User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.2578 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
He's not asking for special treatment. He's just asking that the law not be applied to him in this case.
No, he's not. He just wants the true circumstances known, so people can decide for themselves whether he is as 'morally' guilty as the typical DUI offender.
Does Hundley even need insurance? I know in California you don't, if you can prove that you have enough money to pay for any damages out of pocket. Considering his earnings, Hundley would probably qualify.
In other news, Todd Hundley lives very, very near the 1300 block of Waukegan Road. Stalk away, folks.
Is this true in NY also?
Having his kids in the car at the time... well... let's hope he loses custody.
Yes, because anonymous posters on an internet site have all the facts and are much better at judging custody than a judge. Thanks Senator Frist!
Does Hundley even need insurance? I know in California you don't, if you can prove that you have enough money to pay for any damages out of pocket. Considering his earnings, Hundley would probably qualify.
But that all depends if they correct the problems with the space shuttles by then.
a) You're being unnecessarily snooty, and
b) What about my real name leads you to believe I'm anonymous?
Well, for some reason, Eric, he thinks you're really Senator Frist.
;-)
Pass.
On second thought, maybe Eric is really Bill James.
:-)
It's not BTF as much as any website such as this. It's just the nature of the beast. I don't know how you can correct for it unless Jim, Dan, or Chris take the form of Miss Manners around here.
I think this is one of the funniest things I've ever read.
This reminds me of the Micheal Vick clip of when people were saying he was gay. "People that know me know how I roll."
I agree -- the matter of custody of Hundley's kids was/is not the issue at hand (his intoxication and poor choice to be behind the wheel), and you had no business making a personal attack on Hundley.
You got what you deserved, IMO, and I thought it was delivered with good humor.
Yes. In Illinois, everyone needs proof of insurance. There aren't too many people that can prove they can afford a potential multi-million dollar suit out of their own back-pocket, and the law was enacted a few years ago without thought to Oprah.
I think you have to have submitted proof of your ability to pay to the insurance commissioner (or somebody), and carry their acknowlegement that you qualify in the vehicle, or you're still guilty. So the loophole may be purely theoretical; I wouldn't be surprised if not a single individual in the state of Illinois complies.
And how well the regulars respond to posts like #10 is a reason why I continue to read this site, even if I'm reduced to mostly lurking nowadays.
1. How are Hundley's kids not the issue? Their presence in the car and the possible custody ramifications thereof were one of the main topics discussed in the posted article. And can you possibly be serious when you claim that when someone is caught driving drunk, the fact that his kids were in the car is irrelevant?
2. , and you had no business making a personal attack on Hundley.
This is a site that is supposed to be about discussing baseball and its players. If you can't distinguish the difference between that and a personal attack on another poster, well then I fear I'm wasting my time with this post anyway.
I don't believe there is a loophole (at least I'm not familiar with one), but I believe the offense is subject to something like a $500 fine, at most. If you can demonstrate that you are financially capable of handling all potential ramifications of not having insurance (i.e., multimillion-dollar lawsuits), I'm sure you can also handle a $500 fine.
Getting drunk around town OR killing people, not both.
Minimum car insurance in Indiana has a $50,000 cap. I would imagine that it's something similar in Illinois.
Why would you have to prove the financial resources to pay for a multi-million dollar suit if some bozo (meatwad) has insurance that only pays out a fraction of that?
I was exaggerrating for effect when I classified this as a personal attack, but I truly think that #10 was a humorous post, was not nearly as bitter and hateful as your post on Hundley (even if I agree with it), and that you're being pretty thin-skinned about it.
I'm sorry you feel slighted by BP#1F and I truly miss seeing you around here, but I think it's also a bit ironic that someone with the "definitely immoral" handle is bristling at a post like #10.
I'm sure you can also handle a $500 fine.
You can't handle the fine!
You may be right, Pops -- I'm sure you don't need to prove you have millions in insured. Still, I'm not aware of any loopholes.
In any event, my impression is that this is one of those offenses that is often dropped or bargained away. I do know that even if you don't have proof of insurance when you are pulled over, they will often drop the charge if you can bring such proof to the court hearing.
It was definitely not a personal attack on you, simply on your statement.
Carry on folks. This has been a very special BTF episode.
----------------
"He faces ... an additional $1,000 fine and 140 hours of community service because children were involved. He has a scheduled Sept. 21 court appearance. The local Department of Children and Family Services office also was notified because Hundley's daughters were in the vehicle, but Hundley says they spent the night with family and that he considers himself a good dad."
