Pirok Arrested for DUI, Leaving the Scene

What a great day to be a local Republican!

I feel sorry for Hogue, she is a very nice person, but with her out and Bell in, and Avery shooting herself in the foot on a near daily basis, Beckett talking out of both sides of his mouth now, and Pirok gets a DUI.

Priceless!

"Is his term up in ”Ëœ07?"

Nope, '09.

I hope he wasn't smoking also we all know how dangerous that is.

"“Is his term up in ”Ëœ07?”

Nope, ”Ëœ09. "

Then I am not sure how much this matters, at least politically. I wouldn't think he would resign over this, and is someone going to bring this up in a campaign 3 years after the fact?

Not a great day when anyone has this happen. Sad. Ken's a pretty nice guy, thankfully he's not hurt or anyone else and he can learn from his mistake. Yes this will damage him in another election. He barely won the first time and I bet some of the people wanting this appointment live in his district.

But I agree, he'll not resign over this. Do a Patrick Kennedy deal and wait it out.

is leaving the scene a felony?

As of now Pirok joins 534 other people who got a DUI so far in Champaign County in 2006. Its not exactly a rare human failing, and at least Pirok has not been a hypocrite on the issue of alcohol.

He won't resign, he will be embarassed, this will pass. The Republicans had better be prepared for the plea bargain coming soon in the JW Pirtle homicide case where he will plead to Criminal Housing Management, and the homicide charges will be dropped.

Let's keep the Pirok sin in perspective. He will be unable to comment in the future on liquor or police issues without smirks going around the room.

Yes, let's keep this in perspective.

Criminal Housing Management -
Class A misdemeanor, up to a year in jail and up to a $2,500 fine

DUI -
Class A misdemeanor, up to a year in jail and up to a $2,500 fine

What makes you think the special prosecutor was appointed by Lisa Madigan?

Where did you get that information?

Would you cite your source, please?

Do you know what you are talking about, or are you either just assuming, or just making things up as you go along?

While I think we should wait and see with Ken Pirok on the charges also. A DUI is a serious charge you take everyone's life in your own hands when you drive under the influence and leaving the scene if true is dangerous under that condition.

It seems strange to hear complaints from the other side "like it's the worst of Blogs" and other comments when a few weeks ago a few of our troops in Iraq were thought to of killed some innocent people. The other side had not only found the people involved guilty but had blamed the whole U.S. military for the killings.

I will provide you with possible answers:

I am right, and here is why;

I assumed, and I shouldn't have;

I made it up;

This is just another example of a lib attacking me, and I won't respond;

This is just another example of a lib attacking me, and even though I am wrong, I won't admit it or apologize for it.

Sorry, should read: ..."putting the big frown on Thompson..."

I am actually more troubled by the leaving the scene charge than the DUI. This sounds like he damaged someone else's car in a parking lot and was willing to let that person suffer with their own damages rather than have a face-to-face with a cop in his condition.

Of course, he will now claim that he didn't know that he had hit the other car, but have you ever struck another object while driving in your car and not known you hit something?

Maybe he will be asked to reveal the police reports to the media when he gets them. The cops won't reveal them. Should be interesting. I wonder if there is video?

All it takes is a "I assumed, sorry", or a "I made it up and I won't do it again, sorry" or something like that.

Or maybe laying off his nit-picking MSM bashing ways would help.

What goes around comes around.

It seems like there are a whole lot of people on this blog site who are trying to talk about everything but the allegations that one of our city council people got a DUI. It will be interesting to find out what his test results showed.

The prevalence of DUIs in our community makes a strong case for the importance of neighborhood bars, places like Hubers, the Ice House, and Pia's where people can get together, have a few drinks, and then walk a few blocks home. or even better, smokey diners and coffee shops where people can get together, have a good time, and don't even have to drink.

Our bars stay open until 2 AM. Public transportation ends much earlier. It is unrealistic to think that everyone is taking taxis.

I am not in favor of drinking and driving. On the other hand, I am opposed to passing laws, like our DUI laws and soon to be implemented smoking laws, without thought to cultural continuity and the impact that the laws will have on human lives during the process of culture change.

