Loyalty knows no bounds
Posted by: Peter Abraham - Posted in Misc on Mar 16, 2008 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
There were literally dozens of autograph seekers hanging around the clubhouse and in the hallway outside today. The YES Network is hosting sponsors today and the focus is on entertaining them.
Among the crew of glad-handers was Jim Leyritz.
The 44-year-old former Yankee entered Legends Field around 11:30 a.m. and walked right into the clubhouse. He stopped on the way to hug Dave Eiland and Shelley Duncan. One fan asked him to pose for a photograph.
Leyritz is awaiting trial in Fort Lauderdale for DUI and DUI/Manslaughter. Police say he ran a red light just after 3 a.m. on Dec. 28 and drove his SUV into a car being driven by a 30-year-old woman. Fredia Ann Veich, a mother of two, was killed.
His blood-alcohol level was tested and found to be nearly twice the legal limit.
Is there a right way for the Yankees to handle this? On one hand, Leyritz is a former player who has friends on the team. On the other, he has been charged with a felony. Should be just have free reign of the place?
If what police say is right, Leyritz killed that woman. Where does the line get drawn?
UPDATE, 1:11 p.m.: Leyritz was in the clubhouse until 1:05 p.m. He ignored questions from reporters as he excited then left via the players entrance.
“He’s just here to see old teammates,” GM Brian Cashman said. “He ran into Joe (Girardi) last night and that’s all it was.”
I don’t know why anyone would want to meet Jim Leyritz, a troubled guy who seems to have dabbled with all sorts of substances. But I am sick and tired of you being the morality police, Pete.
Pete,
I’m not saying this is correct but the women who was killed was also above the legal limit. Not being a lawyer not sure if that plays into this case at all, nor am I defending Leyritz. Just thought that should be mentioned as well.
Eeshhh..
I think we should all just back away from this one…
Good Luck King!
Neither one of them should have been DUIing, but to be fair the mother was driving more intoxicated than Leyritz per their BA results. It could have easily happened the other way around. Also the circumstances are still under investigation. In this country we are innocent until proven guilty, but it seems like the media (you) always forgets this.
Innocent until proven guilty Pete.
If the police say he’s guilty, then he must be… yeah. right.
Jay:
I didn’t say whether it was right or wrong, I just wrote what I saw and asked the questions. If you’re OK with the Yankees associating with Leyritz, that’s fine.
Ummmm, from what the police report said the woman was driving in a straight line at the legal speed when Leyritz ran a red light and hit her car. While perhaps it easily could have happened the other way, it did not.
And if you read what I wrote, I used the words ‘charged” and “police said” I never said he did it.
Pete don’t neglect to mention that she was also driving more than twice the legal limit. She could have very well plowed into someones car and killed them as well.
…and my uncle could be my aunt if he had more back hair. He doesn’t and he’s not. Please. The man’s been accused of taking a life, and should, at the very least, realize he’s putting the team in a very awkward position by showing up.
Then again, Sideshow Hank probably hired him as his PR guy.
it’s just that you seem to be mocking the the idea of loyalty pete.
I’d say having trash like Leyritz hanging around the clubhouse is 1000% times worse than giving Billy Crystal a Spring Training AB.
Someone should tell Leyritz that its time to close the Yankee chapter in his life. Mark Woehlers isn’t pitching anymore, so we don’t need his help.
Its a tough call. The woman was drunker than Leyritz. Although its certainly no excuse for what happened.
I don’t know what the right answer is here. Actually, the right answer probably would be for Leyritz to take it upon himself and stay away from the team until the matter is resolved. Putting the Yankees in a tough spot seems to be a pretty selfish act on his part.
His presence puts the Yankees in a tough spot and, IMO, he shouldn’t put them in that situation.
There is nothing nice about this case. A mother of two is dead and, regardless of what happens at the trial, Leyritz’s life (as he knows it) is ruined.
Just a bad, bad situation all around and there are no easy answers on what to do when he shows up.
I think he should be banned from anything Yankee related until he sorts out his mess. Leyritz has always been a bad apple. Personally, I don’t care for him and don’t think he has any remorse for killing a woman. Whether he’s guilty or not, he took a life! Get lost Leyritz.
Innocent until proven guilty works both ways. If and when he’s found guilty, so long.
I am not defending what Leyritz did in any way shape or form.
Who really knows what the story is, maybe she jumped the light, while he went through a yellow turning red. Who knows for sure.
Its not like he was sleeping around with prostitutes.