I still wonder about that crack regarding my anonymity, though. ;)
Because he doesn't go out getting drunk around town and killing people?
The custody thing just sounds more like a personal attack, not specifically from Eric, but in terms of the Hundleys and ex-Hundleys. Pop culture's take on custody battles is always in the context of getting back at a former spouse, or perhaps squeezing more money. And not thinking of the children, per se.
But I agree, responsible parenting is a serious issue. If his driving that night is true to the account in the story, that easily could have been a disaster, for him, for the kid, for others. And in Eric's defense (not that there is anything to defend), if Hundley was just putting himself in danger then at least he's an adult, but when you have a kid strapped in the back, there is a different set of rules and expectations.
have you read the fukkin article? he wasn't drunk.
you are a fukkin prick, always have been, always will be. that is the topic at hand.
Fair enough. I did, and he is. Next!
For the record, I make no such claims regarding Post #37, which I think is truly uncalled for and out of bounds.
He was "DUI" (under the influence, though not of alcohol). That he was not "drunk" is not a particularly important distinction, IMO.
He was arrested for a DUI. But eric is claiming he was drunk, which makes me think he didn't even read the article, and is hoping that hundley should lose custody of his children.
So phlegm, you think he should lose custody of his children for driving while on pain killers?
This is a shame.
Technically, we don't know this. All we know for sure is that he says he wasn't drunk, and that he failed a field sobriety test. The police didn't release the results of his Breathalyzer.
For what it's worth, I think Enders' comment about "losing custody of his children" was a little presumptuous.
The question wasn't addressed to me, but I think that at a minimum, the matter is worthy of further scrutiny. Putting your kids at risk like that is really inexcusable.
And by '01-'02, he was at the other end of the spectrum.
i know this wasn't addressed to me, but my answer is maybe, or it depends.
See my 45, Barry. I offered no opinion on the subject before then, so lose the snark.
Could be, but that's why I can't say whether I think he should "lose custody"--there are too many variables. One could argue that there's MORE danger in driving while on painkillers, particularly if he takes them on a regular basis (a prosecutor might posit that he poses a more "constant" threat of driving under the influence if he takes a painkiller every day than he would be if he simply went on the occasional bender).
That said, I think most cops would frown severely upon driving while vomiting. :)
And by '01-'02, he was at the other end of the spectrum.
I'm disppointed you didn't word that much more harshly. I'd take the 2004-2005 Jose Macias over the 2001-2002 Todd Hundely any day.
If I wanted to be an optimist about it (which I sure as #### don't), I'd say that without Todd Hundley the Cubs would never had gotten Todd Walker and Derrek Lee (since that trade forced the Cubs to trade Bobby Hill and Hee Seop Choi). That trade (for Grudz/Karros) is easily one of the best trades of all time in Cubs history (if you evaluate it simply based on the results, and not what was thought of it at the time).
My experience with vicodin on an empty stomach* was that it made me feel fukcing great. I totally understand why people get addicted to that stuff... it's probably my favorite painkiller this side of intravenous morphine.
*Try eating something with gaping holes where your wisdom teeth used to be.
Sadly, I did that once. After a lunch out where the whole table ended up with food poisoning, I was making the 25-minute drive back to my apartment. About 10 minutes it, I knew I wasn't going to make it.
The key is to try to hold it in until you come to a red liight.
Keep them coming.
instead of discussing the issue at hand, someone always turns it into a personal attack/my-####-is-bigger-than-yours contest.
This coming from the guy who invented the SAT post.
This coming from the guy who will popularized, "lazy reporters" and "stupid reporters."
This coming from the guy who frequently posts almost laughable information regarding the law or society.
Enders, you innovated caustic. Don't get upset because, like with most things, people are a lot better at it then you.
And most of these guys were right. The article is not discussing Hundley's battle over the custody of his kids. You can rephrase it a million times and it still won't be discussing this issue.
It points out that a social service organization was contacted, which, is probably the law in Illinois. It also is important because it changes the penalty associated with the DUI offense.
I have no idea why you think a child should be forcibly seperated from a parent as a punitive act. That would be as colder and crueler than allowing people to hit other people with chairs. I gather you don't have any children.
And unlike you, I'm not going to pretend I know about Illinois law, but I can tell you DSS could not sustain a case for removing a child based on one DUI in the Commonwealth of Mass. The children's mother is a different story.
I'm gathering you mean the former. If that is true, than for once I agree with BLB. Its callous to want to yank somebody's child away as a punitive measure.
Nope.
Nope.
Here are the compulsory auto insurance requirements by state.
