[amyjc]

Drunken driver gets one year in jail for accident that injured 3 women at Absecon supermarket

Do you think the sentencing was fair? No doubt she acted carelessly and should never have been driving drunk. Looking at her side.. I think the sentencing she received was unfair. Two of the victims suffered minor cuts and bruises and released from the hospital and the other victim who previously had health problems have been damaged further.. prolonging her treatment. No one was killed and this was her first offense. I think this is unfair for a first time offender. Her blood alcohol level was .13.. not .20.. where she would have been stumbling around drunk. She had three apple martinis which put her a little over the legal limit. During the time she had the three martinis, she may have thought she was okay to drive and did not think she was over the legal limit. I think that this could have been an accident and she had never intended to deliberately drive over
The legal limit on the road. I know that the laws are getting tougher on DUI's. There could have been other factors in effect such as not having a good lawyer.

[tickle]

If this offence had been in Ontario, where there is zero tolerance on DUIs, her fine would have been $5000. Jail time and her car and drivers license taken away for a very long time.

She got off easy.

Tick

[tomder55]

Yes the sentence is fair . Driving drunk is serious stuff... intentionally over the limit or not .

Equitable ? Not when you consider NFL player Donte Stallworth got 30 Days for a DUI that killed a pedestrian.
Browns' Donte Stallworth Gets 30 Days for DUI - ABC News

[spitvenom]

Tom Is that not just a joke of a punishment you have ever seen! A man is dead and he is getting 30 days 1,000 hours community service and 10 years probation.

[tickle]

Tom Is that not just a joke of a punishment you have ever seen! A man is dead and he is getting 30 days 1,000 hours community service and 10 years probation.

Yes, you guys down there have a really strange approach to DUIs. Ontario changed this ruling just a month ago whereby if you are stopped for any infraction and the officer even gets a hint you have been drinking, you are arrested on the spot, no questions asked. That is called extreme zero tolerance and I just love it !

The tick

[spitvenom]

Our legal system is messed up. You get more time for killing and fighting pitbulls then you do for killing a man. Please don't think I am defending Michael Vick. Stallworth should have gotten way more then the 23 months that Vick got.

[ISneezeFunny]

That lady: Honestly, it's not that "she actually didn't kill anyone"... it's that she could have. If I took a gun and shot at a crowd but didn't kill anyone, it's still a pretty serious freaking offense. It doesn't mean I should "get off easy"... Also, she wasn't a "little" over the legal limit, she was 0.13... which means she was well over her limit.

Stallworth: what... the... duck. Because he got into a PLEA agreement he gets 30 days?! What, where he'll go into some nice posh jail system where he pretty much gets treated like a king? I am unhappy about this. Imagine the family of the guy he killed...

[NeedKarma]

And then there's this: Woman illegally downloads 24 songs, fined to tune of $1.9 million - CNN.com

Downloads 24 songs illegally, fined $1.9 million.

[ETWolverine]

Amyjc,

Spend a few weeks as an EMT peeling the victims of drung drivers out of what's left of their cars or off the streets. See the lives wrecked by drunk drivers. See the families of the victims trying to understand what has happened. See the victims with amputated limbs or stuck in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives... or worse, stuck on resperators for the rest of their lives.

Then tell me whether the sentence was to stiff.

I HAVE seen these things. I have NO mercy for drunk drivers... even drunk drivers who are only "borderline" drunk. In my opionion, there's no such thing as "borderline" drunk. It's like being "a little bit pregnant".

Every driver in the world knows the prohibition against drunk driving. It is the one thing pounded into every teen driving student's skull before they ever get behind a wheel. Drunk driving ad campaigns have been among the most successful public service ad campaigns in the world. There is NO EXCUSE for someone claiming that they either didn't know or that they were only a little bit drunk.

The people who received only minor injuries were LUCKY. It wasn't because the driver was only "a little drunk" that they weren't more badly hurt. It was just blind luck that they weren't hurt more badly.

Let me ask the question this way: If the victims had all died or were massively injured for life, should the driver be able to use the "I was only a little drunk" argument? The actions of the driver are the same whether regardless of the injuries of the victims. And her actions were culpable. She's guilty, pure and simple. She's just lucky that the consequences of her guilt to others was relatively minimal. But that doesn't make her any less guilty. The action is the same, regardless of the injuries to others.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

And then there's this: Woman illegally downloads 24 songs, fined to tune of $1.9 million - CNN.com

Downloads 24 songs illegally, fined $1.9 million. ?

I suspect that this will be overturned on appeal. What is the basis for the claim of $1.9 million in damages to the music industry? For that matter, what is the basis for $220,000 in damages? It doesn't make sense.

Elliot

[excon]

Do you think the sentencing was fair?

Hello amy:

I think the sentence is just about right...

Today, in Seattle, a cop was found not guilty for shooting someone through the drivers side window. He said that the driver was trying to run him over... But, cars don't move SIDEWAYS.

One can't measure the judicial system by examining individual cases. There ARE anomalies.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Today, in Seattle, a cop was found not guilty for shooting someone through the drivers side window. He said that the driver was trying to run him over... But, cars don't move SIDEWAYS.

Uh, huh. And it is impossible that the car tried to hit the cop, the cop dodged, pulled his weapon and fired as the car was passing him, right? Because, gee, nobody has ever tried to kill a cop by running them over with a car before. And if they miss on their first try, they would never be so evil as to turn the car around and try to run them over a SECOND time.

I have no idea whether the cop was right and whether this was a riteous shoot. I am going to withhold judgement until I know more.

