The Ming Report

ONE BEER AT LUNCH

February 17, 2006 - “They say I was drunk – but I only had two beers at supper.” I don’t know how many times I have heard that line out of the mouth of a DUI defendant in the last thirty years. When I remind them that the Breathalyzer registered 0.18, more than twice the legal limit, and ask how they explain that reading they always reply that there had to be something wrong with the machine. Prosecutors, defense lawyers and law enforcement personnel have a standing joke – we call it the “two beer defense.” Then there is the driver who leaves the scene only to report the accident in which he hit a parked car or ran off the road and hit a road sign on the following day. Those usually occur a little after closing time at the local bar.

Consider the following: A man is shot with a shotgun. He is given emergency medical aid at the scene. He is transported by ambulance to a medical facility. The medical facility is mandated by state law to immediately report any gunshot wound injury to the appropriate law enforcement agency. The local sheriff’s office contacts the person who fired the shotgun. An arrangement is made to interview the shooter. 14 hours has elapsed since the shooting. When the deputy arrives to interview the shooter he is turned away by the shooter’s bodyguard.

The following morning the shooter’s hostess notifies the local press of a hunting accident alleging that it is the victim’s error that caused him to be shot and stressing that no one was drinking alcohol. The same morning the shooter is interviewed by the local sheriff’s investigator. That same morning the local newspaper posts the story on its web-site. 4 days after the shooting the shooter makes a public statement taking pains to say that he drank one beer at lunch, about 4 hours before the shooting and that nobody was under the influence. Those are the neutral facts. I leave it to the reader, using his or her own common sense and experiences in life, to draw the conclusion to which the facts lead. That may differ from the conclusion to which my common sense and experiences in life lead me.

Why is this episode more than an occasion for bad jokes and snide references to other private scandals? It is important in its own right because it involves a Vice President of the United States who had been given unprecedented authority and influence over the employment of our military and economic power; because it comes on the heals of public scandals over his employment of that power in several areas; and because it reveals aspects of the judgment, integrity, and competence to be trusted with the power of life and death of a man who lives one heartbeat away from the Presidency of the most powerful nation on this earth.