Keep in mind that the incident does not have to go to mast or a court martial to be deemed an alcohol incident. As stated, the CO or OIC has the determination if this should be treated as an incident.

quote:

In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty.

..NO, not really. In a jury deliberation room, a defendant is presumed innocent. It is a matter of instructions to the jury. Their starting point in every case must be that the defendant didn't do it.

As others have said, the ARREST is what brings discredit. In the trial, or even in pre-trial manuevering, deals can be made, etc. In most states, if the charge is DUI then it was below .08% and the prosecutor would have to proove that there was alcohol AND that the driving was substantially impared.

Anyways, yes, you should still get an ARI if there is any REASONABLE indication that alcohol was involved in a situation where a member was arrested. (No, it is assinine to get another one on conviction for the first act). And yes, absolutely, 100%, no question, you should be PROCESSED for discharge if it is the second ARI. Now, for that discharge to be affected, a lot more info would need to be known. There would have to significant mitigating information to keep the member.

quote:

We had a situation a one of my units when a member went to medical one morning because he had the flu. He was pulled over and charged with DUI. He told the officer he had not been drinking, but the officer said he didn't care, and arrested him anyway. Maybe it was the cold meds he was taking, maybe it was the fact that he was sick as dog and could barely stand up, but the officer thought he was drinking.

Now, you get to a different arena. Although NOT an ARI, your first 'maybe' is STILL a DUI or DWI in most states, especialy if the medication came with a warning. Alcohol is not the only thing you can be under the influence of to get a DUI.

quote:

Anyways, yes, you should still get an ARI if there is any REASONABLE indication that alcohol was involved in a situation where a member was arrested. (No, it is assinine to get another one on conviction for the first act).

While I agree that it may be "asinine" that is in fact the position that was taken by the District in a case I am vary familiar with! In that particular case it was finally shown that the arrest was without any foundation and part of an on going feud the arresting officer had with the Coast Guard in general and that with that particular member. That member went through the wringer mainly because he was not considered "innocent until proved guilty". He in fact had done nothing wrong yet he was put in a position that he not only had to fight the baseless charges against him he also had to fight those in the CG that felt the concept of innocent until proved guilty only applies in the jury room. Funny how in the end, after it was proved that he had done nothing wrong, those fellow Coasties that were trying hang him out to dry all scurried away without so much as an apology! So no a mere arrest does NOT always mean that the member has brought discredit to the Coast Guard!

Marklf

quote:

Originally posted by MarkLF:

quote:

Anyways, yes, you should still get an ARI if there is any REASONABLE indication that alcohol was involved in a situation where a member was arrested. (No, it is assinine to get another one on conviction for the first act).

While I agree that it may be "asinine" that is in fact the position that was taken by the District in a case I am vary familiar with! In that particular case it was finally shown that the arrest was without any foundation and part of an on going feud the arresting officer had with the Coast Guard in general and that with that particular member. That member went through the wringer mainly because he was not considered "innocent until proved guilty". He in fact had done nothing wrong yet he was put in a position that he not only had to fight the baseless charges against him he also had to fight those in the CG that felt the concept of innocent until proved guilty only applies in the jury room. Funny how in the end, after it was proved that he had done nothing wrong, those fellow Coasties that were trying hang him out to dry all scurried away without so much as an apology! So no a mere arrest does NOT always mean that the member has brought discredit to the Coast Guard!

Marklf

I had a similar case on my boat. I was the defendent. I was out with the boys, when a Marine decided to get way to drunk and single me out for "gawking" at his wife. I was doing no such thing. I left the bar to avoid the conflict. I went to Bk and ate a burger and went outside...Joe Marine was waiting for me. He attacked me, I fought back. I got the better of him and banged him up enough to stop the attack the cops were called. I stuck around, sure of my innocense. Marine boy was embarrassed and in an effort to get away with it, he started to cry...literally. I had consumed maybe 3 beers. The cops believed his story that I came onto his wife, that I waited outside for him and jumped him. I went to jail. Still sure of my innocense. I pleaded my case to the court and the XO. I was found innocent on both ends...I still recieved an AI.