I think the Yankees should cut ties with Leyritz. they already draw so many distractions with whose on the team. we dont need more negative publicity
This is a touchy subject either way but under our current legal system you are innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately the culture of our country has changed and it seems that you are guilty and you have to prove your innocence. However, I do not think it is a good idea for him to be hanging around the club house. If he wants to see his friends he can see them outside the clubhouse.
Leyritz has a price to pay for the DUI. If he’s lucky it might not be as harsh because the woman who died was also DUI, but by no means should that excuse him.
Should that effect his friendships? It shouldn’t, but in some cases it could effect them to at least some degree.
Free reign on the spring training facility? Maybe not totally. Part of what he was doing was speaking with friends, which there’s nothing wrong with. But involving him in things related to actual coaching & team activities might not be such a good idea.
I live in South Florida. Just because he is an Ex-Yankee doesn’t mean folks should gloss over what happened. Its an awful, awful act he was involved in. Regardless of how the case ends up.
All I know is, the first 3 criminal lawyers (all high powered guys) he tried to hire for his case passed on it.
When lawyers pass on a case, its a bad case. No other way to say it.
Please, Hank Steinbrenner didn’t come up with the idea to have Jim Leyritz show up at road ST game.
Some of you 10 year olds who are fixated on Hank really need to give it a break.
You don’t like him? Go root for the Mets, Red Sox or Dodgers.
Or better yet, just do what you did when you became Yankee fans. Wait for the next “cool, winning team” and jump on their bandwagon.
Gotta hand it to Pete for posting this and not backing away from a tough issue.
He’s innocent until proven guilty so he should be allowed to participate in the goings-on, but only to an extent. If he shows up on the YES Network or ends up doing something like coaching than that’ll be too much. What he’s doing today sounds fine to me.
I agree with SJ44, while this whole thing is being worked out, it would have been best for home to stay away, its selfish and just add more fuel for the media. Maybe he needs some support, but he’s been charged with a pretty horrific crime and until the matter is resolved he shouldn’t drag the Yankees into it.
Guilty or not is not the issue. He was driving while intoxicated. Period. The Yanks don’t need the likes of Leyritz to be hanging around when all these young kids are on staff.
I disagree that he’s putting the Yankees in a tough spot. What tough spot is that? All Cashman or Girardi has to do is tell hime to beat it. Don’t allow him access to the clubhouse. Leyritz is not Yogi Berra, he doesn’t get blanket respect.
Leyritz probably saved more lives taking that drunk driver off the road.
Agreed the problem with this is Jim Leyritz he SHOULD know better than to try and stay away from this and put the Yankees in a horrible position.
I wonder if he was invited and if he was by whom. Regardless if I had these kind of issues surrounding me I would hope I would be smart enough to say thanks but no thanks. He has to know that his being there would be picked up by the media he cant be that stupid.
I think “innocent until proven guilty” works well for you and I in private life, but it’s hard for a public entity like a sports team to use that rationale.
I mean, O.J. was never found guilty of murder. So should USC invite him to stand along the sidelines? At some point, you have to cut ties.
Loyalty works both ways. If Leyritz wanted to remain part of the Yankees family, he wouldn’t tarnish his good name.
Leyritz blood alcohol was twive the leagal limit 3 hours after the accident…Its at it’s highest one hour ater…Im sure it was tlast 3 times the legal limit when he murdered the mother of 2.
Do i have a problem with him running around the yankee club house…A little…..What i have a HUGE problem with is him not being in a cage 20 hours a day.
I hate drunk drivers…someone said the girl was drunk to but i have not read that…If she was so be it…she paid the price….Now it’s time for jim to pay.
Imagine what her family feels like right now…Jim is canoodling with the yankees and their loved one in in a box.
Innocent until proven guilty? You cannot dispute that Leyritz drove intoxicated and as a result killed another human being. It happened. He shouldn’t be around the Yankees.
Um, well, one place to draw the line is to wait until a jury of his peers convicts him before meting out sanctions or indulging the pleasure of finger-wagging.
Guilt consists of many elements: 1) factual culpability and 2) legal culpability, 3) moral culpability, among others.
At the moment, Leyritz’s conduct may seem to meet the factual criteria for a crime.
However, until a jury decides 1) are all the facts about the case released in the press certifiably true?; and 2) are there extenuating circumstances that mitigate the culpability of his conduct– the Yankees are best served by withholding judgment.
If the facts alleged are true, Leyritz acted in a criminally reckless fashion. But before we tar and feather him, let’s not forget he didn’t INTEND to kill anyone.
After all, how many of us honestly can say we’ve never driven a car after consuming alcohol, or even imbibing one too many?