Does our community really even have enough taxis to get everyone at the bars home at 2 AM if everyone was following the rules? It is unrealistic to think that everyone who goes out for a beer has a designated driver waiting in the wings for them.

Remember in 1994 when Champaign At-Large councilmember Mark Thorsby was forced to resign following a DUI?

Annonymous

The tickets will be turn in to the Ciruit Clerk office. The officer usually write out a Sworn REport which tells either if he blew or
refuse. If if did do the test and did not refuse the results will be on
that report which is open to the public in that file. The judge is the
only one that could seal that file.
I am sure the tickets are true before someone would open this can
of worms.

I always laugh when someone named "anonymous" starts slamming bloggers, but here's the answer to some of the questions posed above. Is Gordy Hulten "making this stuff up"? No, and here's where the confusion probably started:

(Look all the way near the bottom of the comments)

"The homicide charges are languishing under the special prosecutor who works for Lisa Madigan."

The comment came from "NoLisaMadiganFanHere" and I have no idea what prompted it. But Gordy didn't make it up.

If you look at the homepage of the Appellate Prosecutor's Office, you'll find this statement (relevence bolded):

On July 16, 2002, Public Act 92-0683 authorized the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor to file briefs with, and argue before, the Illinois Supreme Court when requested and authorized to do so by the Attorney General. The Act also allows the Agency to assist State's Attorneys in connection with the Cannabis Control Act and the Drug Asset Forfeiture Act. It further authorizes the Agency to prosecute other cases, with the consent of the State's Attorney responsible for the case. In addition, the Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor is allowed to act as Special Prosecutor with the consent of the Attorney General and if appointed by a court having jurisdiction.

In fact, if you look the text added to state law in Public Act 92-0683, it further connects the special prosecutor and the AG:

To be effective, the order appointing the Office or its attorneys as Special Prosecutor must [...] (ii) state that the Special Prosecutor serves at the pleasure of the Attorney General, who may substitute himself or herself as the Special Prosecutor when, in his or her judgment, the interest of the people of the State so requires.

So, what's the definition of "hired"? I'm not sure. What I am sure, is that there's enough room in what I see to say that Gordy (and NoLisaMadiganFanHere) would be accurate in what they said to not merit the seven posts stating the otherwise above. While it appears the special prosecutor's might not directly "work" for the Attorney General, Lisa Madigan does get direct consent in their special prosecutions.

I think bloggers and even anonymous posters have duty to get the "facts" straight. Why was I the only one who wasted a half-hour of my time to look this up? Because I laugh when people criticize others anonymously and then turn out to be factually wrong.

And under these new revelations, I'm sure an "I'm sorry" will quickly be forthcoming from "Anonymous".

The acceptable Illinois Blood Alcohol level is pretty low these days at .08. Ken Pirok isn't a really large guy, and I'm willing to bet that it probably doesn't take too many drinks to impact pretty significantly on his blood alcohol levels. If you look at the handy little “calculator” on this lawyer's website, it looks like a typical Happy Hour for a lot of folks could end up in a trip to the local jail:

http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/illinois-dui-attorney-fagan/calculate-your-blood-alcohol.html

I'm not defending or bashing anything or anybody when I say this, but looking at that chart I will say that I have known an awful lot of folks over the years that probably could have been arrested for DUI under current Illinois standards. Somebody up thread mentioned something over 500 DUI arrests (remember””that is not convictions!) this year already in Champaign County, so it sounds like maybe there are a lot of people that have made this mistake.

It is pretty staggering to think how much misery can come into your life based on one trip to the local tap””isn't it? You can possibly end up in a world of hurt with legal fees (Chicago Bar Association estimates about $7000 in legal fees for a DUI) fines and a trip to jail (with all the fun and games that come with THAT particular environment!)

Or you could be impaired, get into an accident and maybe kill or injure somebody including you and your passengers...

Makes drinking that Bud Light on the front stoop with the neighbor a couple of door down look like a much safer option, in my opinion.