The lessoned I learned that day is that consuming Alcohol while in the Coast Guard is very dangerous. Even with the best intentions and with no wrong doing it is still possible to recieve the short end of the stick. I simply gave up drinking... Not solely because of that. Personal reasons of health and Spiritual beliefs played a huge role in my choice but none the less...drinking in the Coast Guard is a risky endeavor.

Mark;
If your case is indeed true about a second ARI, then there were some serious, serious issues. First of all, a 'second incident' simply CAN NOT happen until the members has completed or possibly refused treatment for a first one and EVERYTHING about the first one has been properly documented. You can have many 'page 7s' about 'alcohol incidents' but they are all 'first incidents' until treatment is complete and documented.

Yes, there is a potential that an arrest might not bring discredit upon the service. And yes, that potential is slightly higher than the potential of me having the winning powerball tickets.

Jim;
As for your situation, do you HONESTLY believe that everything would have went down the exact same way if you had not been drinking? I don't know your case, but I know enough to know that your were NOT found innocent........

quote:

If your case is indeed true about a second ARI, then there were some serious, serious issues.

Not sure what you mean by serious issues? This was the first time the member had been in any trouble. The group was initially looking to hang the member because they thought he had failed to report the incident when it happened but that turned out to be untrue. He had reported it the next day (even though he was on leave) to his first class and to his ensign. They however failed to pass it up the chain to the group XO.

"First of all, a 'second incident' simply CAN NOT happen until the members has completed or possibly refused treatment for a first one and EVERYTHING about the first one has been properly documented. "

What was the member supposed to receive "treatment" for? Is there a "treatment" for having a police officer not liking the CG and its members? The member was sent for alcohol screening and it was determined that the member had NO problem and did not even require the standard awareness training! According to the Group XO that was the first and only time he had ever received a screening report that recommended NO farther education or treatment. In fact it was that report that caused the Group XO (who was well known for being very tough on Alcohol incedents)
to hold off from giving an AI simply for the arrest which is what the District CDAR had stated was the policy. The member was told that he would still get an AI if convicted or even if there was no conviction due to a "technicality". However when it came time to finally go to court (after months of delays by the prosecution) the charges were dropped because the officer admitted that the charges were bogus. By that point the Group XO had also come to realize that the officer had a personal vendetta against the member because the member no longer just reported contact with the officer to his chain of command he also informed the Group XO every time he was stopped (which was two to three times per week).

"Yes, there is a potential that an arrest might not bring discredit upon the service. And yes, that potential is slightly higher than the potential of me having the winning powerball tickets."

Hate to break it to you but innocent people are stopped and arrested every day so you must be really really good at powerball!

Marklf

By serious issue I meant with the leadership.

By saying when treatment was done, in this case would mean when he returned from the interview with the 'no treatment needed' finding. ONLY incidents that occured after that could be officialy considered a 'second' incident.

As far as 'innocent people are stopped and arrested every day' comment, well we are looking at it differently. Sure, there are some rougue cops like the one you mentioned. (I assume he was charged with a crime and sued in civil court by your shipmate) But again, the ARI process is an ADMINISTRATIVE process. It requires a significantly different level of proof. And in most of the cases I have seen, which have been a few, the errors or problems seem to benifit the member much more often than harm them.

quote:

By saying when treatment was done, in this case would mean when he returned from the interview with the 'no treatment needed' finding. ONLY incidents that occurred after that could be officialy considered a 'second' incident.

Which in this case had the member been convicted that would have occurred "after" the interview there by making the conviction the "second incident". The way the District CDAR was figuring it the arrest itself was an AI(it brought discredit to the CG) so the member was sent for "treatment" (of course he wanted all this documented) this occured before the case went to court so when the case went to court if the member was convicted that too would bring "discredit" to the CG and would constitute a second AI. The problem with that is that it does not allow for even the possibility that the member was in fact innocent of the charges. Fortunately the Group XO decided to wait until ALL the facts were in and did not follow the guidance from District. In this case a member who had done nothing wrong could have paid a much steeper price then he did had the group XO not decided to follow the "innocent until proved guilty" concept.

