I just picked this story up on MSN. Terrible turn of events for the victim and for Leyritz. When will athletes, or people in general, learn that alcohol and driving don't mix?



LINK:http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7611338?MSNHPHMA
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years...72leyritz1.html

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- A former major league baseball player is in the Broward County Jail after being arrested on suspicion of DUI and vehicular homicide.

Police said Jim Leyritz was behind the wheel of a Ford SUV that collided with another vehicle at the intersection of Southwest Seventh Avenue and Second Street in the Himmarshee area of downtown Fort Lauderdale.

http://www.local10.com/sports/14939017/detail.html

Within seconds of each other...I'll ask them to lock mine.

I'll go ahead and post what I was saying in my thread. This kinda thing just reminds us that driving while drunk, is not only stupid it's going to come back to bite you or someone else in the backside. I feel for this family...But honestly, not for him.

Really? I feel pretty bad for him, too, unless it was something he does regularly. Most of us have done things while our judgment was impaired that we regretted, including, for many of us, driving drunk. To kill somebody due to that lapse of judgment.... I can't imagine what that must feel like.

In the human sense of this yes it sucks to be him, BUT I have a family member (My mom actually) who's life was irrevocably changed because of damage to her back thanks to a drunk driver. I don't have a lot of tolerance for it and it's certainly a mistake I'm not gonna make (Nor ever have).

I'm not saying there should be tolerance for it.

Maybe I should spell this out a bit better. I refuse to feel bad for him having made a fatal mistake. I refuse to feel sympathy for him. The person in the other car lost their life. Jim Leyritz is being tried for the homicide because he was the driver of the car that ultimately collided with theirs and killed them. He's at fault. Sure, it sucks to be Leyritz and I'm sure he feels real remorse for it. But at the same time, he was an adult and made an adult mistake that cost someone their life. In some way shape or form he'll pay for it. Maybe my feelings on this are irrational...I'm not going to loose sleep over it though, because I have my reasons for feeling this way.

Putting it another more obtuse kinda way, I'm not gonna get all bleeding heart about him, when a living human being minding their own business last night is on an autopsy board today because that damn fool drove drunk.

Anyone wanna take a guess that a judge might throw me out of the jury pool if a DUI trial ever comes up? Takers? No? I didn't think so.

Btw...Chico. I'm not upset at you, although this post might give that appearance. It's not personal against you, just in general to how I feel about alcohol related accidents, etc. My ex-BIL was involved in an alcohol related incident himself that cost him his life as well. This topic, hits a big nerve with me. I apologize ahead of time if it seems personal towards you, as that is not my intent.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, though. The blood test results aren't in yet. But no, it certainly doesn't look good for the King.

If he was plastered, it's particularly hard for me to understand, given his age. I expect (but do not excuse) such behavior out of high school kids. It's unfathomable to me that an adult would drink himself/herself into a stupor and put everyone else on the road at risk. If Leyritz did this, I'm with the poster who said he doesn't have much sympathy for him.

I especially have no sympathy for folks who have the means to pay someone to drive them around if they should so choose

I understand having an emotional reaction to an issue if you've been affected by it directly. That's probably natural.

Generally, though, I don't understand a lack of empathy for a guy who, while he did something horrible (assuming he did it, of course), had no intention of doing so and possibly doesn't even remember having done it. Doesn't absolve him of blame or anything, of course. I just feel bad for a guy whose life may have just been ruined, too, due to impaired judgment rather than any malice.

(For comparison, when an elderly driver out here mowed down a Farmers Market a few years ago, killing a dozen people and injuring many others, a lot of people not only felt sorry for him but also believed he shouldn't face criminal charges due to his age. I felt the same way about him that I do about Leyritz or anybody else in such a situation: I think they need to face criminal charges but I also feel bad for them given how their lives have been indelibly altered through no intent of their own.)

Yup..it's stories like this one that make me think of my late teens and tremble a bit.

Me, too. I grew up in cow town, so when we drank, we drove. If you parked, the cops found you.

I shudder when I think back at how cocky I was about driving drunk.

Adults should know better, period. There's no excuse for driving drunk.