Regards,

Laura

It is an honest mistake. Sometimes special prosecutors do come from the ranks of the AG's office, like when a State's Attorney is being prosecuted. Here, the County has an ongoing "subscriber" relationship with the State's Attorney's Appellate Prosecutor office for handling appeals, and as a side benefit SAAP does special prosecutions.

See:
http://www.state.il.us/prosecutor/specialpros.htm

Some special prosecutors are local attorneys. Ratcliffe is currently prosecuting another local lawyer for DUI; Dedman "prosecuted" Kurt Hjort, Koester has been a special prosecutor, etc.

"I was always a big fan of the zero limit on drinking and driving. And that's as someone who always got stuck driving other people home since I can't drink for medical reasons."

It's always good when lawmakers pass laws based on personal beliefs, rather than more objective reasons.

Analysis of the police accident report coupled with WCIA's television report reveals the following:

Pirok *walked* away from the scene. This isn't the action of someone who didn't know they scratched the next car.

Damage was in excess of $500 (see report).

Pirok refused the breath test, after having been warned that a test result over .08 results in an automatic suspension of 3 months and a refusal results in a suspension of 6 months.

If you look at the codes on the report template on the right hand column, you will see a box for "BAC" for "U1" That's the breath test result for Unit 1. Code "95" is a refusal. Unit 2 had a code "96", "test not given".

The 90 day suspension and the 180 day suspension are only the automatic punishments related to the breath test. A conviction for DUI results in a revocation of driving privileges.

ANOTHER issue is that there, to my knowledge, is not parking on campus or in downtown Champaign that is 24-hours...where you could leave your car decided you couldn't drive home. You run the risk of getting towed or a ticket. The city shoots you in the foot for trying to make a good decision.
Ive brought this up to police officers and council members before. No one has ever taken it seriously. Maybe Pirok will now.

Actually....Pirok checked out the rear of the vehicle in question. He wrote down its license plate number and went back into the restaurant to find the owner. It was there that he was confronted by the police. Does that sound like walking away?

The problem with your theory, "What really happened", is that the cops on the scene charged Pirok with "Leaving the Scene", so they must have come to the conclusion that his behavior in that regard was not so innocent.

If your version of the facts is correct, then why would they charge him with violating the statute set forth below?:

(625 ILCS 5/11”‘404) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11”‘404)
Sec. 11”‘404. Duty upon damaging unattended vehicle or other property. The driver of any vehicle which collides with or is involved in a motor vehicle accident with any vehicle which is unattended, or other property, resulting in any damage to such other vehicle or property shall immediately stop and shall then and there either locate and notify the operator or owner of such vehicle or other property of the driver's name, address, registration number and owner of the vehicle the driver was operating or shall attach securely in a conspicuous place on or in the vehicle or other property struck a written notice giving the driver's name, address, registration number and owner of the vehicle the driver was driving and shall without unnecessary delay notify the nearest office of a duly authorized police authority and shall make a written report of such accident when and as required in Section 11”‘406. Every such stop shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary.
Any person failing to comply with this Section shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(Source: P.A. 83”‘831.)

a few points. Cops routinely overcharge. helps prosecutors negotiate pleas. I could very easily see the "leaving" charge tacked on even if it won't hold up under scrutiny.

anyone who is trying to make excuses for this by bringing up a lack of overnight parking, bus service, blah blah blah, is being ridiculous. We all know what the law is. you stay within the law. does this mean that poor people are going to have a tougher time getting home from bars? i suppose. move closer to a bar, or leave earlier, etc. you live according to the laws and your own circumstances in life. smaller people probably need to drink less. people with cars need to drink less. people who rely on mtd need to leave earlier. if you've got a wife and three kids at home you probably shouldn't be at the bar. Ken knew the rules, he knew his circumstances. He didn't take a breathalyzer (i'm assuming from the comments here) so he knew those consequences.

I'm sorry for all the people inconvenienced by tougher DUI laws. Collectively, their misery is about one tenth of one percent of the misery suffered by any family who lost a loved one to a drunk driver.

It seems too many people at this blog watch too much TV. You're assuming worst case senarios and it's getting very tired.

