gull80:
It's high time you understood the facts in America about crimes these days. It's a "mistake" and a "maturity enhancing experience" if you commit a crime and no one gets hurt. It's only if while committing the crime that someone get's hurt that you are really supposed to get in trouble. And, if you get busted committing a crime and then blubber in front of the camera then you are fully exonerated.
Get with the program!
Originally posted by mattson
Considering that our president and vice-president have 3 DUIs between them, maybe not. People are people and we all make bad decisions/mistakes. Bush had his bout with drinking and Clinton had his bout with women and adultery. My point is that people are people and they will make mistakes and that should not prevent them from leading normal lives. Unless of course the mistakes involve murder, manslaughter, or some other violent crime. For instance, we would not want Sammy the Bull to be running the FBI.
Maybe we should cut off one of his arms and make him join the para-lympics.
Let it go, people. It's history. He's a good kid. He's doing the right things amid the fallout of the incident. He did NOT kill or injure or anything, so discussing "what-if" is purely speculative and not relevant.
Maybe we should be discussing something more practical and relevant to this forum than DUI. Let's discuss the merits of swimming ability in the face of an oncoming tsunami. Is it better to be able to run? Or swim? Would you try to ride the front of the wave like a body surfer? Or would you try to dive under it like you do with the small ones at the beach?
I believe the penalty is quite fair, given he is a first time offender. Not sure what makes you think I would propose otherwise for such a small mistake.
Originally posted by Rob Copeland
And in a rare divergence from USMS Discussion Forum pundits, the Judge stated “We learn from our mistakes, and this was a mistake”.
I wonder whether the judge would have been as understanding if someone had been seriously hurt or killed as a result of the "mistake."
It seems to me that people are mad a Phelps for calling it a mistake. It was a mistake, he drank too much and got behind the wheel. I made a mistake today and drove too fast, I put lives in danger.
I am not trying to make light of drunk driving, but if you want to disagree, disagree with the judge. He is the one who determined the penalty, all Phelps did was defend himself the exact same way I would if I were in the same situation.
Not to get in a legal discussion here, but most of our problems with our legal system sits with judges who legislate from the bench and lawyers who have no sense of right or wrong, just winning and losing.
He was contrite, and for a first offense the sentence was appropriately lenient. I don't think moral outrage is the issue. Spinning this as a "mistake," however, seems to trivialize the problem of drunk driving. Maybe it's just semantics. But look, if I make a "mistake" and buy the wrong pair of goggles, nobody's life is endangered.
