Okay. I'm sorry that you have found my tone arrogant, but we have a deep disagreement on this issue.
We have laws for lots of reasons, but a big one is that they enforce a moral code. If we think that killing people is wrong, we make a law saying you can't kill people. But the idea that killing people is wrong exists whether we have a law or not. The law reflects society's moral standards; it does not define them.
Let's say a guy runs up and stabs me in the leg, for no reason, then runs off. I can't track him down. After I recover from the injury, I make some attempt to get help from law enforcement. They can't find him either. The guy gets away with it, but he has still done something very wrong.
We abide by "innocent until proven guilty" for good reasons. There can be cases of mistaken identity, falsified testimony, extenuating circumstances. We want to reserve legal punishment for those cases where there is no reasonable doubt.
But that doesn't change the fact that there are lots of people out there getting away with murder (literally, in some cases), and what they are doing is still wrong. Legally guilty and morally guilty are not the same thing. People who are legally guilty deserve legal punishment; people who are morally guilty deserve our contempt.
Tucker was caught in the act. The report left no doubt that he was, in fact, driving the vehicle -- otherwise that would have gotten cleared up. It left no doubt that he had a BAC of way over the legal limit -- same situation. Morally, that's all you need to know. He was driving while falling-down drunk, and he has committed a grievous moral sin. End of story.
Now, did we know right away that he was legally guilty? No, because, as you pointed out, he had a chance to try to work loopholes in the legal system. But even had he escaped legal guilt, he was still morally guilty.
And I really don't care what his legal punishment is. He'll always be scum in my book, just like O. J. Simpson. By dumb luck, Tucker avoided actually killing anyone, but he's just as dangerous -- or moreso, really, since his victims will be chosen indiscriminately. Someone is not any less dead if they die in a reckless accident rather than at the hands of a jealous ex-husband.
I agree that vigilantism can be a serious problem and needs to be discouraged. The legal system needs to run its course. And I also agree that we should not rush to judgment before we have all of the facts. The case of Richard Jewell is sobering.
But we had all of the facts in this case, because this case was very simple. He was caught in the act, terribly drunk, driving. Those are all of the facts you need. Are they enough for a legal conviction, well maybe not. But are they enough to be convicted in the court of public opinion, you'd better believe it.
If you walk in on your wife having intercourse with another man, you don't need a legal trial to determine what happened. Tucker was caught with his pants down, screwing the entire community. We all knew it as soon as the early reports weren't refuted.
