Along the lines of drunk driving consider the TV show bikers competing for best builds and the guy from Florida, Billy Lane. In my opinion this guy got off easy considering the history.
He was driving a promotional vehicle for Chrysler (Dodge Ram I believe) at the time and ended the life of a park ranger. Of course, Chrysler has the bucks to send in some high profile lawyers too.
Note in the article how skewed people can be. You have a certain percentage of people who wanted him off the hook simply because he’s a biker, photogenic to a degree, and has those dreadlocks. Groupie adoration at its best.
She was just driving drunk, she didn’t mean to hurt anyone, shes really sorry…
I think she got an early sentence only getting 11 years, I get so sick of these drunk drivers that get caught and get a slap on the wrist. If you want to kill someone and get away with it do it behind the wheel of a car, its a joke. I would bet if this lady gets out early she will drink and drive again, she is not sorry.
When will we start treating drunk driving as a crime? If you get a first dui its a joke, there is no punishment, look at the biker builder from florida, he killed someone only 3 years after a previous dui.
Remember the guy is Kentucky that in the late 80s crashed into a schoolbus killing over 20 kids, well 20 short years later he is out. Its amazing, isnt it.
Perhaps in your state a first time DUI is a 'slap on the wrist" but here in AZ there is some mandantory jail time and I have no doubt the monetairy hit can be 5K. One DUI for a mechanic pretty much means you will not be able to drive customer cars anymore and that pretty much means no job.
I have seen mechanics get a DUI and keep their job (with someone else doing their test drives) but this one guy was told how lucky he was to keep his job. DUI in AZ is no joke my friend.
“I think she got an early sentence only getting 11 years, I get so sick of these drunk drivers that get caught and get a slap on the wrist. If you want to kill someone and get away with it do it behind the wheel of a car, its a joke. I would bet if this lady gets out early she will drink and drive again, she is not sorry.”
Do you think that she can break the habit after 11 years without a drink? She might go back to drinking when released, but there’s no way she will still be addicted when released. In order to get out early, she will have to show the parole board that she will not drink and drive again. I’m sure the parole board has passed this way many times before, and can make an informed decision on whether this person is likely to go back to her old ways. And as a parolee, she will be swiftly tossed back in prison if she is caught for any parole violation. Parole is not a get out of jail free card.
This is tragic, but really, 20 years seems plenty long enough. What good does keeping him in prison do? He didn't go out and stab, strange, or shoot 20 people in cold blood, he made the bad decision of driving drunk. 20 years gave him loads of time to think about what he did, and as long as he's not allowed to drive again he isn't a danger to the public.
As for the original, again, this was also tragically bad judgement. Perhaps 2 years is too short (denying early release a time or two might drive home the seriousness further, particularly since she did make a run for it), but given the point of prison is deterrence, rehabilitation, and keeping dangerous criminals off the streets -- well, I think she's as deterred as she's going to be, I think she's as rehabilitated as she could be, and as long as her license is pulled when she gets out of jail, she shouldn't be a risk to anyone. But she's just asking for this to be reviewed, the parole board can decide.
Regarding crime and punishment, I’d like to hear some comments about a case going on here in OK. To condense the story a bit:
Pharmacist gets robbed and resorts to keeping some firearms in his drugstore.
Time passes and 3 teenage thugs enter, one 16 years old and with a gun. The pharmacist pulls a gun and shoots the 16 year old, who then hits the floor. The pharmacist empties the gun into the guy.
The DA is pushing murder charges against the pharmacist come hell or high water because the DA claims the suspect was unconscious and it was murder after the first shot. It’s claimed the suspect was still moving (purposefully or involuntary muscle reaction, who knows) and the pharmacist thought the guy was still making threatening moves.
The NAACP has characterized this as an “execution” and it’s been reported that the kid’s mother and her boyfriend actually coached these guys on robbing the place and which drugs to go after.
The pharmacist (a retired AF Lt. Col. who wears a back brace and is disabled) stated he feared for both his life and his 2 employees.
Reports from the OK Med. Examiners office, used in determining the filing of charges, are conflicting to a great degree due to a huge mess going on there over the last few years.
Keeping in mind no one from the ME’s office was present, one report says the guy was killed instantly, another report says he wasn’t, yet another says there could have been involuntary muscle movement, etc.
While it’s tragic a 16 year old died, my feeling is that this guy along with his 2 friends waived all of their rights to anything when they walked in the front door with ski masks and a gun. If it were me in the pharmacist’s shoes I’m emptying the gun and going for another clip. What do you think?
I guess you did not go (or did not already know) and find out about "41 shots’ but your comment about “going for another clip” provided me with context to relate the story. 41 was the number of times Amadou Diallo was fired at by four NYC policemen,he was hit 19 times. Diallo was shot when he provided the officers with his wallet that they mistook somehow for a gun. All officers aquitted.
Perhaps with 4 shooters it was not required to “go for another clip”, just empty the one you have inserted.
