It started when Vicki Susan Poitinger hit a car with her Camaro and kept driving. That was bad decision number 2 in a string of bad decisions. What was number 1? It will be obvious.
She threw a can of Mikes Harder Lemonade (8 percent alcohol by volume) into a neighbor’s yard and asked the neighbors to hide the can. Bad decision number 3.
When the neighbors refused to hide the can (good decision), Poitinger hid it under the neighbor’s porch. You guessed it – bad decision number 4.
It keeps going, A police officer gave her a breathalyzer and she put her mouth on it but didn’t blow. BD5.
She refused a breathalyzer test at the jail. Different attorneys might have different ideas on this point, so we’ll give it a pass. At any rate, the point is already made.
Bad decision number 1, of course, was drinking and driving. It’s the decision that set the other bad decisions in motion. And judging by the offender’s claim that she had previous DWI convictions, it’s one that she’s made before.
When Alcohol Takes the Wheel
Some people just seem to be good at making bad decisions. Alcohol, it must be said, makes people better at it, by removing inhibitions and making people care less about the consequences of what they do.
What will be the consequences? Multiple DWI offenders in North Carolina are required to use an ignition interlock, as are all people arrested for drunk driving who refuse a breath test. An ignition interlock, or car breathalyzer, prevents a vehicle from starting if the driver has been drinking.
The interlock will not improve a person’s judgement, alas.No technology exists to do that. The device will, however, prevent a person from acting on the foolish desire to drink and drive, by incapacitating the starter motor while there is alcohol on the offender’s breath.
And while that won’t change a personality, it will protect society from one drunk driver and possibly aid in that person’s recovery, if she wishes to pursue that.
North Carolina’s ignition interlock law, then, was a good decision, one that the state’s residents benefit from each day. A stronger one – one that applied to all offenders and not just repeat drunk drivers – would be a better one. Let’s hope the state doesn’t put off that decision much longer.