Or as Linus would say: "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand." A pregnant woman and her unborn child were killed by a hit and run driver, who later surrendered himself. (After the alcohol was out of his system I'm sure.) Meanwhile, a passing motorist stole the dead woman's purse.
Why is it for a first offense drunk driving, the driver gets a frowny face from the judge, and for the second offense, they get a frowny face and maybe a finger-waggle? For the third offense, the court gets REALLY tough and gives them a very light tap on the wrist.
I never have understood that. We hand out driver's licenses as if they are a right of birth. Most (many?) drivers in this country are not very serious about driving. They don't know the laws and have very little training or technique. Learning to drive should be more like learning to fly, and it should be a privilege, not a right. Tom
Stev0, someone very close to me was caught drink driving, had a BAC of 0.14 when the limit was 0.08 (25 years ago), it is now 0.05 This person lost their licence for this offence for 15 months and they were fined about 4 weeks pay although income wasn't taken into account. I know it wasn't a public flogging or hanging but it did the trick and they haven't taken risk again. That is the idea of penalty, getting people to mend the error of their ways and it works for most.
Yes Godiva, there are not even words to describe the utter outrageous animosity manifested by the 'perps' described in that article. The increase in 'hit & run' is thoroughly mind-boggling. And it has affected my driving style. '60 Minutes' this weekend was a 'best of' series of 2008 episodes. One of them described an energetic Long Island, NY county prosecutor who treats deaths caused by drunk drivers as murder, as opposed to manslaughter (just a 'happenstance' of something that went wrong). I was terrifically impressed. And she's getting convictions and very long sentences. DWI Deaths: Is It Murder?, Bob Simon On One Prosecutor's Efforts To Increase Penalties For Drunk Drivers Who Kill - CBS News
You're in Australia. Here, I am always reading in the paper about people getting into accidents after their fourth or fifth(!) offense - sometimes more. Yes, eventually they do take away your license here, but all that means is in your next accident you also get charged with driving without a license. For that, I think you might get fined $10.00 or something like that. Usually that harsh of a penalty is successfully appealed.
Well I do not know how the pansies in MA handle DUI, 23152, A "DUCE", but here in CAL first offense costs approx $13,000.00 out of pocket for fines, lawyers, etc. You lose your license for 6 months, and theres a little jail time. Do it a second time, its way worse. Kill somebody while DUI its Feloney Vehicular Manslaughter. Big jail time. If all MA gives out are frowney faces, the legislature needs to put their drinks down and come up with some laws with BIG BALLS!!! 73 de Pat KK6PD And the person that stole the purse, Karma's Coming ....
The penalties for DUIs vary from state to state in the US. I find it difficult to believe that any state would slap a minimal fine - with no other significant consequences - on a driver caught driving with a suspended license because of a prior DUI. Drunk-driving penalties by state Drunk Driving Laws: California Vehicle Code, Section 23536-23552 (Page 1) I'm not saying that there aren't cases that fall through the cracks or that all states are equally diligent about enforcing penalties or even that the existing penalties are appropriately harsh. Thankfully I don't even have any anecdotal experience other than what I've been told by a couple of friends/relatives who are cops. I call foul though on claiming the US has a general attitude "oh well shit happens" when it comes to DUIs - particularly repeat offenders.
How about what happened here in St Paul, which is next to Winnipeg? On Feb 25, 2005, Derrick Harvey-Zenk, a police officer with the St Paul force, had gone to an all-night "shifter" with other off-duty cops. He then staggered out to his personal vehicle, totally shitfaced, and managed to rear end Crystal Taman at a red light, instantly killing her No honour in inquiry testimony: Taman family Although cops are normally quite picky about procedure and detail, they all seem to have been affected by some mystery ailment when one of their own was responsible for killing a person in a DUI crash. First of all, the ex-cop refused a brethalyser. That should be an automatic charge right there, but it was not. He didn't spend 5 mins in jail. He never apologized to the Taman family. THe other cops at the shifter, couldn't remember how much Zenk drank, or even IF he had been drinking The media circus eventually became an "official" inquiry. Not much surprising emerged from the inquiry. Although apparently Zenk had been pissing and moaning about all the bad pulicity he had received. Hey, you killed someone. We should perhaps have a parade in your honor?? Dickwad Home - Taman Inquiry into the Investigation and Prosecution of Derek Harvey-Zenk So to answer the question if people are scum, I would have to suggest that members of the former St Paul Police Detachment, and the Winnpeg City Police, certainly are scum.
Okay. It's the next day and I'm better. There is nothing in the article to indicate it was a drunk driver. I originally heard this on the news and nothing was said there either. Just my intuition due to the circumstances and the delay in turning himself in after a hit and run. Maybe she was wearing a seatbelt, maybe not. We know those SUVs roll really easy. We all hear about hit and runs, drunk drivers, and the tragedy of a husband losing both his wife and an unborn child. But was caught my attention was....the a$$hole that stopped and stole her purse. Don't tell me the guy couldn't see it was an accident scene and make the connection as to why a purse was laying by the side of the road. That's what really ticked me off.
On another note, let me add that there are a lot of good people. We have a lot of nice and caring people in the village where I live, and I'm sure it's true all over the world. Unfortunately the bad people get all of the attention since they are so damned obnoxious. Cheers for the good people of the world. Tom
Of course, neither the hit-and-run driver nor the purse-snatcher are to be admired. Period. My feeling is that one injury accident caused by a drinking driver costs the driver the permanent loss of license. Period. And, even though I espouse libertarianism, I would be happy if the law read that he would never be allowed to purchase or own a vehicle. Schools practice zero tolerance for plastic knives or carrying an extra aspirin. Law enforcement should practice zero tolerance for drinking drivers.
I think all cars should come with what my AA friend has. He has to blow into this thing in his car before it will start. It is a breath test, if he fails the car won't start. I am sure you could find someone to cheat for you but nevertheless it is a deterrent.
The real Linus (CS's friend) has been my client for over 20 years and my favorite saying of his is..."John, it's a mad cap world out there". Onto drunk driving. I wish there were a greater push to call killing by drunk drivers first degree murder and extremely stiff mandated prison sentences starting with the first offense. No blaming it on the alcohol as so many defense lawyers like to do. Blame it on the fool who damn well knew better and ignored his better judgement.
I totally agree. Before you start drinking, you know that your car is parked outside and you still decide to get shit faced. That calls for a first degree murder with maximum prison term. Anywho, the stolen purse I can definitely imagine. I lived in a poor neighborhood before with gang activity and can easily imagine someone just grabbing the purse and taking off without caring for the human lives in the accident. Thomas
We're on the same wavelength. But a charge of first-degree murder requires intent. Anyone who gets drunk and then drives probably does not have the intent to kill. But second-degree works better than probation and sends a stronger message than manslaughter. The idea is to stop the idiot from doing it again, ever. Mandatory life sentences would do that.