What pisses me off is your blythe assumption that the cop MUST have been in the wrong without knowing any details. After all, he's a cop, he must be a badguy out to shoot innocent people through their windows for no damned reason, just for the fun of it, right? His goal, waking up the morning of the incident, was to cap someone for the hell of it.

Did you ever think to wonder WHY the court (I assume one with a jury) found him not guilty? Could it be that BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE the cop really Wasn't guilty because it really was a case of self-defense?

Nah... cops are ogres. There's no such thing as a cop acting in self-defense.

Elliot

[jjwoodhull]

Tom Is that not just a joke of a punishment you have ever seen! A man is dead and he is getting 30 days 1,000 hours community service and 10 years probation.

The family of the victim argued for a light sentence. Why? Because he paid them $4 million.

How do people still drink and drive? There should be national guidelines for sentencing.

[jjwoodhull]

Drunken driver gets one year in jail for accident that injured 3 women at Absecon supermarket

Do you think the sentencing was fair? No doubt she acted carelessly and should never have been driving drunk. Looking at her side.. I think the sentencing she received was unfair. Two of the victims suffered minor cuts and bruises and released from the hospital and the other victim who previously had health problems have been damaged further.. prolonging her treatment. No one was killed and this was her first offense. I think this is unfair for a first time offender. Her blood alcohol level was .13.. not .20.. where she would have been stumbling around drunk. She had three apple martinis which put her a little over the legal limit. During the time period she had the three martinis, she may have thought she was okay to drive and did not think she was over the legal limit. I think that this could have been an accident and she had never intended to deliberately drive over
the legal limit on the road. I know that the laws are getting tougher on DUI's. There could have been other factors in effect such as not having a good lawyer.

No one should be drinking 3 drinks and getting behind the wheel. She should thank God every day that she didn't kill anyone.

[ETWolverine]

No one should be drinking 3 drinks and getting behind the wheel. She should thank God every day that she didn't kill anyone.

Amen.

[tomder55]

Originally Posted by NeedKarma
And then there's this: Woman illegally downloads 24 songs, fined to tune of $1.9 million - CNN.com

Downloads 24 songs illegally, fined $1.9 million. ?

If I remember correctly radio stations were once sued for playing records .Soon the industry realized they were making money from the exposure and started giving disk jockeys payolla for playing their records.

The dinosaurs in the industry will one day learn that file sharers are also music lovers and tend to spend $$$$ on music even as they file share .

[spitvenom]

If someone killed a family member of mine (even my drunkard aunt that I hate) there is no price tag on that I want that person in jail for a long time.

[excon]

Uh, huh. And it is impossible that the car tried to hit the cop, the cop dodged, pulled his weapon and fired as the car was passing him, right?
What pisses me off is your blythe assumption that the cop MUST have been in the wrong without knowing any details.

Hello again, El:

Right! That's murder.

Maybe the driver tried to run him over, as the cop says. And, if the shots were fired from the FRONT, the killing could be justified... But, I DID point out the ONLY fact that's relevant, and that is the cop fired when he wasn't in danger, IF he ever was.

I know ALL the details, but that's the ONLY one that's significant.

excon

PS> There ain't nothing blythe about me.

PPS> (edited) Look, El. I understand the rightwing philosophy that a store owner can shoot a robber in the back as he's running away, and you call THAT self defense... You even call shooting robbers who are robbing the NEIGHBORS house, self defense...

So, I'm not buying ANY of your rightwing NEWSPEAK regarding what self defense is. Most of us know what it is.

PPPS> Sorry for stealing the thread. But, the wrongwinger MUST be confronted!

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Right! That's murder.

Maybe the driver tried to run him over, as the cop says. And, if the shots were fired from the FRONT, the killing could be justified.... But, I DID point out the ONLY fact that's relevant, and that is the cop fired when he wasn't in danger, IF he ever was.

I know ALL the details, but that's the ONLY one that's significant.

excon

PS> There ain't nothing blythe about me.

If a car is coming at you at, say, 30 mph, with the intent to kill you, and you manage to dodge, is the danger then over? I don't think so.

I know you haven't been around very long, excon, but they have these things in cars called "gear shifts" than allow cars to move backward after they pass something, and these other things called "steering wheels" that allow them to turn the car in any direction they wish. Which means that the driver of the car, who had an intent to kill you but missed, still has the opportunity to put the car in reverse and try again. The danger isn't over just because you happen to be next to the car. The danger is only over when the driver is no longer in the vehicle or is no longer able to operate the vehicle. THEN the danger is over. Until then, the danger to you, the target of the vehicle, is still imminent.

And that doesn't even take into consideration such advanced driving concepts as "skidding" or "drifting" which makes the vehicle a side-to-side threat rather than just a forward and backward threat. Cars do NOT only move forward and backward. Ask any professional racer or stunt-driver. Heck, ask anyone who has ever driven over wet or icy roadwaays and ended up fishtailing.

The bottom line is that you are wrong AGAIN because you a jumping to conclusions about the nature of the threat to the police officer in question. You don't know enough to make that judgement, but you are making it anyway. You don't know the speed at which the car was moving, the aspect of movement (forward, backward or sideways), whether it was the first, second or third attempt to run the cop down... you have no idea. All you know is that it was a cop, and cops must be guilty.

Your so-called "only relevant fact" is NOT the only relevant fact at all. It is in fact the LEAST relevant of MANY factors, none of which you have any details about.

Elliot

[earl237]

I think that she got off too easy. There is no excuse for drunk driving and even one drink is too many. For those who scoff at drinking and driving, read the story and look at pictures of Jacqueline Saburido and it will change your attitude about drunk driving. Penalties should be much tougher.