This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"And on the day the words flimsy excuse were redefined, we stood in awe, and watched."
11973 members | you are not logged in | 03 July 2020


September 12 2008

Daniel Dae Kim pleads no contest to DUI. There was no mention of the lawyer for this Angel lawyer.

I finally figured out what the monster on the island is: it's the monster of alcoholism.
Alcoholism probably has nothing to do with it. Simple bad judgment after 3 drinks is enough.
lol I think he was just making a joke TamaraC..
Is there anyone on that show that hasn't been busted for DUI?
The Polar Bear and Smoke Monster.
Hehehe, you can tell whose dying next by smelling their breath -- Wine? You're outta time! Whiskey? That's way too risky! Beer? You're not wanted here! ;-)
But Jin will be back. In some form at least. So maybe DDK broke the curse.

And there have been plenty of other actors still on the show in the same predicament.

Now if only Evangeline Lilly would get busted for DUI. We could say good bye to Kate.
Jin and Sun are the best thing on that show. Too bad the cast is too huge they can't get much focus. I really hope the actors stop drinking and driving, someone could get killed.
As odd as it sounds to those of us who would like nothing more than to live and work in paradise, my impression is that there's very little to keep the "Losties" busy during their 'down' time on Hawaii, so they tend to get into trouble. Not that it's an excuse (and kudos to Daniel for owning up to his mistake and accepting the consequences with humility), but it does seem that that is the issue.
EX, I'm not sure that alcoholism is funny. Drinking and drunk people can be funny. The disease of alcoholism? Not so much
It's not so much alcoholism. It's boredom combined with bad judgment. Apparently there's really not a whole lot to do in Hawaii. I have friends who've worked there and they say it's beautiful...but after a while...
I don't know about anyone else, but if I was a star (hell, even a re-curring character) on a hit TV show, I'd make damned sure that when I went out drinking, I had a way for me to get home that doesn't involve me driving.
They have cabs in Hawaii. Why are these people even driving to places where they're going to be drinking?
These people are working actors. They're very well-paid. They can afford a freakin' taxi!

[ edited by AmazonGirl on 2008-09-13 16:07 ]

[ edited by AmazonGirl on 2008-09-14 08:08 ]
Here here, AmazonGirl! I was thinking the taxi thing myself. Or, if they don't want to pay for a taxi... drink at the hotel/house/hut. In fact, throw a party, have people come to you. No biggie.

I think there's things to do in Hawaii... just not things actors can do. Like surfing, scuba diving, cliff jumping, volcano fun, swimming with sharks... yes, I just made up that list, so I'm sure some of those things aren't possible... but most of them are (the cliff jumping I know exists).

Can you imagine telling you boss that you'll be in a little late because you're going to jump off a cliff that has to be timed with the incoming tide? The same cliff where people's timing has been "off", resulting in death?

They should pick up a hobby. Like weaving.
They don't have internet in Hawaii? As long as I got my wi-fi, I'm not bored at all.
Even I get bored of the internet. It's nice to take a break once-in-a-while. Of course, spending 12 hours a day updating Whedonesque & Twitter is probably not the healthiest approach to keeping "in touch" with the community. Of course, when you eat a tub of something, you usually forget the specialness of smaller proportions.
korkster: "They should pick up a hobby. Like weaving."

Yep. However, one should not weave and drink. There lies crazy patterns and missing eyes.
Not only are they well paid, but with the number of times this has happened, you'd think the studio would simply keep a small fleet of drivers on-call, 24-7, to prevent this sort of thing. As I write this, I realize how insanely spoiled this makes the actors seem, but from a purely safety/financial/PR standpoint, wouldn't that be a wise investment?
True, dat, KariAri.
I'm surprised that the show's production company hasn't provided the cast with a few on-call drivers if for no other reason than to protect the company's "property". I would think that there also is some sort of clause in the actors' contract with the company/studio that forbids them from any activity that would cause them to no be able to work.
Activity like, oh...I don't know...incarceration for DUI?
I'm not impressed by this at all, in fact I feel a bit let down. I find DUI really unacceptable, and I'm disappointed that yet again a high profile actor, who should be setting a good example, has acted as though the law simply doesn't apply to them.
Or he is human, made a mistake and is now owning the mistake and paying the consequences.
Well, yes, but I tend to think that that's only because he got caught, sorry if this sounds harsh, but the fact remains that DUI ruins lives.
Yeah, while drinking and driving obviously should not mix, I see no particular reason why actors should be expected to "set an example" for anyone, regardless of that judge's opinion. They may be high profile - but then in many cases that's due to the fishbowl we put them in - we scrutinize 'em and then complain when they fumble or fall.