I was on a jury that convicted an ex-nun of drunk driving. Her lawyer was absolutely shocked. The evidence convicted her. She was drunk.




And before you think I'm some tee-totaling prude - I'm well into my first glass of Cabernet for the evening. More will follow. I'm going to read and listen to music and not drive anywhere.

Too add even more to this, supposedly the lady was thrown from her vehicle. Which says two probable possibilities: 1.) She didn't have her seatbelt on and that resulted in her ejection. 2.) They were going at an incredible rate of speed and her seatbelt failed. I'm leaning towards the former. Brings some more perspective to this...both of their decisions possibly contributed to her death.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...aUZaNW8PJJlhCVg

"Veitch was ejected from the car, police said. She died at Broward General Medical Center, Collins said."

Edit: Added link and quote.

The blood tests results aren't in, but he failed three roadside sobriety tests, refused to take a breathalyzer, and according to the officer's report, he had watery eyes and smelled of alcohol. It really, really doesn't look good for the King. Leyritz is basically f*cked.

it may be unfathomable that an adult would drink and drive, but they do anyway. 'tis the season. That's why the state police saturate the highways from the Friday before Christmas until the day after New Years. They're not out looking just for high school kids.

It's funny how people end up pitying the driver and never think about his/her victim(s).

Speak for yourself on this one. Not to get too preachy, but I think that exact attitude is part of the reason why drunk driving is such a problem. I know you aren't excusing it and I get your general sentiment...its not like we should be happy this happened to Leyritz, obviously...but its about time we started getting serious about drinking to excess in general. Our entire culture needs a wake up call here...so many bad things happened because of drinking too much, and part of the reason why is because its acceptable to get plastered. At least until somebody gets killed.

A good point also on the other driver...I don't get not wearing a seatbelt. I also don't get the choices people make in the vehicles they choose. Safety frequently seems to come last. That particular vehice (2000 Montero) is a relative death trap compared to many others--high rollover risk, hard to handle in an emergency, etc. Sometimes it takes an incident like this to wake people up to it...close family friends of ours were car people and loved buying and restoring them--mostly Corvettes and Camaros. They also liked to drive them the way they were meant to be driven--fast. One night the 20 year old was driving home in his Camaro. It was the last generation. Too fast. He lost control and hit a telephone pole. Declared dead on the scene.

That family doesn't own any Corvettes or Camaros anymore.

it is why i haven't driven since 1993...

not because of an accident or dui or anything of the sort....i just needed to decide whether i was going to be a driving guy or a drinking guy....so far, i'm a drinking guy...

Take a look around...There are apologists in all walks of life now a days. I feel you man. Totally.

i pretty much agree with colorado jack.

One of my best friends in high school was mowed down by a drunk who sped through a red light and T-boned him. THe impact caused the gas tank to explode and the truck caught fire. The autopsy later said that he died from the fire and smoke inhalation, not the accident. The guy got off with some weak sentence and we still have a moment where we remember Shannon at every reunion. When you take the life of someone else because of gross negligence (DUI), it is tough to forgive and forget.

I am by no means a tee-totaler. I do like my beer and mixed drinks. However, I am a teacher and a coach and it would be certain termination if I engaged in the act of DUI. I also do my drinking in the company of family and/or friends. If I am not at home, I know I have a place to crash for the night or that someone at the party (usually and thankfully, my wife) is able to give me a ride home.

I also agree with the previous poster who asked why he didnt have someone else drive him, because he dang sure has the means to pay for it.

I sure do feel bad for everyone involved.

Has anybody done that?

MFL, you may fall among the exceptions, but I'll stick by my claim. ("Most of us have done things while our judgment was impaired that we regretted, including, for many of us, driving drunk.") I know very few people who haven't done the former, and many, many people I know have done the latter, unfortunately (but, thankfully, w/o any signficantly bad results).



Actually, I don't see how my attitude has anything to do with the reason that drinking and driving is such a problem.

I think what he did is horrible, as it ruined several lives. Unlike some, I'm simply acknowledging that he probably didn't mean to do this and has ruined his life (among the several I referred to before) and, as a result, I feel bad for the guy.



