Another of MADD’s “DUI SuperCops”

Posted by Lawrence Taylor on March 18th, 2008

Another one of those news stories that needs little comment…


Officer Who Shot Chargers Player Honored for DUI Arrest Record

Del Mar, CA.  Mar 17  — A police officer who shot Chargers linebacker Steve Foley after following the player on suspicion of drunk driving has been named Coronado’s Outstanding DUI Officer of the Year.

Coronado’s city manager says Officer Aaron Mansker was honored at the recent Mothers Against Drunk Driving annual luncheon.

Mansker was on his way home from work in September 2006 when he tailed Foley home after spotting the player’s car swerving on a San Diego freeway.

Then a rookie officer, Mansker has said he thought Foley was armed when he fired shots into the player’s leg, hip and hand. The injuries ended Foley’s football career.

Share
  • Nelson Donnell

    In all fairness and I know that it may seem that I’m going out of character here, but this cop was supposedly honored for the amount of DUI arrests that he made, and not who he arrested.

  • jim

    mr, taylor, any thoughts on the decision in state v chun, in nj?

    here are my thjoughts.. awaiting your thoughts.

    1)Reisig got almost want he wanted. FIRST AND FOREMOST HE WANTED THE RULES DEFINED. ACCOMPLISHED!
    HE WON ON THE FOLEY TOLERANCE ISSUE, REDUCING THE TOLERANCE TO PLUS/MINUS, 5 PERCENT, FROM PLUS/.MINUS 10 PERCENT, INCLUDED A WORKSHEET
    He lost on breath tempeture and radio interfernce.
    All other factors from downey in 1984 were upheld and now identified to be part of the alcotest, including the proofs, with a few add ons.

    2)Levow lost on the expansion of Crawford and confrontational rights. Hopefully he will do what he said and appeal.

    3)Menzel lost the argument all results should be thrown out based on error with the code

    4)Sachs lost his bid for full validation. This is also what i have been pushing for in many posts.

    So, it looks like of the 4, Reisig was the big winner here.

    I dont feel good about being a pawn in this litigation. Simply because I should have had the stop be challangble long ago, thus giving me the oppotunity to clear my name and has this overwith. Getting the stop and testimony of the stop on record, would not have only been beneficial to me, but for the State as well. Their is case law to support my opinion that talks about the prosecutor’s duty.

    While i truley belive that scientific evidence of this kind can not be suported without the showing of validation data for each instrument, i understand why this was cut short.
    The Chun defense forgo’ed the remainder of the initial hearings in order to write and have adendum a adopted, but this was not untmatley adopted, .. meaning, a good portion of the chun defense was left out of the initial hearings/trial, in judge kings court.

    so when the supreme court says not enough was put on record, it is clear that is a result of the agreement for adendum a, in liue of the continuation of the trial.

    defense attorneys, the courts, the state, drager, and citizens all win from the decision, but defendants lose, because they were tied tro an inadequet and incomplete defense, in violation of basic rights, which now they are tied to.

    the last hope is levow’s appeal to the us supreme court, and also a new defendant putting forth validation arguments, maybe myself.

    well, this is my initial feelings and thoughts.