This sounds to me sort of like people who complain about photoradar not being kosher; if you don’t speed, you don’t get tickets from photoradar. If he hadn’t driven after he’d been drinking, he wouldn’t have gotten a DUI. I’m not sure it’s more complicated than that.
I don’t think that’s the problem people are complaining about; it’s that the cops are allegedly encouraging people to break the law and cooperating with private parties, who had civil axes to grind, to do so.
If you get caught by a photo radar, who encouraged you to speed? How did the cops do anything but set up a radar trap?
I can just see the shitstorm that would happen if the dupe had struck and killed another driver while the cops were waiting to arrest him.
“We knew he was drunk but we didn’t stop him from driving because we wanted to arrest him for DUI”. WTF.
According to the story, the arresting officer was not in on the set-up. He was told by somebody he knew (a former cop who now worked for the detective agency) that a drunk guy was going to be driving through this intersection and he could catch him there.
So while the cop probably had his suspicions about how his friend knew all this, he was not in a position where he could intervene beforehand and prevent the guy from drinking or getting behind the wheel.
If so, then I don’t see how the cop is any more at fault than if he had been hanging out in a parking lot by a bar waiting to catch impaired people attempting to drive home.
You know, people should really know their place in their looks hierarchy. If you’re a 4 the odds are you may be able to get a 7. If you’re pulling two 10s then you should realize something is very fishy.
Not to hijack too much, I hope, but please tell me who you are referring to when you say “you” in this post.
Are you talking about the driver who speeds, or the registered owner of the vehicle?
Because photo radar systems typically send the speeding ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle, who may or may not have been the driver who was speeding.
Now, even if that owner was not the driver that day, he/she now has a ticket in his/her name, and must take (major pain-in-the-ass) steps to clear his/her name.
It’s guilty until proven innocent, and that sucks.
</hijack>
She got him drunk?
Was he a child, incapable of informed consent?
Was she the bartender that night?
Did she hold him down and pour alcohol into his mouth, forcing him to swallow it?
Was he strapped to a gurney and given an ethanol IV against his will?
How, exactly, is she responsible for his intoxication? 
It sort of sounds like it’s because she has breasts. Powerful things, these breasts. Pray that you too never fall afoul of ruffians armed with loaded breasts.
When would you have the time to do anything besides go pee?
What’s the conspiracy theory here?
And then Kaley Cuoco dates Johnny Galecki and throws the whole system off.
I don’t think I’d be able to find the bathroom or the third liter…
So this explains the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 too, huh?
You have just invalidated my entire belief system.
I’m still disappointed the way the OP turned out. At first, I was sure the victim was going to wind up in a bathtub full of ice, with one kidney missing.
“And prosecutors have also taken the extraordinary position that they will not stand in the way if Dutcher wants to withdraw his no contest plea – two years later – and ask a judge to wipe the crime from his record.”
-This would be disgraceful if it happened. The matter of the police/ex-wife/P.I. is a seperate matter from this man’s decision to get behind the wheel of his car while inebriated. He is an adult, and his decisions should garner the respect, and consequences, that they thusly deserve. All this other stuff has no bearing on the bottom line. That DUI should most definitely stick.