In any event, as Tamara has said, he's just a plain old human-type folk. I don't see any reason to conclude that he thought the law didn't apply to him 'specially as a "celebrity" or somesuch. He just screwed up, and then didn't fight the charge and took his lumps like a grown-up.

ETF: typo

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2008-09-14 23:48 ]
rosalind, as far as you know, Kim has never driven after drinking before. You are making unwarranted aspersions on his character. Please don't.
TamaraC, where did rosalind accuse Kim of doing this before?
Succatash, I inferred that from her comment about him owning the mistake and paying the consequences "only because he got caught". That implies that it was a practice not a one time deal.
Are you suggesting that if he had not been caught, he would have driven to the police station and turned himself in?

Also, pleading "no contest" isn't exactly owning the mistake, is it? He was caught driving with over twice the legal alcohol limit but he did not admit he was guilty.
Fair enough, TamaraC, but i think you're loading too much onto my comment.
We don't know either way whether it was a one time deal or not, and I'm absolutely not going to go down that road.
I'm not interested either way, I wouldn't drink and drive and I feel that I should act in a responsible way so that the people who respect and look up to me are set a good example.
It's nothing to do with fame. It's how I try to live my life. That's where I'm coming from- and the fact that I've had three friends killed by people drink\ drugs driving. I'm sure you'll agree that it only takes one instance for it to have devastating consequences.
Succatash, "no contest" is basically a shortcut that has almost all the same consequences of a straight up guilty plea. Sometimes in a plea bargain, no contest is the plea you have to use, so yes, in effect he pleaded guilty. A guilty plea would probably have drawn out the case and cost taxpayers more money to no other effect.

I may be loading too much into your comment, Rosalind, but I would rather not be all judgy about someone I don't know and a situation that I really know nothing about. YMMV.
I understand TamaraC. I think the law has spoken on this one anyway :-)
I think both Rosalind and Succatash have been missing the point here - which was simply that too much had been both inferred and implied about Daniel Dae Kim's driving while under the influence. There were both implications that it may have been chronic, and implications that he should somehow be held to a higher standard that I objected to.

And Rosalind is being just a tad disingenuous when she (again, implies) just above that she stated that it is just as an ordinary human being like herself that Mr. Kim should "set an example" - while further above she stated that he should set an example as a "high profile actor."

I don't think anyone here has been defending DUI in any way - and most people have been impacted by someone driving drunk, which is, indeed, extremely irresponsible. It's the careful use of words that's been espoused, especially while writing about something as (obviously) emotionally charged as DUI.
Rosalind now: It's nothing to do with fame.

Rosalind earlier: I'm disappointed that yet again a high profile actor, who should be setting a good example...

Just sayin'.

ETA that QG beat me while I was cutting and pasting.

[ edited by theonetruebix on 2008-09-15 19:12 ]
Hah! Busted!
But seriously, I truly do think that one should set an example. And yes ok, when people are famous there is a magnification effect- from the fishbowl we put them in as you say QuoterGal (The fact that I would never have heard about this if DDK wasn't famous, is an example).
It does p*ss me off that someone with such a wide influence (wanted or not) behaves in this way.
But my two comments aren't mutually exclusive concepts are they? Disingenuous? I'm not sure exactly what you mean in this instance? There's nothing hypocritical in what I posted, was there? I possibly have a difference of opinion with you, but that's not the same thing.

(Just for the record I don't think that anyone is defending DUI)
Interestingly, the City of Honolulu agrees with Rosalind. From the linked article:

"Mr. Kim's stature makes him a role model in the community."
Bwuh? Is there something particularly important or influential about the City of Honolulu's opinion that inherently matters more than any of ours? (That's a rhetorical question, since the answer is "no". That a city "officially" buys into the line that famous people are expected to behave better than anyone else doesn't somehow make it so.)

And as for hypocrisy, Rosalind, the point was perhaps more one of contradiction than outright hypocrisy -- as you'll note from my last comment that your own comments indeed contradicted one another. There might be a useful point to be made from your perspective, but when you yourself are entirely inconsistent about what that point is, it's difficult for people to (1) follow along and (2) care.

(Note to the easily-distracted: That's not me being "not nice". It's an important point in a medium built upon text: If one's textual contributions are not consistently making the same point, then one is not in fact making a point at all -- in which case it isn't a useful contribution to the discussion. I'm all for the discussion and the debate, but one's position really does need to be at least internally self-consistent for it to be communicating anything to anyone else in the conversation.)

[ edited by theonetruebix on 2008-09-15 21:05 ]
Is there something particularly important or influential about the City of Honolulu's opinion that inherently matters more than any of ours?