But not as cruel as maiming them in an auto accident while driving impaired.
Enders said that he hopes Hundley loses custody, i.e. the responsibilities as primary caregiver. Given that he showed appalingly bad judgment in this case, that's not an unreasonable position, especially since the children's mother lives in the area. Assuming Hundley's allowed visitation, and I don't see why he wouldn't be, he'd still be allowed to love his children and be a part of their lives. He just wouldn't be able to risk injuring or killing them.
I agree. Except when the act is meant to punish abuse or reckless endangerment. As it would be in the case of someone who failed a field sobriety test with his kids in the car.
Keeping kids in the care of someone who recklessly endangered their lives is cureler than taking them out of that environment.
Why? In both cases, you're endangering the lives of your passengers and everyone around you by driving with impaired motor functions. If I'm plowed into by an impaired driver, I don't really care whether he's impaired by alcohol, marijuana, painkillers, or blindness.
I think most courts of law would agree that there is a distinction.
I don't. Either you're fit to drive or you aren't. If you aren't, you have no business being on the road.
Then the standard is (as it is in Mass.) the best interests of the child. You do not lose children as a punishment. Moreover, in Mass. at least, its based on the present ability of the parent.
There is a huge difference in saying, "I hope he loses custody." and "I hope the kids are in a safe environment."
I can't imagine a situatuion where I would hope that a parent loses a child.
The difference is semantic. The people who want Hundley to lose custody want him to lose custody because he's guilty of recklessly endangering his kids. I don't think anyone would have advocated him losing custody were his kids not in the car.
I can't imagine a situatuion where I would hope that a parent loses a child.
I can think of several:
Physically abusive parent.
Sexually abusive parent.
Physically abusive live-in partner of parent.
Sexually abusive live-in partner of parent.
Reckless endangerment on the part of the parent.
In every one of these cases, I would want the parent to lose custody of the child because the environment would not be safe for the child.
For legal purposes, you don't see the difference between getting drunk or stoned, or having a larger reaction to a painkiller than you anticipated?
What if someone is diabetic and has an unanticipated reaction to low blood sugar? You would sentence them in the same way you would for someone who was high on LSD, X, and pot?
I don't. Either you're fit to drive or you aren't. If you aren't, you have no business being on the road.
I'm glad everything is black and white in your world.
Keeping kids in the care of someone who recklessly endangered their lives is cureler than taking them out of that environment.
I don't drink and agree with the trite proposition that drinking under the influence is very bad. One of the worst things people regularly do. But a buddy of mine happens to be an OPP officer (highway police) and he says that he catches drunk drivers with kids in the car frequently. For those of you in your thirties and forties, you will often see a friend/parent drive his family home after having a few drinks or more at an afternoon BBQ at a friend's house, or perhaps your own house. If you were to take away the kids of all the parents who drive under the influence with their kids in the car, the CASs would be more jam packed than they already are.
This is not to excuse the behaviour, but just to add a dose of reality to it. The choice to legalize drinking in our countries and throughout almost the entire world brings with it danger to adults and children. Most people think they are safe to drive if they have had only a couple of beers. It just isn't true.
Nobody is hoping the kids get maimed in an automobile accident. The statement was purely made as a punitive measure. And you can parse all you want, it is cruel to wish that someone lose children. It is a terrible outcome for children to be maimed. Its not even really a cogent retelling of the events despite your word play.
Enders said that he hopes Hundley loses custody, i.e. the responsibilities as primary caregiver.
That is not what custody means, even in Enders warped understanding of the law. It might be a portion of the definition of a distinction on legal custody. But its not even close to what custody means..
And it doesn't matter how bad you misunderstand words. It was a punitive shot at someone with an enormous sanction.
Given that he showed appalingly bad judgment in this case, that's not an unreasonable position, especially since the children's mother lives in the area.
First, it shows he made a mistake. He probably had bad judgment as he should have known the effects of Vicodin, but that is not a given.
Second, as has been pointed out by numerous posters-- that isn't the issue in this article. The article is silent and I have no knowledge of any petition of custody by the mother. I don't even know the legal status of custody for the children. For all I know, he only has visitation. I bet Enders doesn't know either, and he just wanted to take a shot.
What is expressly included in this article, and quoted by Enders in his sophistic defense, is that a branch of children's services was involved.
Assuming Hundley's allowed visitation, and I don't see why he wouldn't be, he'd still be allowed to love his children and be a part of their lives.
What is Hundley's adjudicated status. You want to come in making all kinds of claims about what this means. Tell me, does he even have more than visitation.