In any case, the guilt Leyritz is going to have to live and to cope with for the rest of his life strikes me as fit punishment in itself.
The Yankees front office is handling this the correct way. They welcome any former Yankee into their domain. Leyritz has not had his day in court and when he does perhaps he will show remorse and be contrite.
History shows that the Steinbrenners will not shun a former Yankee with legal problems. They didn’t avoid Strawberry or Gooden and they shouldn’t avoid Leyritz no matter what some people may think of him.
“The Yankees front office is handling this the correct way. They welcome any former Yankee into their domain. Leyritz has not had his day in court and when he does perhaps he will show remorse and be contrite.”
He was still drinking and driving. We know that for a fact.
Should his friends shun him? That’s their choice, and none of my business. Should the organization invite this guy to come shake hands with corporate sponsors? Frankly, I don’t think so.
He should be able to do what he wants till he is convicted because it is Innocent till proven guilty and the media (I am not specifically talking about u Pete) jump right to the conclusion of guilty
Innocent Until Proven Guilty is fine for a court of law and fine for legal culpability; it is also fine in cases where the factual basis for the charges are disputed. In this case, however, it is indisputably true that while drunk Jim Leyritz caused an accident that killed someone. Period. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Even if he is eventually acquitted of the DUI Manslaughter charge that doesn’t erase the fact that some children have no mother because of his actions.
With that in mind I can’t understand how anyone could possibly support the actions that Yankees have taken with regards to this man. This kind of blind loyalty that is seen in both the business and political world is ridiculous. It is as if our culture is no longer able to take a step back and “call a spade, a spade.”
Straw and Gooden never killed anyone.
If this was a member of the Red Sox a lot of people on this blog would be singing a different tune. Put aside Leyritz’s historic 3R shot for a second and realize that he took another persons life because he wasn’t smart enough to call a cab.
“History shows that the Steinbrenners will not shun a former Yankee with legal problems. They didn’t avoid Strawberry or Gooden and they shouldn’t avoid Leyritz no matter what some people may think of him.”
To my recollection Strawberry or Gooden were never
brought up on manslaughter charges. Besides that Leyritz was drinking and driving. And didn’t the Yankees just ban alcohol from their charter flights back to NY from any road trip so that the players will not be drunk when they arrive back at their cars.
“Leyritz blood alcohol was twive the leagal limit 3 hours after the accident…Its at it’s highest one hour ater…Im sure it was tlast 3 times the legal limit when he murdered the mother of 2.”
“Murder: is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought.”
Choose your words wisely – it could easily be a friend or family member of yours that has a drinking problem. Yes, its a horrific crime, but Jim Leyritz should not be labeled a “murderer”. Leave it alone, already!
Stick to the lineups and let the lawyers deal with this, Pete.
He should stay away from the team. His presence is only a distraction.
I’m sure being around the ballpark and some of his old teammates makes him feel normal again, but I think he lost that privilege when he plowed into another drunk driver and killed her.
This is hardly an “innocent, until proven guilty” scenario.
There are no other suspects who helped caused the woman’s death.
This is a case where the court and the jury are going decide how guilty he was in what he did and how long he should be in prison.
The last thing Leyritz should be thinking about is Spring Training.
If I were him, I’d be hitting the weights and learning how to fight. I don’t think he gets to bring a bat with him to prison.
“realize that he took another persons life because he wasn’t smart enough to call a cab.”
It has not yet been shown that he’s culpable for the death. Fine. He still got behind the wheel and drove under the influence, which is my problem with it. Straw was an addict. Addiction and a DUI are very different. The first one doesn’t necessarily endanger anyone else. The second does.
Kill-Schill)ing:
Even though he did not INTEND to kill anyone…the elements to prove vehicular manslaughter also deal with RECKLESSNESS which is much broader. If all vehicular manslaughter cases dealt with intent then no one would get convicted the key wording here is recklessness.
The man will likely be incarcerated soon enough. Let him live like all other Americans — spend time with friends and family. He’s rich enough to set bail, so be it. That’s the American system. He’ll do his 18-36 months in prison when the courts get around to it.
I love how quickly we “perfect people,” who have never committed a crime, jump on the high horse. Just watch baseball. Oh, and judge yourself.
Additionally, the choice to have Leyritz around during Spring Training just shows the casual disregard that the Yankees, and MLB as a whole, have for what is clearly a culture of permissiveness and acceptance with regard to alcohol use and abuse. As Tony LaRussa’s reaction last year to both his own DUI and the drunk driving accident that caused the death of his own player showed, a lot of people in Major League Baseball just don’t see alcohol abuse as a serious matter.
