NO its not attributed to thin ice. It's due to reckless endangerment. This is definately one of those things that SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED..

blah blah blah

You idiot..The channel does freeze thick enough. Your way of thinking is what leads people to thinking they can drive under bridges/channels.. They see you go then they think they go.. How far down does the frost line go.. Do you know that that is a factor. Narrow channel. Much warmer ground under that first 36 to 48 inches of frost.. not to mention channels are NOT very deep. Add that to moving water at times.. Seriously when are you going to get it through your head..YOU DO NOT DRIVE UNDER CHANNELS.. Especially one so narrow. And as for car seat removal Why was it buckled in the first place.. I stand by my first comment even more now.

Nicholas I am aware of the facts concerning channels and am not justifying his actions as clearly mistakes were made. Would I drive across a channel, no but many people do and it's not unheard of. Resorting to name calling just shows your lack of compassion for your fellow man. I hope you never make such a mistake. But most likely you already have, you just were fortunate enough for it to not have ended in tragedy. Have you ever sped on the highway? proven dangerous activity that endangers all others around you and yet people do it every day. I just think we should reserve the judgeing for those tasked with the job. This was a night out to dinner with the family, not a night out to the bar with friends. And I am certain he would do it differently if he could. Poor judgement yes. Reckless I doubt. But time will tell.

" Use ice flow temp time" multiply test formulas rocket moon yea that will cost some money. Or maybe check the angle of the sun divide it by the percentage of shadow my bobber is casting in the fish house, Get that number which is called the dangle factor and stick a sign up that is all you need to do.. Signs are enough. All the sheriff has been saying is use caution,, SO USE CAUTION. Were going to loose approximately 1 to 4 more people in 1 to 2 more vehicles if these ignorant people keep driving there cars past thin ice signs. ITS PLAIN AND SIMPLE

This man was legally drunk and has been caught at least once before. While unintentional this "accident" was caused by his predictable illegal behavior, He should be punished as if it were your child he slaughtered. Furthermore the mother had a duty to protect her family, failed to do that duty, and harm occurred. That fits the legal definition of negligence. She knew, unless she was also impaired, that he family was in danger. While a suspended sentence would be best for her surviving child, she should also be charged (maybe child abuse-neglect) to emphasize it is not OK to allow your children to ride with a drunk driver. The legislature and judicial system must take drunk operation of a vehicle more seriously. If the first judge didn't allow a plea bargan perhaps there would be a sronger incentive to drive sober. Also the law allows 4 DUIs in 10 years before there is real jail time for drunk driving. There should be real jail time the first offense regardless if you are a lawyer, superstar or retail cashier. Note that there are often many offfenses for each time a drunk is caught. If a star quarterback misses the big game because of a DUI jail sentence so be it. The world would get the message that Minnesota is serious about drunk driving and lives will be saved. If you can't afford the punishment, than you can't afford to both drink and drive.

You have a duty to your family and the community to be alert and competent when you drive.

There should also be a duty of the adult passenger(s) to know if their driver is DUI and avoid the travel. Especially with children present.

Thank you for bcking up my point!