A) Drinking and driving is a serious offense and a stupid thing to do but none of you have any clue as to if Ken was actually drunk. Being charged is not the same as being proven. He refused the test. I would have too if a cop followed me into a bar and accused me of leaving the scene while I was in fact looking for the owner of the vehicle I had just accidentally hit. When Ken gets his day in court I have no doubt what so ever that the DUI charge will fail.

B) Leaving the scene also sounds extremely damning and yet is also easily overblown. Ken walked back inside in an attempt to find the owner of the vehicle. Is that not exactly what any resonable citizen with any sense of integrity would do? He was parked in a place where, at that given time of day, there was but one open establishment within reasonable walking distance making it a very logical place to look for the owner. Not only that but it is also the nearest place to find a PHONE with which to call the police!
There is no doubt in my mind that this charge will also fail miserably when Ken gets his day in court.

I'm not sure why the police officer made these ridiculous charges. Maybe he was having a bad night. Hell, maybe he is a smoker! But know this, these charges are pure B.S. and I have every confidence that they will eventually fail.
Why do I know this? Because, despite our political differences, I know Ken to be an honest man with integrity. I also happen to have been among the half dozen people who were with Ken while he was supposedly getting drunk.

Yes, it is true that Ken was arrested and charged with DUI and Leaving the scene. But that is ALL any of you really know. Shame on those of you who are contributing to this unfortunate accident but blowing it out of proportion.

Okay, if Pirok was not drunk, then this has got to be one of the dumbest damn things ever done by a politician. You blow, you register a legal limit, and nothing becomes of it. Instead, he damages his reputation forever.

That's great; Annoyed wants to blame the cops. He was with Ken and he KNOWS Ken was not drunk. Great, maybe he was and maybe he wasn't. But the State of Illinois has a great way of proving that, the mandatory breath test. Yes, mandatory unless you want your license suspended. You see, driving is a privilege not a right and part of that privilege is to agree that upon request of a police officer to partake in a breath test, you agree to take that test. Ken refused, after the warning to motorist, because he was probably NOT drunk. Makes a lot of sense to me. Sober motorist take the test and pass. Remember it is not illegal to drink and drive in Illinois, but it is illegal to be UNDER THE INFLUENCE. You figure out why you should not take the test. That being said, I like Ken. He made the same mistake that hundreds of people make everyday and like reality, there are consequences to those mistakes. The only reason he is getting this much attention is the fact that he is a public official. Let him deal with it, stop putting the blame on others for his mistake, stop blaming the parking, our society and the cops. Everyone knows the rules and everyone makes the decision to break them once in awhile. Take responsibility for the consequences when you do.

Anonymous,
Ken hasnt said a single, solitary word to me or anyone that I know concerning the officer's intent. Nor was I blaming the cops. In fact, every single point I made was based on information that could be deduced from the police report. I was simply trying to express, in a simplified manner, with the information that anyone could infer from public knowledge, that not everything is as it seems.
You can sit back and claim that I am blaming the cop but the points I made are far from a stretch. Any reasonable person can see that.

Second, if you are going to make an argument against me dont start making up information to support your position. That is intellectually dishonest. You dont know, as you stated, that Ken moved his car to another location. Point of fact, he did not move his car to another location. But to even suggest such a thing is silly. Are we to believe that Ken was LEAVING a bar but since he hit someone elses car during this act of LEAVING that he suddenly decides to go back inside for more only this time he is going to park somewhere else so that no one knows he hit the car? Give me a break.
So your point that moving his car and walking off would justify the officer's assumption that he was leaving the scene with the intent of running from responsibility is vacuous.
My point that it is more accurate to assume Ken is going inside to either call the police himself and/or find the owner rather than intentionally running from responsibility is far more palatable.

I would go on but it is clear that this is a case where it is pointless to argue. Anonymous is making up information to make his case. This is to me a clear indication that he/she is going to believe what he/she wants regardless of the facts. This type of argument just simply bores me.

Again, just to drive the point home, my only argument from the very start was that we shouldnt be jumping to conclusions without having all the information. I am confident that every reasonable peron reading this blog understands that.

I am not Ken but I am his friend. I hesitate to reveal who I truly am because, quite frankly, I dont want to be bothered with this matter outside of this blog. (something that could easily take place since the only way to prove I am not Ken would be to reveal enough contact information to make my personal life a nuisance.)

