On Thursday, 8/12/04 the front page of the Wisconsin State Journal read "A Hartford man was found not guilty by reason of mental disease of homicide by drunken driving Wednesday after a Dodge County jury was convinced the fatal crash he caused was triggered by Vietnam War flashbacks."

The Hartford man, Robert Curry, crossed over the center line in his Jeep killing motorcyclist Robert Strehlow. This was Curry's fourth (yes, I did say fourth), convicted drunk driving offense and when his blood was tested later that night it showed more than twice the legal limit of alcohol.

I am by no means one to discount Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Our soldiers see more, hear more, feel more and do more in one tour of duty than most Americans will ever experience in a lifetime.

However, deciding that someone suffers from a "mental disease" such as PTSD by no means gives them a 'get out of jail free' card.unless, of course, they're tried in Dodge County , WI .

To the jurors in Dodge County I say this: What the HELL were you thinking?

A man chooses to get drunk, chooses to get behind the wheel and steers his Jeep right into the path of an oncoming motorcycle. It was a choice, not a reaction to some incident that happened three decades ago.

There are two possibilities as I see it. The first is that Curry suffered from flashbacks so horrible that the only way to dispel them is to get drunk and the second is that he was suffering a flashback when he veered into the oncoming lane. In either case, PTSD is no excuse.

Two things must take place for a person to be charged with homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle. The first is that the person must consume enough alcohol to be considered legally drunk and the second is that the drunk must cause the accident that kills a victim.

The defense's PTSD theory may provide the basis or reason for Curry to drink. Although there are many different options such as counseling and even medication, drinking could be a "poor man's" solution.

A "flashback" theory may provide reasoning behind Curry seeming to lose control of actions and vehicle and cross into the oncoming lane. However, if his flashbacks are strong enough to cause this, he shouldn't be driving.

Neither defense can explain both. If he's drinking to drown out memories he should still have the mental faculties required to choose not to drive. Although a flashback may have caused the accident I'm reasonably certain it didn't cause him to spend the previous hours getting drunk.

How, then, could such a defense get Curry out of a murder charge? The answer could only be an easily manipulated, uneducated jury confused by a smooth-talking defense lawyer.

Until this point I though that travesty of justice was priced too high for common people and could only be afforded by superstars like OJ Simpson. I now stand corrected.

What concerns me most is the message that this verdict has sent: come up with any excuse, feeble or not, and you can get away with murder.

It seems that Curry's PTSD, as noted by psychologists and the veteran's association, stems from his service in Vietnam 31 years ago. He flew 250 mostly night missions as the pilot of a small twin-engine recon and surveillance aircraft. His wife indicated that his flashbacks "intensified" after the 9/11 attacks.

Although the court documents don't go into detail and his criminal record is not specific, I'd suppose that Curry's previous three convictions probably also stem from his "flashbacks" or PTSD.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are so many problems with this defense that I could never fit them all into one column so I'll just stick to the big ones.

First, like I said earlier, his mental condition may have accounted for one or the other factors contributing to the accident but not both.

Second, Curry's mental situation has been known for several years according to his wife's own testimony of a 'worsening' situation since 9/11.

Third, there are countless veteran's programs and civilian counseling programs available for those suffering from the various forms of PTSD and flashbacks.

Finally, above all, Curry has a long history of drunk driving indicating a problem with alcohol or his judgment.

It absolutely dumfounds me that any reasonably intelligent and observant person could know all of these things and still find the murderer not guilty. Although two of the jurors apparently felt the same way as you and I, the other 10 did not.

I wonder how those 10 sleep at night; do they cuddle into bed thinking they've helped a poor, mentally diseased veteran finally confront his horrible affliction or do awake in a cold sweat, hearing the echoes of the cries of the victim's family when they saw the killer get away with murder.