The Buzz has been quiet lately as I have simply not had time to devote to the site (still open to accepting other contributors - let me know if you are interested in writing for the Buzz!). However, after reading the news of
Commission Chairman Charles Bannister being charged with DUI last night, I had to comment.
While I supported Bannister in his race against former Commissioner Lorraine Green two years ago, I have been less than pleased - to put it mildly - with the job performance of the chairman and the rest of the board since that time. However, despite that, this is not a post to "pile on" the chairman. Rather, after reading the latest news account of yesterday's events, I wanted to write to urge my fellow Gwinnett residents not to rush to judgment. There are enough red flags to prompt the fair-minded observer to allow the facts of this situation come to light before forming a hardened opinion on guilt or innocence.
When I received a text from a friend last night telling me that
11Alive had tweeted that Charles Bannister had been charged with DUI, my initial inclination was to believe that he was guilty. I mean, after all, DUI is pretty cut and dried right? You get pulled over, you blow a high reading on a Breathalyzer...bam, DUI. Not really any extenuating circumstances for that in my book. However, as details of last night's events have emerged, I have begun to think "Hold on...maybe things are not as they seem:"
...the Breathalyzer producing a .000 reading.
Hmm. Of course, given the description of Bannister's driving, the decision of Gwinnett Sheriff's Deputy M.G. Cummings to ask for a blood test was understandable:
"Once I received the blood kit I explained to the defendant that due to the results of the breath test being inconsistent with someone who had drunk a beer, as he admitted to at the scene of the pullover and at the jail, and his current manifestations, I requested he submit to the state test of his blood. He stated he would."
However, this raises another question to me. Why was this incident being handled by the Sheriff's Department? While I know the Sheriff's Department certainly has the authority to conduct traffic stops, in Gwinnett, I normally think of the Gwinnett County Police Department taking on that responsibility. Could it be because the Sheriff is an elected official and, as such, not a direct report to Bannister? Is it normal procedure for the GCSD to handle such incidents to avoid a situation where a county employee is arresting his boss? If anyone knows about this, please post. If the GCSD handling this is not standard operating procedure, I think asking why the Sheriff's office and not the police department was waiting outside the restaurant for the chairman to leave is a fair question.
While none of the above suggests that Bannister is definitively not guilty of the charge, these facts suggest to me that we be all the more cautious about jumping to conclusions. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with Chairman Bannister politically, as an American citizen, he has a right to be treated fairly under the law and not to be immediately assumed guilty due to political unpopularity.
I am absolutely not taking DUI lightly. In fact, I feel that the justice system is too easy on those convicted of DUI. This is a serious offense that takes too many innocent lives across our country. However, before applying strict punishment, any American, including Chairman Bannister, must be proven guilty of a DUI charge. Once that occurs or if the chairman admits guilt, only then is consideration of whether he should resign his office or any other response appropriate.
Thursday, February 10, 2011 at 2:34PM 