Its like Daly said, people will just look for keywords in a post or article and use that as a basis to make a statement, even if the statement is unresponsive, half-asssed, evil, or incorrect.
For all the people on this board, even those that believe in chair shots, I had never seen anyone wish for a parent to lose custody to their kids, especially with a state actor. That is about the cruelest thing I've ever seen posted.
No it is not semantic. There is a world of difference. There is difference under the law and there is difference under the intent of the speaker.
I think there's an important distinction, much in the same way that there's a distinction between the DWI who blows a .06 and the DWI who blows a .4. Many people have, at times, exercised less than 100% perfect judgment, even when caring for children. The degree to which they deviate from what the average person considers reasonable SHOULD matter, especially to a court of law.
While your leg isn't any less broken by the guy who took a painkiller on an empty stomach that it was by the guy who drank a case, the second one is probably a lot more likely to repeat the offense of getting into the car when he's a danger to society than the first one, and the punishment (whether through degree of punishment or choice of whether or not to enforce it) should reflect that.
10. "Are those my kids in the backseat or are you just happy to see me?"
9. "That's gotta be the damndest sneaky way to ask for an autograph."
8. "Well at least I wasn't getting Neagled officer."
7. "I wasn't drinking, I was too stoned to get the glass to my mouth."
6. "Cripes, you must be another bitter Cubs fan out for revenge."
5. "I know you're just trying to bring home the bacon...hell, you're the bacon."
4. "I know I was speeding dumbass, there was a cop chasing me."
3. "It's a good thing I'm retired or Don Fehr would have your badge number."
2. "But officer, I've never seen those kids before in my life."
1. "Dude, I was driving 2 MPH in a freakin' Hummer, isn't there some minority you could go hassle instead? Ever hear of racial %#@*!! profiling?"
Best Regards
John
I wouldn't want them to take away Todd Hundley's right to see his kids. Damn, why don't you just go ahead and kill him, then? But, if it is proven he put them in harm's way more-or-less knowingly, or out of negligence, I don't see any problem with strictly supervising his time with them in some way, for some period of time.
I don't see how anyone could judge either way, just from what is in the article.
Frankly, no. When I drive home from work with the flu, I pull over if my head feels like it's swimming. When I take painkillers or other medication, I plan not to drive until I know how my body's going to react to them.
Until there's a medical difference between being hit by a drunk or stoned driver as opposed to one on Vicodin, I don't see a compelling reason for a legal difference.
What if someone is diabetic and has an unanticipated reaction to low blood sugar? You would sentence them in the same way you would for someone who was high on LSD, X, and pot?
No, and here the difference is that experiencing an unexpected drop in blood sugar is not reckless in the way that getting behind the wheel on painkillers is. However, if it could be proven that the driver made no special effort to get off the road once the reaction happened, I would favor at least the temporary loss of the license. This has little to do with punishment and much to do with public safety.
I'm glad everything is black and white in your world.
Nice snarky comment. The fact remains that an unfit driver is a danger to everyone around him or her and needs to be gotten off the road until he or she is fit to drive.
I did that once after some heavy drinking. BTW, don't Sass the Mack!
:-)
I think a lot of Cubs and Dodgers fans would welcome this as well. Of course, their idea of a "Todd Hundley killing spree" would be a string of people killing Todd Hundley.
The entire legal system in this country disagrees with your assessments. Have you noticed that there are different degrees of murder, including manslaughter? Your opinion is in a small minority. But you have every right to think it.
Assuming that Hundley has custody of his children, I'm sure he'd be sad if he lost custody of them and were only allowed supervised visits. He should've thought of that before he put them at risk. Hundley's feelings are so much less important than the welfare of his kids that words honestly fail me. The back problems aren't exactly the new thing, so he's got no excuse for not knowing what the Vicodin would do to his system. If nothing else, he could've had his ex-wife drop them off, or called a cab for the 15-year-old.
It's cruel to take something he values away from him, but cruelty is an essential part of all levels of our criminal justice system. It's cruel to execute someone, or to sieze their property, or to deprive them of their liberty, even if you have just cause for doing so. The cruelty exists not because it's desirable, but because it's necessary to prevent unreasonable risk to innocent people. His judgment in this case was so spectacularly poor that I couldn't blame someone for thinking that he's moved beyond the point of reasonable doubt.
As for any discussion of Enders's implications, you're probably the last person who should ever comment on someone else's alleged schadenfreude.
While a snarky response to a dumb comment can be hurtful --- it can also be funny. It's a fine line, but I imagine it's usually less painful than a generic "You sir, are an idiot."