I think the situation is most important when it comes to drinking. Like it or not, drinking to excess will always happen. In some places, though, it can be done relatively safely (cities such as New York, that are dense enough to have plenty of cabs, and such as Vegas and New Orleans that in some ways revolve around drinking, among other things). Obviously, the bad combination is drinking in a place where people will wind up driving (most of the country).

I'm sure I drink much less than I would if I lived in New York, for example, simply because out here in California I need to drive. As a result, it's pretty rare now for me to have more than a drink or 2 at a time.



OT: I don't understand why any parent would permit a young driver to have a fast car. Granted, virtually any car can be driven at unsafe speeds, but I don't understand increasing the odds of something like that occurring. When I was a teen, I remember wanting to buy some souped up muscle car which was a pos except for its huge engine. I was pissed that my dad put his foot down, but I appreciate it now. I would have been buying a death trap -- tons of power, terrible handling and brakes, virtually no safety features.

Its not your attitude in particular, chico...its just the general attitude we all have toward drinking. Once you get to college its "assumed" that you will binge drink and do all kinds of crazy stuff. Most people eventually grow out of that, but some don't. And even if they do, sometimes the aftermath of that type of behavior can last a lifetime (I'm thinking primarly of college aged girls who end up in situations they didn't want to be in).

Its time that we no longer "assumed" that kind of behavior and quit finding humor in it. Its not funny to drink yourself to the point where your system is ready to shut down. I went to a school in which most drinking occured off campus, but even there, without fail, just about every weekend they'd be opening up the gates to let an ambulance in. The local hospital must have made a killing in stomach pumping.

I think if you were to nip that in the bud, it would have a trickle down effect and people would be generally less likely to abuse alcohol.

I also think that those who make this mistake and DON'T kill somebody get off way too easy. MLB, for instance, should have suspended Tony LaRussa when he was arrested for DUI. Anyone who has seen the dashboard video should think about it for a minute---he could have been driving next to you in that state.

Here's a good article about DUIs and MLB's blind eye:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...mp;sportCat=mlb

BTW--just so I'm clear---its not a secret on here that I don't drink. That's just a personal choice my wife and I made and it works for us. Its not for moral or religious reasons, its just something we don't need in our lives for various reasons. However...I have NOTHING against consuming alcohol in moderation. I don't think there's anything wrong with it and I wouldn't actively discourage anyone for doing it. That's not what I'm talking about here.

It's done all the time "Damn, tough break for ____________ , could happen to any of us." is the usual refrain.

Interesting -- I don't think I've been aware of anybody who didn't think it was a tragedy for the victim and her family.



Can't disagree with much of that. One thing I know from my college days is that I want my kids to have grown up around responsible alcohol use and I don't want college to be the first time they have ready access to it. I don't think there's any magic solution (especially since there's been alcoholism in my family -- something my parents never told me about, which I think is probably another mistake), but I do believe that reducing the novelty of it helps reduce the allure. Of course, that still does nothing to eliminate peer pressure, etc.

1,000 traffic deaths in VA this year...the most since 1990...38% were alcohol related.

NY daily news piece on the woman who died in the accident and the family she left behind

sad stuff.

From the above link...



... which I presume will get plea-bargained down. Still a lot of jail time, but less than the max sentence. And to think Genarlow Wilson was originally sentenced to ten years for getting a BJ from a classmate.

Unbelievable.

I understand there was no intention to kill, but I cannot have anything but zero sympathy for Leyritz. I also (like a previous poster) have direct experience with a family member being disable at the hands of a man admitted to the officer he "only had like 12 beers." I can't even imagine making the decision to pick up my keys-- I can't even avoid bumping into the table after three or four games of pong, let alone keep a car on the road.

As a college student I see this kind of "Yo, I got so blackout drunk last night, I don't even remember getting home" and "yeah, I f*cking got smashed and then drove to Taco Bell." The nonchalance and bravado that seems attached to American drinking habits is honestly, one of the darkest facets of our society today.

Part of that is our society's turning of alcohol into a taboo and a forbidden fruit. Countries that have more libertine drinking laws have fewer problems with drunken driving.