Old, I am aware of the Diallo case and the Sean Bell case. I have no problem with capital punishment, if we are absolutely certain of guilt. Too many people died before we had DNA tests. This Thanksgiving, at a family member’s home, we had dinner (and I set next to at dinner) a man who did 30 years hard time for a crime he did not commit. He was paroled, regardless that he did not express remorse, because it was obvious he did not commit the crime. So I would be careful who I executed. As for the drunken lady, it is clear she is an alcoholic and a menace. Let her out and ankle-bracelet her; no driver’s license and no car. Possession of, or presence in, a private motor vehicle, other than a taxi or means of public transportation as a passenger only, means she goes back in for the rest of her sentence. No passenger in anyone’s private vehicle, too easy to play switcheroo.
I have Fox News running on the TV while I am studying (OK and browsing) and they just ran a story headlined by Judge Napalitano that told of a challenge to the Texas capital punishment system. The judge declared that it is “without question that Texas has executed innocent men” but added that “these men were found guilty”.
He added that no Texas state judge would put a hold on executions (as these judges are elected and we know how Texas is with their “kill them all and let God sort them out thinking”) but the system is being examined by a Federal judge.
I’m all in favor of making sure that when someone is executed there is no doubt about it and there’s no doubt in my mind that innocent people have suffered capital punishment in the past. The ones I’m talking about are the particularly heinous ones in which there is no doubt whatsoever. The cop story I’m not familiar with but those officers should be, at a minimum, packed off to the pen for the rest of their lives.
When it comes to DAs I do not trust any of them as they’re mostly political grandstanders and while most cops are decent IMO, for the most part they will circle the wagons when one of their own goes off on a tangent. If the heat gets too bad on their buddy THEN they bail out and leave the accused hanging.
Look at the Drew Peterson case in Ohio(?). The PD defended their own for years until the evidence piled up and he was arrested and then it was Drew Who???
Locally, there’s been yet another murder investigation botched and dismissed. The wrong guy was arrested and charged and the obviously guilty one was never even asked in for an interview, fingerprints, shoe prints, his clothing, etc. The lead detective (brother of the chief) decided to retire with near full benefits and 6 months later the chief does the same while 2 women are dead to severe beatings. Case closed.
In a prior murder case 2 people were freed on a double murder charge after the detective (whom I know to be a real twit) botched the investigation and then falsified evidence to cover up his mistakes. This all came out in court and the 2 murderers walked because of it.
My opinion is that the pharmasist should get an award for courage and the DA should get thrown out of office.
As I mentioned earlier, our judicial system, our law enforcement system, and our penal system are supposed to be there to protect the preyed upon from the predators. Within that context, the DA is there to prosecute the predators. Clearly the DA doesn’t know how his office is supposed to serve the citizenry. Clearly he’s misguided. He should be removed.
That's Texas for you. They don't care about justice, just about getting a conviction, whether it's the right person or not.
A few years ago, one of the counties there had a computer glitch, so NOBODY was being released from the county lockup. Finally someone figured out the problem when the judges started asking why so many people were not showing up for trial (it was because they were in jail and weren't brought to the courtroom.) Same attitude! To paraphrase, "They were arrested so they must have done it." OK, what about those people (and there were some) that were put in for a day or two but ended up being in for a month? It was like "Oh, well, they did commit a crime so no problem".
As for the DA... well, the pharmacist shouldn't have fired after he was down, but I wouldn't have filed charges either. The pharmacist should have every right to shoot to kill an armed intruder, so the fact that he wasn't a crack shot is fairly irrelevant at that point.
Cade:
I thank you, good people?there shall be no money; all shall eat
and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery,
that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.
Dick:
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
I am sorry your friend lost a son. I read the article from the link and I have to agree that, if freed, there is a pretty good chance that this woman would end up driving drunk again.
I was just going to say that at least she didn’t mean to hurt or kill anyone.
From my friend about this story: “apparently, we ‘focused on the lavish life Christensen once lived.’ Funny, my focus was on the fact that she killed my dad and left and never said she was sorry.”
Well, nothing says “I’m sorry” like a trip to Vegas, a facelift, and a shopping spree. This is part of the reason the Bowens haven’t received any of their $6.2 million judgment.
This whole disgusting thing makes me sorry I voted for Alex Sink, who apparently thinks Mary Taylor-Christensen’s enhanced DUI manslaughter case was of “exceptional merit,” and should be fast-tracked to that particular hearing.
It seems to me that the money should come partly, or completely, from her insurance company. If she has to pay, the money would likely come from her savings and the sale of her assets. But the main assets, her main home and retirement, are untouchable. Since the amount is contested, anything would go into escrow. I’m not an attorney, but I believe that’s how it works. I sat on a jury panel where someone was injured in an auto accident, and the lawyers were hired by the respective insurance companies.
I don’t think the insurance companies supply lawyers or pay settlements when the driver drives drunk or is otherwise impaired, and I think that is the way it should be. Why should we pay higher insurance premiums to cover these criminals? Let the victims take the criminal’s home and retirement if the murderer can’t otherwise pay. If the murderer has a 10 million dollar retirement fund, it shouldn’t be protected.
Back in the 70’s when drug laws really started to take hold in the US…NY state passed a law then if in possession of a certain of drugs…you get LIFE IN PRISON. That has since been repealed…but there was a guy in NY who went to jail for LIFE for having more then 2 joints in his possession. He was finally released - I think after 10 years.