The degrees of murder are a non sequitur. When you drink and drive, you knowingly ingest a substance that impairs motor function and get behind the wheel. When you take Vicodin and drive, you knowingly take a substance that's clearly labeled as impairing motor function and get behind the wheel. Why are these things not equivalent in your eyes?
These distinctions are drawn on the basis of intent, though, and probably not applicable in a case like this. Neither a person who drives drunk nor a person who drives while out of their mind on prescription meds do so with the intent of causing harm, but both are behaving in a negligent manner, and both should be punished in similar fashion.
The issue is one of degree. This wasn't just a garden-variety bad decision, like letting Junior eat an entire package of frozen corn dogs.
In my view, driving with your kids in the car while impaired is neglectful and abusive. I think those kids would be better off with other biological relatives, or failing that, with caring strangers. Your opinion may differ.
Maybe in your opinion.
When you drink and drive, you knowingly ingest a substance that impairs motor function and get behind the wheel. When you take Vicodin and drive, you knowingly take a substance that's clearly labeled as impairing motor function and get behind the wheel. Why are these things not equivalent in your eyes?
They are equivalent the same as a first degree murder and a third degree murder are equivalent. You have posted multiple times above that they is completely no difference. The legal system disagrees.
In my view, driving with your kids in the car while impaired is neglectful and abusive. I think those kids would be better off with other biological relatives, or failing that, with caring strangers. Your opinion may differ.
If what occured here is the standard for neglectful and abusive, then easily millions of North American children would need to be taken from their parents. Most biological relatives would be unsuitable to give the children too, as would most caring strangers. I can't swear I know a single person who's parents didn't expose them to similar danger, or allow them to be exposed to similar danger by lack of action.
That's a pity. I know lots of 'em.
-----------
That's a pity. I know lots of 'em.
As do I. In fact, I'm one of them.
At least you think you do.
10. BBQ sauce wrestling with the neighbour's pit bull.
9. Giving me a screwdriver and telling me that there's a quarter stuck in the electrical outlet.
8. Cloth diapers and an eletric blanket in the crib.
7. Yelling: "JOHNNY, BRING THE SCISSORS HERE AS FAST AS YOU CAN, IT'S AN EMERGENCY!!!"
6. The Montreal Expos.
5. Teaching me to 'stop look and listen' when I catch fire and 'stop, drop and roll' when crossing the street.
4. Having me shave the cat before he was to be neutered.
3. Farming: How to milk the cow with only one teat.
2. Sending me to reform school dressed in a Buster Brown outfit.
1. Telling me that Drano and Javex is the recipe for chocolate milk.
Best Regards
John
I agree with this point - but I think the real problem was the choice to legalize automobiles. :)
I love to drive, but it's hard for me to reconcile my love for the activity with the real negative effects it has had on society - exacerbating petroleum overuse, lack of compatibility with standard social practice like DRINKING (or taking vicodin), inherent danger in flinging huge hunks of metal around and high speeds... and enough of the world has been developed in their image that we're locked in. Oops.
I would bet some on here might see the need to have removed me from his custory.
Sending me to reform school dressed in a Buster Brown outfit.
- just cracks me up.
I never said that.
What is misspelled in my handle?
So you know every single thing that your friends and family have done when it comes to their kids. I highly doubt it.
-----------
That's a pity. I know lots of 'em.
I'm sure I've been in a car when my dad has had a few (or perhaps a bit more) drinks.
I also recall a time when I was wrestling around with my dad in the kitchen, where his attempt to take me down to the floor ended up with my eating linoleum and losing a tooth. In retrospect, it could have been far worse.
I'm sure that, as a baby, my parents probably tossed me up in the air. I could have been dropped.
In fact, I know I've been dropped on my head.
I also know that my mother smoked throughout her pregnancy with me as well.
These are just the incidents I quickly recall, but I suspect they subjected me to unmentionable risks, dangers, and hazards.
I also suspect that my experience as a kid was typical, and that I adore my parents, happily married for 39 years.
The thought that someone who never met me or my parents and knows nothing about our relationship or their care of me can learn of one incident, make a snap judgment, and get on a soapbox and declare "let's hope he loses custody" would gall me to no end.
I know every single thing that my parents did with their kid (i.e. me), and while it's true that I can't know everything about relatives or close friends, I'm not exactly flying blind there, evidence-wise.
"What is misspelled in my handle?"
I think he means La-Z-Boy, a registered copyright with a different spelling than your handle. Either that, or you're dissing Nikolai's work ethic.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main