“Stick to the lineups and let the lawyers deal with this, Pete.”
If you don’t like the blog, don’t read it.
“After all, how many of us honestly can say we’ve never driven a car after consuming alcohol, or even imbibing one too many?”
I can. What are you trying to defend? That it’s ok to drink and drive because “aw, shucks, crap happens”…Leyritz didn’t INTEND to kill. What? You get into a car drunk and automatically you are endangering lives. If a death is caused it’s known as “premeditated by way of stupidity.”
“I love how quickly we “perfect people,†who have never committed a crime, jump on the high horse.”
So…because I’ve sped before makes it hypocritical of me to think ill someone who committed a DUI?
Tough call. I say being courteous to the man while his case is pending is fine. I think if he begins to act like a buffoon then they should quietly ask him to tone it down or not to come back.
And I can’t let SJ’s comment about Hank pass.
So SJ, if we don’t like Hank then we’re likely 10 yrs old and should go root for another team? NIce argument.
Everyone he allegedly drank then drove but until its proven in court he should go on with his life because u don’t know maybe the Cops falsified the reports to make him guilty I am not saying they did but until its proven he is innocent
He has not been convicted. This is an awful tragedy, but until it plays out in the courts I cannot judge Leyritz.
This will probably get lost in the shuffle of the fifty comments to come, but no, absolutely NO, the Yankees should not associate themselves with Leyritz. Driving drunk is one of the most reprehensible, selfish, infuriating crimes you can commit. Taking a cab versus risking lives should be an easy decision.
I don’t care if the woman was drunk or not. That might make her scum (for doing the same thing), but it doesn’t erase the fact that Leyritz is scum, too. I don’t care how many post-season home runs he’s hit, he’s a piece of trash in my eyes. As I said before, why anyone would want to meet him is amazing.
Is there anything sadder than a washed up ball player posing for his mugshot? Leyritz should stay away from the team until the trial is over and he straightens himself out.
“It has not yet been shown that he’s culpable for the death. Fine. He still got behind the wheel and drove under the influence, which is my problem with it. Straw was an addict. Addiction and a DUI are very different. The first one doesn’t necessarily endanger anyone else. The second does.”
To me, it is very clear he is culpable for the death. He drove drunk, ran the light, and killed the other person he hit. Done deal. You can sugar coat it or try to find these loop holes but thats what happened.
Steve Swindal gets fired and exiled from the Yankees for a DUI yet Jim Leyritz is still hanging around. Somethings not right here.
“After all, how many of us honestly can say we’ve never driven a car after consuming alcohol, or even imbibing one too many?”
I never have. I dont even have one drink and drive. Thats how strongly I feel about drinking and driving.
Him being around the Yankee clubhouse has nothing to do with whether or not he’s guilty or innocent.
He’s going through the process. Part of that process is being free on bail. If the Yankees want him in the clubhouse, that’s their decision. Just like having a Red Sox fan beat writer in the clubhouse – their decision.
Follow?
It’s ironic my posts are being censored by a writer who’s questioning the ethics of a baseball team.
It will do no good for the image of Leyritz if he’s seen standing in the beer lines at Legends Field.
Who on earth is censoring you Justice? I see three posts by you, two are of exactly the same thing. Perhaps you are just impatient.
Whether you agree with it or not, you have to admire Pete for not avoiding these tough subjects.
And Pete has asked our opinion on whether we think it’s cool for the Yankees to have made that decision.
Fine – but to question Leyrtiz’ “freedom” like some have has nothing to do with that.
“It’s ironic my posts are being censored by a writer who’s questioning the ethics of a baseball team.”
Pete is in no way required to allow you to post whatever you want on his website. If he decides that you violated the terms of service (above the posting box) he is, in fact, ethically required to delete your post.
Justice,
Pete posed the question to Yankee fans for their opinion. You’ve stated your opinion. This is Pete’s blog, he can write whatever he wants and question whatever he wants just as YOU can think whatever you want.
You can talk about process or innocent until proven guilty until you are blue in the face. The fact remains that a court case can only tell us what the law has to say about a certain chain of events. It is up to us as individual people and citizens to make our own independent moral determinations. Many people on here seem to think that we should withhold all judgment until the case is over. This is ridiculous. Should we wait until the case before making our minds up about whether Leyritz’s actions meet the legal standard of the charges? Yes. Should we wait to decide whether his actions were morally reprehensible? Not at all.
Who on earth is censoring you Justice? I see three posts by you, two are of exactly the same thing. Perhaps you are just impatient.