" Sure, there are some rougue cops like the one you mentioned. (I assume he was charged with a crime and sued in civil court by your shipmate)"

No by the end of this ordeal the last thing the member wanted was to run up more legal bills or to drag this out any more! The Group XO did end up calling the officers superiors to complain about the harassment and the Officer did end up reassigned to a different location.

"But again, the ARI process is an ADMINISTRATIVE process. It requires a significantly different level of proof. "

Yes it is an administrative process BUT that does not mean we should ignore basic fairness for the members! If the member did not in fact commit the DUI then giving them a AI for something they did not do is wrong! Being charged with something is NO level of proof!

Marklf

Mark;
I am finding myself unable to say too many different ways to support you on one point. I am saying as clear as possible that the conviction COULD NOT BE A SECOND OFFENSE. PERIOD. NO MATTER HOW MUCH SOMEONE AT DISTRICT WANTED TO MAKE IT SO. THEY ARE NOT THE FINAL AUTHORITY. PERIOD. (UNLESS THE MEMBER SHOWED UP TO COURT DRUNK AND ****ED ON THE JUDGES BENCH, WHICH I AM SURE DID NOT HAPPEN).


I again, can't figure out how many different ways to say in disagreeing with you that a conviction is irrelevant. You do not have to be convicted of a DUI to have an ARI! For an ARI, there had to be consumption (not intoxication, just consumption) and the consumption had to be a partial cause of the event that is being examined. The event need not be even unlawful! No charges need to be filed. Discredit to the service is just ONE of the things a hat can be hung on.

Many, many more people than you think look at each of these events.

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
Mark;
I am finding myself unable to say too many different ways to support you on one point. I am saying as clear as possible that the conviction COULD NOT BE A SECOND OFFENSE. PERIOD. NO MATTER HOW MUCH SOMEONE AT DISTRICT WANTED TO MAKE IT SO. THEY ARE NOT THE FINAL AUTHORITY. PERIOD. (UNLESS THE MEMBER SHOWED UP TO COURT DRUNK AND ****ED ON THE JUDGES BENCH, WHICH I AM SURE DID NOT HAPPEN).


I again, can't figure out how many different ways to say in disagreeing with you that a conviction is irrelevant. You do not have to be convicted of a DUI to have an ARI! For an ARI, there had to be consumption (not intoxication, just consumption) and the consumption had to be a partial cause of the event that is being examined. The event need not be even unlawful! No charges need to be filed. Discredit to the service is just ONE of the things a hat can be hung on.

Many, many more people than you think look at each of these events.

Sorry I did not mean to sound as if we were disagreeing about the second offense. I was just stating how some(not you) had interpreted the policy.

As for your statement that "For an ARI, there had to be consumption (not intoxication, just consumption) and the consumption had to be a partial cause of the event that is being examined." There also had to be an actual event not just the allegation that an event took place. In the case I mentioned there in reality was NO event. The member did not drive a vehicle while intoxicated. If it is found that there was not event (in this case DUI) then the member should not receive an AI. In the original post the question was "Lets say you are arrested for DUI and you go to court and after all is said and done, you are not found guilty, and the charges are dismissed. Should you still receive an alcohol incident as a Coast Guard member?" If the reason that the person was found not guilty is that in fact they had not driven a vehicle under the influence just what "event" is being examined?

Marklf

Let me give you multiple answers that may be the truth, depending on circumstances:

1) There was no event becuase there was no alcohol
2) The event is operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, the failure of the prosecutor to convict is irrelevant. Lower level of proof and admisiablity find that it is more likely than not the member had operated a vehicle and had some level of intoxication that likely affected his ability to drive.
3) There is no ARI event as the member operated under the influence of another substance than alchohol. (there will be admin process though)
4) The event was arguing with the COP about whether you were OK to drive.
5) The event was resisting arrest prior to being able to get into the car.

