« MORE DETAILS EMERGE ON PFEILSTICKER’S ARREST FOR DRUNK DRIVING | Home | KTTC: “VOTE GETTER GETS GOT” »
LTE: “PFEILSTICKER SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | December 28, 2007
"One would think that all of the efforts to eliminate drunken driving over these many years would have had more substantial effect. There’s MADD, started by the wife of one of my old B-52 squadron mates, SADD and a whole variety of other initiatives to stop this menace. Yet Linda Pfeilsticker, in her recent letter to the Winona Daily News, says that it is so easy to make such a mistake. No it’s not, not this one.
Mistakes are most often inadvertent. She was affected by alcohol, she knew it and she chose to drive anyway. That was not a mistake. It was the willful disregard of a well-established and well-known law.
She also says she has a lot of integrity. But integrity means following the rules and she didn’t do that, did she?
Finally she says that she 'accepts responsibility' for what she did. I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean. What goes along with 'accepting responsibility?' Anything at all or is it another empty vacuous phrase?
Does it mean for instance that, along with accepting responsibility, she will sentence herself to, oh say, 1,500 hours of community service or to some other form of penance? Has she decided to clean the ditches from Wabasha to Winona? For one year only or maybe like five?" Source: Winona Daily News, December 27, 2007
Click here for the complete letter.
Topics: Linda Pfeilsticker | 4 Comments »
4 Responses to “LTE: “PFEILSTICKER SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:10 am
[...] Michael B. Brodkorb created an interesting post today on LTE: “PFEILSTICKER SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTERâ€Here’s a short outline [...]
December 28th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
1 out of 8 Minnesotans have a DWI on their record. It’s a very stupid mistake to make, but it’s not uncommon. Keep things in perspective.
December 29th, 2007 at 9:28 am
“Stupid”? How about criminal? The reason we have a law against DWI is because the end result can be someone’s death. THAT’S keeping it in perspective.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Those who are chronic Alcoholics and intoxicated beyond the legal limits who cause the death of another are punished with fines, prison, etc. If they are not according to the Laws, then there is something terribly wrong with the Judges and Lawyers working on these cases. Those with numerous DWI offenses should never be allowed to keep the privilidges of driving. Plain and Simple.
I do not condone the actions of Linda Pfeilsticker. No one that intoxicated should have not been allowed to drive. She will have harsh penalties to account for. I believe she should abandon any thoughts of running for Public Office. She may not have killed anyone, but she killed her chances of getting elected to higher office.