with the law, 'n' since the law 'lowed one o' those actions while outlawing the other one, he didn't get to choose which ones appeared in his court. So he changed his question a might 'n' asked if I could overlook my opinions on driving while yapping 'n' render a fair 'n' impartial verdict based strictly on the law as it stood at that moment.

I gave that a little more thought 'n' decided that, since I was a law-abiding citizen, it was my duty to see that the law was upheld 'n' render a verdict o' guilty if I felt that the prosecution had proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the feller had in fact been legally drunk at the time o' his apprehension. So that's what I told the judge. He thanked me fer my time 'n' sent me out o' the room while they brought in the next person to question. (I wasn't picked to serve on that jury, by the way.)

Since then, I've given the topic a lot more thought. Mostly what I've thought about was this: Where do my duties as a law-abiding citizen really lie? Is it merely to see that the law, all laws, no matter whether I agree with 'em er not, are upheld? Don't I, as a citizen who loves his country 'n' should be concerned 'bout the rights of all my fellow citizens, also have a duty to fight against laws that are unjust 'n' discriminatory? If a law singles out one group o' folks fer punishment while 'lowing other groups o' folks to get away scott free fer doing something that is just as bad er dangerous, what is my duty then? Do I side with the law, er with the citizens who are being discriminated 'gainst?

Isn't the law supposed to treat all folks equally? Shouldn't the law treat the drunk driver just the same as it treats the person who's yapping er typing on his phone while driving? 'N' what about the person who's so busy putting on makeup, er trying to read a road map, er eating, er yelling at the kids, er changing the station on the radio? (We actually did have a case like that a few years back where a young boy hit 'n' killed a lady on the side o' the road 'cause he'd looked down to change the radio. I don't 'member the partic'lars, but I'm pretty sure he got off with a lot lighter sentence than he would have if he'd had a couple beers in him.) Aren't those distractions just as dangerous as being drunk er texting?

'N' what about a law that penalizes folks fer what they might do? That's what a lot o' these drunk driving (er "driving while intoxicated" er "driving under the influence" er whatever else they call 'em) laws're actu'ly punishing folks fer. I would be willing to bet real money that most folks who get convicted fer such offenses did so when they hadn't actu'ly 'caused any accident yet. They were hauled into court simply 'cause o' what they might do.

Seems to me we should have just one law that applies to ever'body: a "driving while distracted" law, if you will. It would apply equally to anyone who has been drinking, anyone who is yapping on a phone, typing on a phone, putting on makeup, trying to read a road map, eating, yelling at the kids, changing the station on the radio, er whatever else it is they might be doing that takes their attention away from their driving. I just don't see how I can continue supporting anything less.

So, if I ever get in another situation where a judge asks me if I can offer a fair 'n' impartial verdict based strictly on the law as it stood at that moment, I guess I would have to answer with I could only do so if the law, as it stood at that moment, was fairly 'n' equally applied to all folks who could fit in the broader scope o' the spirit o' that law 'n' what it was enacted to protect us against. I'm willing to bet I wouldn't get chosen fer that jury, neither.