Not the first time. I re-posted after it was deleted. I’m sure it will be again.
What happens if he IS innocent his reputation is already tainted
he will never beat this charge.when you are drunk and kill a person wether you ran a red light or not or the other person was also drunk or not.he should not have been driving,period.leyeritz should not put the yankees in this position by being around any of them.i know he didn’t mean to hurt or kill the woman but he should stay away untill it blows over.Peter Abraham,you’re remarks about leyeritz having free reign of the place leads me to believe you have a problem with this.why else would you write the article when the article is about leyeritz being around the yankees in the clubhouse,his free reign and a line being drawn in the sand? it was a terrible accident that leyeritz should be punished for and leyeritz out of respect should stay away for now untill he serves his punishment.
Pete, there is no necessity to cast this as a matter of loyalty.
Yes, a woman is dead. Yes, it is terrible thing and we should all feel it intensely.
But it is not callous to differentiate between different sorts of actions that can lead to a terrible result.
That’s why the law distinguishes between murder and manslaughter.
What Leyritz did (and I don’t think anyone’s arguing that he didn’t do it; if it turns out that there’s actual doubt as to the facts, I will gladly retract the relevant part of this post) was irresponsible and not very bright, but it was hardly malicious, let alone evil. He took the kind of chance that innumerable people take (wrongly) every day, and most of them don’t hit anyone.
He was wrong and there will be consequences, but he was not wrong in a way that makes him evil.
Another kind of action (typically raised in law school) that constitutes manslaughter is where a builder knocks over a can of paint, left too close to the edge of the roof, and it falls and kills someone. Should the painter be ostracized by his friends and demonized by society?
Jim Leyritz seems like an ok guy who did something irresponsible and drew the worst possible result. It seems reasonable to censure him for the irresponsibility and to compel him to make whatever amends can be made, including a substantial civil judgment. Perhaps criminal punishment is appropriate.
But is there any basis for thinking him a bad person? For his friends and colleagues to shun him? For the team to ban him from the premises?
None whatsoever. I would think less of them if they did so.
I don’t know where to draw the line. innocent until proven guilty i guess.
all i know is… Riddex just…makes me happy!!
Brian—lol. i hate that commercial.
Personally, if I was Leyritz I would stay home until the situation was resolved. I do not think it fair of him to put the Yankees and his former teammates in this position. The fact that he did not take this route says a lot about him. I do not think the Yanks had much of a choice to give him access. He just showed up. Simultaneously, I do not think he got much warmth from going.
Thanks to the 99 percent of you who engaged in a rational debate of this issue. That’s why I brought it up. This blog will never be just lineups.
I’m not saying the Yankees are right or wrong. I would support my friend if he was in Leyritz’s shoes. But as an institution, should the Yankees allow this guy to have free reign of the building?
What crime would be too much? Would it be OK if he were charged with rape or child molestation? Probably not I guess. But DUI/manslaughter is gets you in it seems.
Ruben Rivera was once thrown out of the building for taking a glove.
Cashman said that Joe Girardi invited Leyritz to the field. That’s Girardi’s decision, it’s his clubhouse. To me, I’m not sure I would want so many young players around the guy.
It’s an interesting debate for reasonable people. I’m glad so many had an opinion.
Also, “Justice” I never deleted any posts. The spam filter catches posts with curse words and the like.
I’ve read in the Miami Herald that Leyritz had a lot of DUIs and his driver’s licenses had been suspended. He lives in Davie – how did he get to Tampa – is he still driving? Was he invited by the Yankees? If not, it’s a simple question of security – and he should know that visiting right before a game is verboten.
“Ruben Rivera was once thrown out of the building for taking a glove.”
Pete, the difference has nothing to do with the severity of the offense. If we had a friend in Leyritz’ position, I’d like to think we’d smack him upside the head, tell him what an idiot he was, and help him through it.
Would we do the same if he stole from us or our friends? Maybe not.
Ruben Rivera shouldn’t be subjected to the same civil and/or criminal consequences as Leyrits, but he could reasonably be expected to lose more friends.
After all, his act WAS both intentional and malicious.
Pete,
Its what makes the blog so great. I hope it NEVER becomes just about the lineups or a cheerleader blog.
Knowing you, I am sure that won’t happen.
Its not an easy decision on what to do with Leyritz.
I am a HUGE Girardi supporter.
However, on this issue, I would prefer Leyritz not be around the team. I certainly don’t want him around the clubhouse.
Don’t give me the innocent until proven guilty stuff. I am a lawyer, I know the law.
OJ Simpson was found not guilty of his crimes. He has tried for 13 years to get a sideline credential for USC games. He has been turned down every time by the folks at USC.