We could go on.

Now, I could list things the other way too. Remember, DWI (not DUI) in almost every state does not require 'driving,' just operating. Being inside and in possession of the keys. If those were the facts as presented and found in court, I would consider fighting FOR the member and not making it a ARI.

Regarding "technicalities" in court:

I once had a DUI case in which I arrested the guy for twice swerving over the double-yellow lane lines, running a red light, and then attempting to change lanes into an already occupied lane. After I lit him up, it took him well over a half-mile to pull over after he started to slow down.

He failed all of the field sobriety tests and I arrested him. One of my partners administered the Intoximeter at the station, and the guy blew over the legal limit. This was the guy's second or third DUI arrest.

In court, his defense attorney (Jeff), who was actually friends with a number of officers on my PD, got the blow thrown out due to a two-minute discrepancy between the Intoximeter log and the Intoximeter print-out (the administering officer's watch was two minutes off the time on the Intoximeter).

The guy got out of the additional DUI conviction, and took a lesser plea of Reckless Driving for his actions on the road. He got a $750 fine for the Reckless Driving; Jeff told us after court that the guy paid him $5000 in attorney's fees to get out of the subsequent DUI.

I guess there was some justice hitting up the guy's wallet, but still you hate to lose cases like that on a "technicality".

Jerry....damn good story. I guess for that guy, $5000 form his wallet beats a DUI. Good lawyer too, being able to tap dance the court with that 2 minute "rule"

....and there is a great situation where the answer to the original post would be YES.

quote:

Originally posted by 2494906:
A conviction is irrelevant. Only two questions remain: 1.) Was alcohol consumed? And 2.) Did it bring discredit upon the service?

If you check both of those blocks, then you have an alcohol incident. Has little bearing on the what the court decided to do.

I remember hearing all the stories from my grandpa about bar fights and all that stuff. If that kind of stuff happened back in the day, and it was not all that big of a deal, so why make a big deal out of it now? I mean all that generation did was kick ass and save america from Germany and Japan. Do you really think that REAL americans care if a military person drinks and kicks ass in a bar. NO, they would be like thats right who is going to mess with this country. These men will kick ass!!

Well... there was a lot of things that was the norm in back in the day. Drinking and driving, wife beating, children dropping out of school at the sixth grade, black and white TV, lots of things... Not sure someone's ability to get into a bar fight (or any of these other things) is necessarily a predictor of their eventual success in fighting Germans.

quote:

Originally posted by 2494906:
Well... there was a lot of things that was the norm in back in the day. Drinking and driving, wife beating, children dropping out of school at the sixth grade, black and white TV, lots of things... Not sure someone's ability to get into a bar fight (or any of these other things) is necessarily a predictor of their eventual success in fighting Germans.

Really well lets look at that. Every war we have been in vice Gulf war 1. Has not been very good "victory" for america. Like the vietnam 2 we are in now. So if leaving school at grade 6 is the answer then I am all for it. The problem is the hippie liberal ******s that are destroying this country. And I don't recall any stories of hippie liberals from my grandad. Oh yeah thats right they got the hell beat out of them and they kept their mouths shut and let real americans do what needed to be done.

So are you saying that many of the things that marked that era (wife beating, drunkedness, segregation, rampant racism, lynchings, all of these things) somehow helped us win WWII???

(BTW: I'm not saying that's all the era was known for. They certainly where a step above. No doubt. But I'm not sure I follow the logic that these are the things that made them great. I think they were great in spite of these things; not because of them.)

quote:

Originally posted by 2494906:
So are you saying that many of the things that marked that era (wife beating, drunkedness, segregation, rampant racism, all of these things) somehow helped us win WWII???

I am saying people not being the liberals they are today helped us win. if these liberals were alive back then all you would hear is no don't mess with Hitler he is a nice man. He never hurt the Jews. Japan never attacked us. It was aliens trying to take over.