Sometimes you aren't offered a breathalyzer, but rather are asked to submit blood for testing. Blood will reveal other drugs you may have ingested---cocaine will show up for 3 days, marijuana for 30, etc. If you think your blood will test positive for another drug, you might refuse to take a test. If you smoked a joint at your college buddy's bachelor party 3 weeks ago, you might not want to submit blood for analysis.

I'm not saying this applies to Pirok, I'm just saying there are lots of things that come into play when deciding whether or not to submit to testing. You might not be drunk, but you can't pass the blood test, so....

As I said before, this entire blog site is based on rumors and lies. And as someone else added. . . .opinions based on rumors and lies.
I thought perhaps reading this site would give me some insight into issues. It only takes about two days worth of reading to figure out that this is nothing more than a place for people to annonymously attack other people or the other party. I see the same kind of thing happening when my kids talk on IM with their friends. It's very immature.
I would suggest everyone find a more productive way to spend their time instead of reading or posting on this blog. I for one will not return. Get a life. Make a POSITIVE difference in the world!!

"Otherwise, your opinion of whether or not any person should submit to breath or blood testing in any particular situation is worth”¦ nothing, of course."

Other than the fact Illinois requires the submission or risk the suspension of your license. The conviction of a DUI has no bearing on the summary suspension for a refusal. The challenge to the summary suspension is an administrative process through the office of the Secretary of State. The manner of testing is up to the arresting officer unless the officer gives the arrestee the choice. Typically in Illinois the breath test is offered unless medical treatment is also required, or the officer suspects other intoxicating compounds other than alcohol.
Don't assume that Judges, lawyers, cops or other educated people are not present on this blog.

The challenge to the summary suspension is an administrative process through the office of the Secretary of State

Not true.

My opinion of your opinion? Same. Worthless. They're all worthless. Just some o fus recognize this, and some do not.

the challenge to a refusal or failure suspension is not through the SOS, it is through the court.

facts 7:33: I just love it when someone on IP says "get a life" and yet reads and posts.

And by the way, a city council member getting arrested for DUI *is* a community issue. I have appreciated the views here, including the friend of Pirok who provided another perpective.

Friends of Peace and Justice,
Since a reference was made to Patrick Thompson earlier in this thread......

As we know, Mr. Patrick Thompson, co-founder of V.E.Y.A. and documentarian of Citizens Watch, the video documentary about police stops; has been convicted of a crime he absolutely did not do.

How those charges were brought against him, why those charges were relentlessly pursued, and how this criminal justice system arrived at a guilty verdict is going to be our collective responsibility to understand. The Retribution Case against Patrick Thompson has exposed a police department neglecting to perform their duty, and a lawyer orchestrating a "puppet show" performed before an ignorant jury to send an innocent person to prison.

If Patrick Thompson can be found guilty for something he didn't do, then so can we.
As activists, as organizers, as representatives for the silent and suffering, as people who stand against systems of oppression, we too, could one day become targets for the kind of retaliation we have seen in the Retribution Case. The question before us is, are we going to continue to sit back and watch a fellow activist get sent away right before our eyes for something he did not do? Allowing this to happen, allows the threat against all of us to become greater.

If professional police officers and professional lawyers are unable or unwilling to discover the most available truth regarding a specific claim, to the best of their ability, then our courts will always be vulnerable to the conviction of innocent people. All of us could potentially one day be handcuffed and hauled to jail in a squad car, with little our families can do, were this Retribution Case to go unopposed.

There is an extraordinary opportunity the Retribution Case actually provides. The system has been exposed, and we are learning everyday the process by which the innocent are "marketed" to juries as "guilty" and the general public is sold a tax bill of prison time in tomorrow's newspaper. Like selling a war in Iraq, the criminal justice system allows The Truth to be disregarded and replaced by a competitive game of who has the best presentation.
We must hold this system to account and demand honest investigations to arrive at truthful verdicts with fair punishments. And certainly, if somebody didn't do something, our 27 million dollar courthouse should be able to detect that.