Also, a drinking age of 21 means that kids are going to consume their alcohol in totally unsupervised places, or worse, in cars while driving around. At least a bar has a bit of surveillance, unlike a kegger in the woods or someone's basement.

I think the drinking age should be 18. However the driving age should be 25.
Kids do stupid things behind the wheel of a car drunk or sober. So, lets take driving out of the equation.
Or you give everyone a probationary license until age 25 with a zero tolerance for alcohol. If you're under 25 and get pulled over and blow anything over a 0.01 on the breatalyzer, you lose your license for 2 years.

None of this would matter with a dope like leyritz, but whatever.

A lot of the problem with underage drinking is that its illegal, you presumably lower the drinking age, the shadiness of it goes away...hopefully, but probably not and wont happen in my lifetime.

The creepiest thing about this story is that she probably knew Leyritz, it really is a sad situation for both parties involved, you can feel bad for Leyritz or whomever, who might be good guy who just made a mistake, but all the sympathy has to go with the family that just lost their mother and wife. No excuse for that.

somewhat OT: Thought I'd acknowledge the role emotion can play in thoughts on this issue, even at what may be a subconscious level. While I've had a friend die at the hands of a drunk driver as well as a couple acquaintances, both were long ago, when I was a child and in high school, respectively, so the personal impact is now minimal. However, this morning I was reading about a family in Ohio that had 5 members killed, and 3 more injured (2 critically), by a drunk driver going the wrong way on the highway (the driver, as so often seems to be the case, suffered only minor injuries). I realized that I didn't have much sympathy for the driver -- in contrast to having some sympathy for Leyritz.

Why is that?

Well, I think a few things, right or wrong (if there is such a thing): (i) before reading the article, I saw a picture from the scene, and the family's minivan looked so demolished that it was hard to imagine any survivors, (ii) an entire family may have been killed, including several children and an infant, and (iii) the article said that the drunk driver was belligerent with the police when apprehended. Mostly, though, I think there's some subconscious association w/Leyritz simply b/c he wasn't a nameless stranger. I was never a particular fan of Leyritz or even knew much about him, but I think merely knowing who he was prompts some identification with him.

Anyway, if you bothered to read this, hope you didn't find it completely useless. I was interested in the inconsistency of my reactions, and on a day / time of the year where there tends to be some introspection, thought it might interest some other folks as well. (While it doesn't really fit with the thread, hope you all have a happy New Year.)

Perhaps.

But let's not confuse "sympathy for the driver" with "lack of sympathy for the victim(s)." Let's not confuse, "A lot of people make this mistake" with "therefore, it's not such a bad mistake."

We have sympathy for the drivers in these situations, though, precisely because of the magnitude of the consequences. I can't recall the last time I heard a lot of sympathy for the drunk driver who totalled his car without anyone getting hurt, or even the drunk driver who died or was seriously injured but didn't hurt anyone else. But killing another person? That's something these drivers have to live with for the rest of their lives. Their drunken state and lack of judgment don't absolve them of blame -- but at the same time, these aren't all inherently bad people (even the repeat offenders), in some cases they aren't even people who are especially in control of their drinking...and, yes, it is easier to relate to this particular lapse in judgment.

None of us wants to face the burden of knowing that we were responsible for someone else's death. That's where the sympathy or empathy comes into play.



Again, here, I think there's a distinction between accepting that "it's perfectly ok to drink until blacking out, etc." and accepting that "it happens."

That said, there does need to be a shift in attitude towards excessive drinking, and the responsibility that accompanies it. Make no mistake. I'm pro alcohol. I think it is, in sum, a good thing...for those who are willing to take responsibility for it. Plenty of people have the exact opposite approach, though: drinking with the express purpose of absolving themselves of responsibility for their actions. The "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" approach.

I'm not a fan. It's perfectly possible, even, to drink well past the point of moderation without ever reaching the point of "anything goes." People choose otherwise. They're the ones who ruin alcohol's good name. I do not support that.

Except for flashing of tits. That's almost always acceptable.

Actually, I think most actions by most women should be considered exceptions (assuming, of course, that they're not behind the wheel of a car -- and that they're not the woman you're dating or married to)

Sigh. All that stomach pumping I saw years ago in college...mostly women. Couldn't handle the alcohol as well.

