- Driving while disqualified
- Driving an unregistered and uninsured motor vehicle
- Failing to give way
- Driving with a child under 12 months old who was unrestrained
"Driving while disqualified." I like the way that sounds. Hell, that could refer to me for a variety of different circumstances, only in my case it would be called "Doing while disqualified." I can attest that there are plenty of things that I am either disqualified for or definitely should be disqualified for. But I digress, too.
She might be able to get out of the driving with an unrestrained child charge. She was breastfeeding at the time. If that kid had a good enough suction going on, I'd say he was fully restrained and wasn't going anywhere!
Look, all kidding aside, this woman is a Class A Moron who absolutely shouldn't be on the road, probably shouldn't be in a bar, and definitely needs to have her parenting abilities assessed, lest the next time she pulls a stunt like this and gets in an accident and her child becomes the Human Air Bag. Asshattery at it's finest.
The NT Police Superintendent, a one Jamie Chalker, found the incident to be "horrendous" and then issued a statement which had me wondering if he had been drinking. He said: "It is unimaginable that a mother could be so callous in her disregard for the safety of her child.
"As if it weren't bad enough to be so drunk behind the wheel that you almost run into a police car, it defies belief that she had no concept that her actions could have killed her child.
"I find it increasingly frustrating that people show so little responsibility for their actions, but this is without a doubt one of the most stupid and reckless actions I've come across.
"People must take responsibility for their loved ones when they are clearly unable to make rational decisions for their own safety, the safety of others and the risk they pose to the general public."
I really don't know what he meant by that last statement. I don't know if he meant that the people who were not able to make rational decisions that effected the safety of others were the ones that needed to take responsibility, or if he meant that if someone is unable to rationally make decisions effecting other's safety, that a loved on should step in and take responsibility for them. Regardless of which one he meant, neither one of those things are going to happen. If you can't make a rational decision because you're plowed, that's not changing anytime soon (at least, not until the booze wears off). And as far as loved ones stepping in? That sounds a bit enabling to me. Just because they're a "loved one" doesn't mean they're always loved. Nope, quite the contrary in most cases. My "loved ones" bug the crap outta me. Don't get me wrong, I'd give them a ride if they were all drunk and breastfeeding and all, but they'd have to comp me for the gas. What?! They're drunk and lactating in my vehicle?? I get gas money. End of story.
This chick has court on April 23rd (they're quite speedy in turning the wheels of justice down under). Hopefully she'll have sobered up a bit by then and won't come stumbling into the courtroom with a suckling child attached to her bosom.