What do we want? Justice. When do we want it? Now. We want crime to stop. We want victims of violent crime to be protected from their predators. We want predators, if the real predator is apprehended, to be sent to a place where they can be re-educated and re-focused toward better ways of living. That won't happen if police don't investigate reports of crime. That won't happen if lawyers manipulate information or hide information to only better a sales pitch, truthful or not. That won't happen if poor people are used and coerced to give false testimony. Convicting the wrong person does nothing to advance justice. We must have truthful verdicts in our courtrooms.

Toward that end, we must not give up the precious time and resources (a new, capable attorney filing a post trial motion on Patrick's behalf) we have left to prevent this trajedy of injustice.

Those of us who have been honored to work with Mr. Thompson, know that his personal legal burden has been shouldered by he and his family most of the way. He and co-documentarian, Martel Miller, have filed a pro se federal lawsuit against 12 government officials for violating their civil and constitutional rights. This lawsuit is legitimate and Federal Judge Harold Baker has refused the defendants' claim for dismissal. Should that case prevail, it could, forevermore, protect our right to videotape and audio record police behavior.

We all understood it was not a crime, punishable by a sentence to the penetentiary, to monitor government activity; and law enforcement publically admitted it used a vague criminal charge as "leverage" to stop a citizen from excercising an entitled right to film the government. We also understood law enforcement is not allowed to hinder our right to broadcast our films on our public access television stations. We understood further that police officers are not allowed to take our property without a just cause subsequent to arrest. Thompson and Miller are fighting four law firms in this landmark case, and it is not easy- especially when Thompson has been fighting off the criminal charges at the same time.

While Patrick Thompson has demonstrated a tremendous gift for legal matters, and there have been times when the attorneys representing Patrick, as we saw at the re-trial this past July, were a hindrance to the effective administration of justice; there is a point when a citizen does not have the legal powers and capabilities a professional attorney has to investigate a case properly and do the necessary case research to argue a case effectively in court. In short, the Thompsons need legal representation.

Champaign-Urbana Citizens for Peace and Justice, members of Community Courtwatch, members of V.E.Y.A. and other concerned citizens are raising the funds necessary to pay for a quality investigation, and an honest presentation of the truth in court. We have raised about $700.00 toward the estimated $5000 that is going to be needed to begin the necessary legal work. In attorney Bob Kirchner, we believe we have found a counselor more than capable to fight a good fight.

We also know, Mr. Patrick Thompson is not the only one who has suffered from dishonesty and deceit within the judicial process. There may be hundreds and hundreds from our county alone that have suffered the torture of being innocent and still "found guilty" by a system that can easily be fooled by a few dishonest people.

Mr. Thompson wishes he were not the focus. His video documentary was only meant to create a community-wide dialogue about the future of policing in minority and low-income neighborhoods. The main goal has been to advocate for youth having better futures and avoid the wastefulness that has become the incarceration business. This entire ordeal has been an unnecessary distraction from far more important matters: serving at-risk youth.

Nevertheless, we know winning these cases: The Retribution Case against Patrick Thompson and The Videotaping Case will expose major problems within the Champaign County criminal justice system and offer us a chance to finally reform the system for the good of us all.

In the coming weeks, there will be events planned to raise awareness and yes, funds, to continue this long, but worthwhile struggle. Please consider getting involved and participating in this growing movement toward criminal justice reform. Join CUCPJ every Saturday, at the IMC at 4:00p.m. to learn how you can help.

It is so easy for people to make comments on what they would have did and would not have did, but you have no idea of what you are talking about, because you have not walked in those shoes to know. I challenge you to sit for at least 15 minutes and try to put yourself in his shoes, using the knowlege you have with regards to this case and see if you still feel that way.