Its not a matter of guilt or innocence. Its a matter of whether you want a distraction or issue, such as what Leyritz is facing, around your clubhouse at this time.
Its also about how to handle a delicate situation.
In Corporate America for example, when accused of a crime this serious, you are advised to stay away until the matter is resolved.
Its nice that Girardi has compassion for a guy in a very difficult situation.
I wish though that it would be handled away from the clubhouse.
This isn’t Jim Leyritz’s first rodeo on having off the field problems.
I have no problems with the Yankees supporting him or even helping him through this ordeal.
I hope though, its done away from the clubhouse.
Its a distraction and issue the Yankees, as an organization, do not need at this time.
JMHO.
JWN:
Um, wow. Stealing a glove is more intentional and malicious then getting into your SUV at twice the legal limit and driving around?
You’d “smack your friend upside the head” for killing somebody? I think I’d smack my friend upside the head for forgetting to pick me up at the airport, not DUI/manslaughter
Pete, that surprises you?
Stealing is intentional and malicious.
Does one drive drunk from intentional malice? With the intent to do someone harm? Do you really think that? The law doesn’t – that’s why it isn’t a murder rap.
JWN, you makes some very good points, however, I think the paint can anology misses the mark. Leyritz made a decision to drive his SUV knowing that he was impaired. Given the frequency with which this scenario plays out in this country and the much publicized and often tragic results, it’s difficult to feel any empathy for the guy.
Knocking a can of paint from a roof is an accident. Driving while impaired is not.
Is he evil? Probably not. I don’t know what’s going on in his head. Is he free to show up at camp if the powers that be allow it? Sure. I just think that with all the baggage he’s carrying around it would be better if he stayed away.
I think its a malicious/intentional act – getting into a car while impaired.
He played the odds and lost.
Marc, you bring several of the issues that arise in cases dealing with these matters.
You are right to distinguish the paint-can case from the DUI case; I attempted to make it clear that I draw the same distinction.
But are you and Pete taking literally the dictum that driving under the influence is the ACTUAL EQUIVALENT of taking a gun to a person’s head and pulling the trigger? If so, you would both do away with manslaughter and categorize it as murder. Would you, though?
“Leyritz made a decision to drive his SUV knowing that he was impaired.”
This is one of the problems: how come he didn’t have the judgment to know that his judgment was impaired? Perhaps because his judgment was impaired! That’s why it happens so often – it’s easy to see the problem, sober people would virtually unanimously agree with your judgment, but that’s not the same as avoiding the situation when it arises. It’s a conundrum built into the law: you’re allowed to drink, to lose judgment, but you can be punished for the results of the impaired judgment. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be punishment, of course, but it does lead to the next point:
“difficult to feel any empathy for the guy.”
That’s what I don’t get. Pete, I’d slap the guy upside the head because it’s not my job to punish him. He’s going to be punished anyway. I’d slap him upside the head so as to express the fact that I know and agree with the system that will punish him for it. And then I’d try to help him through it.
Jim Leyritz did something unspeakably dumb, extremely irresponsible, but not at all unusual. There but for the grace of God go we. He has landed himself in a terrible situation – is it so hard to agree that he should be punished, to condemn what he did, and to feel sorry for his genuinely wretched plight?
When cashmen said he “ran into Girardi” was that supposed to be literally? lol.
My intent is not to make excuses for Jimmy, what he did is inexcusable. There is absolutely no excuse for driving drunk. However, I do think it matters that the “victim” was actually more drunk than Leyritz, and she was not belted. She herself is culpable here. People like to mention that she was a mother of two children. Well a mother of two children should have been more responsible. While Leyritz seems to have caused the accident, who is to say she couldn’t have avoided it if she were sober, and she may very well have survived with a seatbelt on.
JWN, thanks.
It’s difficult to know from one person to the next at what point the degree of impairment is so great as to render the impaired person incapable of understanding the extent to which he is impaired. On occasion, I have made the decision after several drinks that it was unwise for me to drive, and so I didn’t. Perhaps I had not reached the point at which reason had abandoned me. I suspect that with some athletes there is an air of the invincible around them. It may be part of what gives them the competetive edge. Maybe this figured into the mix. Who knows.
It is perhaps a bit harsh of me to suggest that I cannot feel any empathy for Leyritz – were I to be in his shoes, I know I would want the benefit of the doubt.
Marc, I find everything you write here eminently reasonable.