Just joking -- not really thinking about getting to the stomach pumping stage, more thinking along the lines of "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" and "anything goes"

Interesting, though -- most cases I can recall of people getting that drunk were guys -- mainly b/c the girls wouldn't get involved in multiple shots or guzzling off a bottle as much as some guys ill-advisedly would. (Starting to feel nauseous just thinking about some of the levels of drinking that went on then...)

I think the biggest thing about this story that no one has mentioned yet, is how is Jim Leyritz still able to bang playboy models.

Because some playboy models have an IQ about equal to your waist hat size.

It just gets worse for Leyritz. Now they are reporting that he was driving on a suspended license.

LINK: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3177369

If that's true then it doesn't matter if he was drunk, sober, or somewhere in between. He is at fault, and guilty of vehicular manslaughter because he was not authorized to operate a motor vehicle in the state of Florida. But his lawyer (and the piece) says he was suspended in NY, and not Florida. "Planning" to suspend a license? That's the best they could come up with? If he was suspended in one place, they never should have issued him one in another state. That's the purpose of a suspension. Something doesn't sound right in that piece, and I'm pretty much an expert on the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

He already had a FL license; New York suspended it for failure to appear there (he was caught talking while on his cell, verboten in New York).

NY notified FL but they hadn't suspended his FL license yet. So this isn't going to matter. And driving on a suspended in FL (I have personal experience, unfortunately, from when I lived there in my 20's) is no big deal. $150 or so in court costs and a fine, and it always gets pled down.

It's not the crime that's a big deal. Every state penalizes OAS with a fine, even after multiple offenses. You don't get into much legal trouble unless you become a Habitual Traffic Offender, which, IIRC, takes like four OAS convictions. The reason you run into problems is because you are the unauthorized operator of a motor vehicle, are ineligible to be insured as a driver, and are committing a crime (no matter how minor) just by getting behind the wheel. Any crime that occurs as a result of your driving you are at fault for. It's why getting into an accident with someone who has no license means it's their fault regardless of the circumstance. They never should have been driving in the first place.

All that said, it looks like he was licensed in two states, and Florida never suspended him, so, surprise, the ESPN story was nothing but a little bit of sensationalism. He was legally able to drive in Florida, just not drunk.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3226661

"...The woman who was killed when former World Series star Jim Leyritz crashed his SUV into her car had a blood-alcohol level more than twice the legal limit.

According to a toxicology report released Friday, 30-year-old Fredia Ann Veitch had a blood-alcohol level of 0.18. Florida's legal limit is 0.08. Leyritz's blood-alcohol content three hours after the crash was 0.14 percent..."


Curious whether this affects people's opinions of the accident. (I'm not sure what to think about it, honestly.)

Makes me glad I don't often drive that late at night.

What a world. No, it doesn't change anything, at least legally.

Same here. I can't stand walking my dogs late at night, at least on weekends -- always nervous that some idiot may come along.



Yeh, I wasn't referring to legality, more to people's opinions.

For example, I went back and was reading some of the comments made by her husband, about the children losing their mother. Obviously, they still lost their mother, and he lost his wife -- but is she still the sympathetic victim she seemed to be, even though she was out doing the same dumb thing Leyritz was?

If they were both way over the legal limit, then I don't feel as sorry for her and her family, because she was just as guilty, and just happened to be the one that died.

Since it doesn't affect Leyritz's alcohol level, it just means both were idiots for driving drunk. Now, if you want to say it makes her less of a victim, I can definitely see that as she apparantly has more culpability now than was previously known.

Certainly will help him to protect his assets. Other than that, he was still in the wrong place at the wrong time driving drunk.

Well it certainly makes me question who's to blame for the accident. If they were both driving drunk (her without a seatbelt, don't forget), who's to say Leyritz is the one who blew the red light, and not the deceased? It may very well get him out of any jail time (at least on the manslaughter count) unless there are plenty of witnesses who say it was his fault.

Either way, very sad...


edit: apparently there are witnesses who say Leyritz ran the red...