I only posted Thompson's story because others on this thread were making reference to the case. You may return to your usual guffawing at Mr. Pirok's drinking on a school night. As for not taking the stand, Anonymous, you wouldn't take the stand if your lawyer was not prepared. Taking the stand is not so simple as stepping up and getting to talk as long as you want. You take the stand to answer questions from lawyers. If your lawyer doesn't know what to ask you, because he's not been researching the case prior to trial, you risk "looking" more guilty than if you had never taken the stand in the first place. If your lawyer isn't ready to re-direct after anticipating what the opponent is likely going to do, you risk doing more damage than good. Mr. Thompson has criminal convictions in his past, for which he paid the full price of those that sell drugs to willing customers. He repented, came out of a long prison sentence a better man, and tried to do what's right for teenagers who would make similar mistakes. Vujovich is a snake. He's a liar and a cheater and if you're not ready, he can make things "look" worse. With Welch completely unprepared for this kind of battle, Thompson did not want to risk the jury dwelling on everything he said being twisted under the guise of "Remember, he has a criminal conviction." . As for YoungRighty's quip about Tod, I have no ill-will toward Mr. Sattherwaite, and in fact, gave him every chance to quit lying into my microphone during our interviews and tell it straight from his side of the story. It is unheard of for a reporter to give a second chance to a subject after the subject already agreed to the interview, already allowed himself to be recorded, and then gave me permission to publish. Tod will tell you, or he should, he lied like a dog during our interview, and wanted a second chance to record a new interview. My colleagues in journalism said it was foolish to be so kind to Tod and give him that second chance. I even let him in on what the story was (his temper) when I didn't even have to do that. Well, the voters decided his fate- but personally, I, like everybody else in town, just thought of him as the nice, Dufus BoyMayor he appeared to be. Tsk, tsk, you people traffic in rumor, half truths and innuendo. Now back to your regularly scheduled PirokBashing......don't you think the bar owner ought to be held criminally liable for selling Pirok the soda pops in the first place? The bartender knew Pirok didn't live nearby, and had to have known they were serving alcohol to a motorist. The bartender knew how likely it was for Pirok to leave that bar at 12:30a.m., and be driving while drunk. Can't we convict the drug seller too? There,....waste your time with that one,...

Chris,

If you're not prepared then you ask for a continuence. That's something a self declared journalist should know. Thompson could have insisted on them. Again, if I were looking at a lengthy prison stay I would be asking for a number of continuences until I and my lawyer are prepared. To imply a skilled lawyer like Harvey was negligent in defending his client is an insult to Harvey and makes Thompson look foolish. Your attacks on Vujovich are gems. Call him every name in the book because he does his job well. Classic.

"Tsk, tsk, you people traffic in rumor, half truths and innuendo." And you don't. Reread your own post. Heh.

By the way, I like your excuse for Thompson's drug conviction selling them to "willing customers" as though we have a problem with unwilling customers buying drugs. Priceless.

Not much more to add here, but Ken will be hurt if his blog entry doesn't hit the 100 comment mark, so here is the 100th comment.

I'm not one who will automatically condemn every person who gets arrested for DUI since many people can drive at .08 better than they can drive while talking on a cell phone, which is legal. The .08 standard is a tool of the prohibitionists.

That said, Pirok got into an accident, which suggests that he was not in a state to drive.

If you've had a bit to drink, you should really never accept a breathalyzer test since all it will do is provide evidence that incriminates yourself, especially since breathalyzers tend to be inaccurate. But let's face it -- if you're in a situation where you just hit a car and now you're refusing a breathalyzer, you screwed up big time. That standard doesn't hold in court, but we all know that Pirok was driving drunk.

We'll have to see what comes out of the leaving the scene of an accident. If he really did, that's even worse than the DUI, but from the comments in this blog it seems like it might just be a misunderstanding.

One more thing: Why has this story been covered up in the media? Unless I missed it, nothing appeared in the News-Gazette. There are many people and politicians who have had their careers ruined by DUI arrests -- some quite unfairly -- yet this doesn't even get a mention?

I MUST be bored to be throwing myself back into this.................BUT...............

"That said, Pirok got into an accident, which suggests that he was not in a state to drive."--- Ammonium

Am I to understand that anytime a fender bender takes place the driver was too drunk to drive?

Thats amazing! It couldnt be a lack of lighting or blind spots or just plain ole bad luck???
Sure am glad there wasnt a cop around when I hit that dude's bumper. Though I hadnt had a drink in at least 5 days, it must have still been with me.