Yes, actually, since the People of Honoulu are the victims here, and not you or me.
I'm not being inconsistent. I don't think that given the context that they're in that they are contradictory comments. B!x there's also a point to be made about the 'media' regarding quoting people out of context to demonstrate a point. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying. I don't mind, after all this is a liberal discussion, but I think it valid to point out at this moment.

[ edited by Rosalind on 2008-09-15 21:35 ]
Rosalind, I'm not sure bix does understand what you are saying unless he is a lot more psychic than I am. I don't understand your point about the media at all. Or what you mean by a liberal discussion. I'm baffled.

It is fine and natural that people have emotional responses to the dangerous practice of driving while under the influence, but let us not have a ridiculous witch hunt mentality about it. That is all I am saying. DDK is a great actor who I will continue to follow his entire career. His brief run in with the law should not factor into that at all.

I can adore Nirvana's music without holding Kurt Cobain up as a role model.

[ edited by TamaraC on 2008-09-15 21:58 ]
Hi Tamara,
I meant liberal as in broad-minded. My point about the the media was regarding how quotes taken out of context can be used to demonstrate any point the writer wishes, regardless of the original context of the quote which may have otherwise conferred a different meaning. The meaning in this case to be one whereby my comments are seen as contradictory.

I really can't comment on your other paragraphs other than that I hope that you aren't extrapolating my comments as far as to infer that I have, or am encouraging a witch hunt mentality. That's a pretty big leap to make. :-)
Just a little leap, really. We don't know the circumstances or the person involved. Judgments about him should not be made.
Well, as I said earlier, the law has already spoken on this.
Sounds to me the man made a mistake and he's trying to right his wrongs. It doesn't need to go farer than that.
Rosalind, and he has (or is) paying his debt to society. Slate wiped clean. That is the way our legal system works. Only people who feel like they somehow have the right to judge others on some weird moral basis will make anything else out of this.
I guess you're right, Tamara. It is just a DUI, after all. It's not like he slapped his wife or kicked a puppy on Youtube. I hear ya.
Ooh. Sarcasm. How original.
This couldn't have been a happy thread to begin with, but I must say I am surprised at how nasty it's gotten. I agree with Madhatter. He drank, and drove, he faced up to the consequences. That should be the end of story.
I read last week about a woman who has had her license taken away from her repeatedly, once for a traffic fatality, and she still gets behind the wheel. She shows no understanding or remorse. I haven't gotten any impression that DDK is anything like that.
Wife slapping? Puppy kicking? I think the term we're really searching for at this point in this thread is something else altogether.

Shark jumping.
I got nothing. You got me, Succatash. Your argument is clearly superior. :)
Sometimes words are a tricky medium for communication. Errors crop up whilst trying to express; intent can become mangled. If held at the volcano's edge I think Shan Yu would surmise we're all pointed in the same direction regarding DUI.
Ow! I just got slapped with some sloppy inference. There's inferring on comments inferring on the article based on the media inferring what has happened to DDK.

I'm not sure why this is even a thread. What can you say about this? Make it a thread about people's personal experiences with DUIs? Go through the judicial process of why would someone present "no contest"? Predict what may have in the future with DDK? Bake cookies?

Seriously, I'm at a loss. What's the point of this thread? It just seems like space to create trouble.
When this item was first posted, I was this close to deleting it - because the likelihood of it leading to bickering probably outweighed any news value it had. Ah well.

I've no idea why emotions suddenly got so high upthread. But I know I've learned my lesson.
korkster, it must have been real slow newsday. You are right, this thread really isn't W worthy. Nothing but salacious gossip and very mean spirited.
To be honest, TamaraC, I see neither salacious gossip nor mean-spiritedness on display here, just opposing opinions deciding not to budge an inch or be pleasant.

As for the value of news items in general - turns out it can be quite hard to predict which topics will spring delightful and insightful discussions, and which won't. With 20/20, it looks obvious, but it ain't always.
SNT, I don't envy you your goldness. I think I would delete too many threads.
Since we're all on a thread that may very well get deleted anyway, is it OK to discuss what exactly it means to be "W Worthy?" For instance, papparazi pics of a Whedonesque actress on a red carpet are OK, but paparazzi pics of a Whedonesque actress anywhere else are not OK. Or a Whedonesque actor gets a DUI is not OK, but then a post about a TV critic mentioning another Whedonesque actor's upcoming TV show in passing, with no more substantive info about that show whatsoever, is OK.

