Sucks to be this poor
 

bastard.

http://www.kcra.com/news/14503956/detail.html

Two killed, hundred car pile up and you test for alcohol exceeding the limit?

Doesn't look like he caused it at this point - just that he was caught up in it. (Not excusing the drunk, just pointing out a possible misleading implication of your post)

I didn't miss that, but I imagine many who learn of that will miss that distinction.

You think an impairment in one's ability to drive the vehicle had no impact upon the accident? Maybe not, but the presumptions won't run in his favor.

I do think an impairment in one's ability to drive a vehicle can have an impact. Of course, the 99+ other drivers that I'm assuming were unimpaired didn't seem to fare any better than the drunk that was impaired. He shouldn't have been driving drunk either way. Period.

You seem to be assuming he was car #1 in the accident? How do you know he wasn't car #86 out of 100+?

I have no idea about his role, I simply stated that because he was the first cited, many will blame him irrespective of causality.

Show me where I blamed him. In fact, I said, sucks to be this poor bastard. Had I wanted to blame him, I would have said, "What a bastard."

Don't drive drunk. That's what I took away.

I'm wondering why it's only a misdemeanor.

Ahh, I didn't realize the "sucks to be this poor" and the "bastard" all belonged in the same sentence. I took "bastard" at the start of the post to be a standalone sentence and thus thought you were blaming him for the accident.