I find everything you people write here disgraceful this country was based on the principle innocent till proven guilty and until he is proven guilty he should be able to live his life
Anyone else find it the least bit troubling that our society has completely moved away from that whole “innocent till proven guilty” thing?
I do its disgraceful to the founding fathers
“I find everything you people write here disgraceful this country was based on the principle innocent till proven guilty and until he is proven guilty he should be able to live his life”
Dan, I believe no one has disputed that principle. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal principle. It applies to the courts and to the organizations that enact legal enforcement. It does not mean that individuals are not supposed to consider the legal or moral ramifacations of particular actions, individuals and situations. Or are you suggesting that we are obliged to talk or even to think about Leyritz until a court renders a verdict?
For the record, I agree with Dan and Holdstrong that this country has more or less abandoned the “innocent until proven guilty” principle, butpublic discussion of Leyritz, or for that matter Bonds, hasn’t got anything to do with that issue.
U shouldn’t form an opinion of guilt till the trail is over
Dan, that’s not what the principle means. It has nothing to do with private individuals forming opinions and discussing them.
More to the point, this discussion is about the implications of the act IF IT WAS ACTUALLY COMMITTED. To quote from my first posting:
“What Leyritz did (and I don’t think anyone’s arguing that he didn’t do it; if it turns out that there’s actual doubt as to the facts, I will gladly retract the relevant part of this post) was irresponsible and not very bright, but it was hardly malicious, let alone evil. He took the kind of chance that innumerable people take (wrongly) every day, and most of them don’t hit anyone.”
Doesn’t the part in parentheses satisfy even you?
No because they should at least say allegedly
“What Leyritz did (and I don’t think anyone’s arguing that he didn’t do it; if it turns out that there’s actual doubt as to the facts, I will gladly retract the relevant part of this post) was irresponsible and not very bright, but it was hardly malicious, let alone evil. He took the kind of chance that innumerable people take (wrongly) every day, and most of them don’t hit anyone.â€
I’m not going to touch an ambiguous term like “evil,” but the act is far from “hardly malicious.” Legally speaking there are two ways to find malice: Express or implied. Implied requires that objectively he “should” have known better (which is clear in this case) and that subjectively he “did” know better. The second prong is difficult to prove, which is why second-degree murder is an unusual charge in a DUI case (you can’t risk walking away w/no punishment because you failed to show implied malice).
But while difficult, it’s certainly not unheard of. Most commonly, implied malice in DUI cases is shown by entering prior DUI charges into evidence, to show that the individual knew the dangers of drunk driving.
Innocent unitl proven guilty applies to courts,people.That does not mean that a reasonable person looking at the facts beforethem can’t come to the conclusion that someone did something illegal. O.J. killed two people, but “reasonable doubt” and 12 morons who were too stupid to know how to get out of jury duty say he is not guilty in court. We’re not talking about stealing a glove- we’re talking about someone who killed another person through their acts- by the rationale of some people on here, serial killers should go free if their victims are prostitutes, murders should walk if their victims are drug dealers and mothers who die should just be pis*ed on if they had a couple of drinks. Great moral compass.
There’s a big difference between accused of a crime and convicted of a crime, at least in the U.S.
You seem to be a very judgmental person Peter, don’t you have any friends that made big mistakes? Did you cease to be their friends afterwards?
Oh, and for all the Johnny Cochran types on here who don’tappear to know anything about the law- there is no “intent” element to DUI- manslaughter requires negligence and, no, you don’t need to be convicted of previous DUIs to know that driving drunk is negligent. Most state statutes allowyou to be convicted of vehicular manslaughter without the negligence element- just that you were over the legal limit- so before any ofyou imbeciles start talking about the law, keep in mind that your baseball knowledge is marginal and unless you have a juris doctorate and are licensed you reallyshouldn’t be talkingbecause watching Law & Order seven nights a week on the Super Station doesn’t qualify you to give reasonable, rational analysis about what is or isn’t illegal.
I think I can speak for Peter when I say that, number of friends that have mademistakes = plenty. Number of friends that have killed people = zero. And if they did, they wouldn’t be my friendsanymore.
John, while you may argue for this interpretation, it’s not the law. No one argues that manslaughter (including DUI) includes an element of malice, or indeed of mens rea (state of mind) of any sort. It’s just not true.
You are certainly correct to say that there are crimes – murder is one – where courts do consider state of mind, where proof of malice is part of the proceedings. It’s a matter of culpable negligence.
You, personally, may equate culpable negligence with malice, but the law does not. Nor does it seem useful to abandon the distinction between culpable negligence and literally walking up to someone with a rifle and blowing his brains out.