Not looking for hard & fast rules, but opinions from the peanut gallery as to guidelines before this thread vanishes into the internet ether would be cool.
BrewBunny, my thought is this is a site for sharing our specific Whedon centric passions with each other, a place to be just that-much-closer to keeping our admiration of Whedon's work relevant and timely within our lives because it brings joy. Items that are a recipe for unpleasantness probably don't work well to further the mission of cohesion and friendship.

I know, that's all terribly obvious. I added nothing. I guess I like typing. And mint tea before bed. That's it! This is a site where I can enjoy a mint tea before bed and keep the Whedon Verse closer to my heart. Thanks, Whedonesque, you're helping me get my antioxidants, slaying the free-radicals...maybe you're a superhero!
LoL RT (sorry, your name is too long... and I guess I'm not in a mood to copy & paste... but seeing how this is now longer than your name... meh). :)

I like WHEDONesque because it is a place where I can read up on my favorite creator & all of those people he has worked with, because they have affected my life in some fashion. I want to know what they're doing, what I can look forward to seeing them in, what they're passions are, and if there are possible avenues (charity, strike, conventions) that I may meet my heroes in person.

I'm okay with the red carpet pictures because they show our people, and the events they're attending (what they may be invested in). If it wasn't for this, I wouldn't know that SMG has an affinity towards fashion, or that Michelle T is following in the same route. I wouldn't have known about Dr. Horrible, what the new FOX line-up will provide me as entertainment, or the various layers our shows (both TV & comics & mushortios) can have.

WHEDONesque opens my eyes to the big black. And I'm grateful.

This article about DDK doesn't seem to contribute in any artistic way or any useful information. When Morgan Freeman was hospitalized, I found that useful (because of his ever-lasting relationship to Joss); I wanted to make sure he was okay. Or will be, at least.

Now, this is only my take on the black. It's why I come almost everyday, several times a day. It's why I'm late going home at night or get stressed out when I realize I've done nothing useful today. I miss it when I'm not here (which will hit hard for the next 3 weeks), and look forward to it every night.

Whedonesque is my friend. :-)
Well said, korkster. There's been a few threads recently where I've been disappointed not by what's been said, but by how things have been said. I'm all for debates, but we really should be able to show respect for each other's opinions. Anyway, it was nice to read a post like that - reminds me how much I like this place too.
Stuff like this is quite emotive though, especially if you've directly suffered as a result of it. It's maybe not as obviously emotive as e.g. a PETA themed thread but it still gets people "where they live".

For instance, papparazi pics of a Whedonesque actress on a red carpet are OK, but paparazzi pics of a Whedonesque actress anywhere else are not OK.

That's fairly clear cut I think - on a red carpet the actress has no expectation of privacy, is in fact there to be photographed, on a beach with her boy/girlfriend or walking down the street they should (IMO) be left alone. That seems to be the policy here usually and FWIW, I agree with it - it's not like the net's short of gossip sites if that's what floats yer boat.

It's hard ahead of time to see where we're gonna go with a thread (OK, "Is it canon ?" is probably only going one way ;) so what stays and what goes is a very fine line - the treading of which I also don't envy - but this one felt a bit too gossipy to me (s'why I stayed away previously). And apart from anything else, "'Lost' actor arrested for DUI" is pretty much "dog bites man" by now I reckon ;).
I get the emotives. Drunk driving has caused several travesties in my family, on both sides. And while it has had a hard effect on me (I lost my dad that way), I also know that it happens, and even if people mean well-enough to do the right thing, they may remember that oath all too late as they're driving home. Or the next day. As you say, Saje, it is pretty much "dog bites man", but more on a global front.

What does FWIW & YMMV mean? I don't know this speak.
@korkster - for what it's worth - whedonesque is my friend too and often has me scurrying off to google ;-) but... your mileage may vary!
Ah, clever purplehazel. I had to read it twice before I saw it. Thanks, BTW (learned that from the Doc himself!). That's the only set-back on the black for me- they make me look up things when I'm not in the mood too. I'm just not quite tall enough to ride on the big kids' ride, unless I stand on my tippy-toes, which takes effort. And effort is something I don't want to give when I'm supposed to be relaxing.

But, come on. After working 80 a week, would you want to do more work just to keep up with your fandom? I'd rather lay there and allow knowledge to seep in to my pores & envelop me... even rock me to sleep. I learn best with my eyes closed. ;)

Thanks again!
Learning by osmosis is my favourite kind too. Couldn't honestly say I learn best that way though (and knock yourself out korkster ;).
The one I've had to look up in the past is FTW and frankly I still don't really get it - For The Win, huh?

Anyway, FTSAATSFDNORUAOTDA, don't you agree? ;)

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home