The story, as I understand it, is that the jerk went out and got drunk, made a really bad decision in that state, and did something stupid, had the worst possible result, and ended up at home, crying and shattered, finding that he was the cause of someone’s death, telling his kids how much he loved them because he didn’t know what was going to happen to him…
I understand that we’re all concerned about the dangers of drunk driving, but the I’m shocked to see that, for so many people, this all-too-simple fact precludes any kind of basic human sympathy, pity or compassion. Don’t those of you who are so thunderously strict in your condemnation ever worry that you’ll make a mistake and receive just as little understanding?
Worth Pete’s time & energy putting it up, although I find he/you has the disease that most journalists have of rehashing all lurid details as desired, just being careful to insert “charged” or “alleged” as minimally necessary to position it correctly. Although in most DUI cases, the difference between innocence and guilt is largely also one of crossing a very fine legal line — Leyritz was driving, he had a high BAC, and the other driver died (while drunk and unbelted), nobody’s disputing any of that.
Just a complete lack of sound judgment and accountability everywhere I look.
Speaking of which, has Spitzer been in the clubhouse lately too?
And yes, Rusty John, I do have a JD.
“number of friends that have mademistakes = plenty. Number of friends that have killed people = zero.”
That’s only because, on the whole, the chance of this happening isn’t that great.
Leyritz’ friends could have said the same thing a year ago.
You seem to be presuming that a friend of yours would be genetically capable of making a bad decision; otherwise, your friend, tomorrow, could be what Leyritz is today.
I wonder whether Leyritz is now an unrecognizably different person than he was a year ago, back when he was allowed to have friends?
“If what police say is right, Leyritz killed that woman. Where does the line get drawn?”
I think the right question is *when* does that line get drawn, and the correct answer is “After he’s found guilty in a court of law”.
Just FYI, anyone who’s been using the term “free reign” in describing what Leyritz may or may not have regarding his presence in Yankee facilities — the term is “free rein”. It’s derived from a rider letting a horse have a little bit of slack in the controlling reins. You’re welcome…
Man, you ARE a piece of work. He is charged with a felony ?
Yeah, and this is BASEBALL. The one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Anyone with a brain knows that the justice system will grind on and the appropriate punishment will be handed down.
But ole Pete, being the holier than thou typs AND not one to let you forget it for but a day, he thinks in addition to THAT punishment, he should also be banished.
Shoker, that.
The judgmental type ? You just figure that out, Tom ?
In a very short time Pete has shown that when you look up judgmental in the dictionary, you’ll find Pete’s picture for some unknown reason.
Oh, and Karen, feel free to make some idiotic comment about the dead here. Or, if you have any cajones at all, email me like I asked before deadrody@comcast.net.
My apologies if I wasn’t clear with my earlier post. I don’t mean to start an argument, but for my own piece of mind I want to clarify my post.
My post concerned second-degree murder. I was making the point that situations like the one Leyritz was allegedly involved in are often tried as second-degree murder cases. There can be a fine line between a manslaughter charge and a second-degree murder charge, and sometimes that line has nothing to do with the facts of the case. Theoretically (I know he isn’t charged w/this) Leyritz could be convicted of second-degree murder by proving malice – by showing a callous disregard for human life. For an example, see Wallace v. State (where it was held that an allegation in an indictment that the accused did “with malice aforethought and with reckless disregard of human life,” by driving an automobile under the influence of intoxicants, exceeding the speed limit, and driving in a reckless manner by violating certain traffic laws, kill the deceased as a consequence of striking him with such automobile, was held sufficient to raise a presumption of malice.â€
My second point that “most commonly, implied malice in DUI cases is shown by entering prior DUI charges into evidence, to show that the individual knew the dangers of drunk driving†is simply reality. For example see State v. Grice , where the court held that “defendants three prior convictions for driving under influence, were sufficient to support finding of malice.â€
My only intent in posting was to offer my opinion that the facts of the case don’t strike me as “hardly malicious†since countless cases with similar facts have been tried as second-degree murder cases which requires a showing of malice.
Again, didn’t mean to start an argument. Just wanted to clarity my earlier post.
Interesting discussion–and I’m stunned the Yankees wouldn’t suggest to Leyritz he sit this spring training out–but it’s “free rein,” not “free reign.”
When this is all done Leyritz can get a job coaching in the NHL like Craig MacTavish or elected senator in Massachusetts like Ted Kennedy.
But the Yankees should keep their polite distance for now.
he came and he left – no big deal. it would be one thing if leyritz was regularly coming around, but this seems to be a one shot deal. he wanted to say hello to his buddies, and then he left. you guys need to let it go.