NJTank Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I hate to say it I agree with Jigga.Though the punishment for DUI should be harsher, but just not that harsher. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Not, it's not. The act of hitting and killing constitute a separate crime. I appreciate the sentiment...but I can't give people the same punishment. It's just like most things in life, the outcome of the act affects the severity of the penalty...and it should. However, the HAS to be a much harsher standard for DUI/DWI in this country. There is too much of this happening...and as a society we don't see it as a big enough deal. People are DYING!I guess I just have to disagree. Neither of the guys chose to kill anyone, but they chose to drive drunk, which carries a risk of killing someone. IMO the crime is the driving, the killing is incidental. I know that sounds really cold, and I don't want it to sound that way, I just don't like rewarding someone for being lucky, or punishing someone for being unlucky. To exaggerate to make a point, driving drunk = attempted murder = murder.Two guys pull out guns and take a shot at someone. One's aim is a little high, the other's is a little low. The target slips and falls, so the one with the low aim kills him. One is charged with attempted murder, the other is charged with 1st or 2nd degree murder. Is that fair? IMO they both intended to kill the man, one just got lucky (or unlucky depending on how you look at it.)Is life fair?Of course not... and I know that my "vision" will never be the reality. That's what the internet is for - spouting off ideas that have no chance of coming to fruition.That and sharing porn.Sweet, whatchya got?Enough footage of big-bootied-brown-skinned-Brazilian bitches to put callouses on both of your hands. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Bottom line: In my ideal world, people are judged and punished by their intents. The fact that they are too unlucky or too incompetent to pull off their intent is irrelevant. /quixotic flake "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigga Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Not, it's not. The act of hitting and killing constitute a separate crime. I appreciate the sentiment...but I can't give people the same punishment. It's just like most things in life, the outcome of the act affects the severity of the penalty...and it should. However, the HAS to be a much harsher standard for DUI/DWI in this country. There is too much of this happening...and as a society we don't see it as a big enough deal. People are DYING!I guess I just have to disagree. Neither of the guys chose to kill anyone, but they chose to drive drunk, which carries a risk of killing someone. IMO the crime is the driving, the killing is incidental. I know that sounds really cold, and I don't want it to sound that way, I just don't like rewarding someone for being lucky, or punishing someone for being unlucky. To exaggerate to make a point, driving drunk = attempted murder = murder.Two guys pull out guns and take a shot at someone. One's aim is a little high, the other's is a little low. The target slips and falls, so the one with the low aim kills him. One is charged with attempted murder, the other is charged with 1st or 2nd degree murder. Is that fair? IMO they both intended to kill the man, one just got lucky (or unlucky depending on how you look at it.)Is life fair?Of course not... and I know that my "vision" will never be the reality. That's what the internet is for - spouting off ideas that have no chance of coming to fruition.That and sharing porn.Sweet, whatchya got?Enough footage of big-bootied-brown-skinned-Brazilian bitches to put callouses on both of your hands.Hmmmmm...I'll take it. I don't have any of that yet. Plus, I don't have any callouses on my hands. I hate to say it I agree with Jigga.Though the punishment for DUI should be harsher, but just not that harsher.Okay, I absolutely HATE that statement. Why do you hate to say you agree with me? I think I have more than a few moments of clarity, have posited more than a few reasonable arguments, and have proven myself to be quite an intelligent individual.I think you should want to agree with me quite frequently if not all of the time! On January 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, NJTank said: Btw this is old hat for Notre Dame. Knits Rockne made up George Tip's death bed speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrySmalls Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-a...p&type=lgnsSANTA ANA, Calif. (AP)?A 22-year-old man was charged with three murder counts and drunken driving Friday in the crash that killed Los Angeles Angels rookie pitcher Nick Adenhart and two others.Andrew Thomas Gallo ran a red light in his minivan early Thursday and broadsided a car carrying Adenhart and three friends, police said.?At the time of the crash, Mr. Gallo?s blood-alcohol content is estimated to be almost three times the legal limit,? Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas said.Gallo could receive almost 55 years to life in prison if convicted of all charges, Rackauckas said.Adenhart died at a hospital, hours after pitching six scoreless innings in his season debut against Oakland. He was to be remembered before the start of Friday night?s Angels game against the Boston Red Sox.?This Angel and his two friends were too young to be sent to heaven but the defendant selfishly and recklessly (got) behind the wheel after getting drunk. They didn?t have a choice. Bad decision, blink of an eye, five lives ended, including the defendant?s life is wrecked,? Rackauckas said at a news conference.Gallo will likely be assigned a public defender at his first court appearance, scheduled for Monday.Gallo also was charged with driving under the influence causing injury, and driving with a blood-alcohol level over .08 percent causing injury with a sentencing enhancement that he personally inflicted great bodily injury. In addition, he was charged with fleeing the scene of a traffic accident causing death or injury.Fullerton police Lt. Kevin Hamilton said homicide detectives interviewed Gallo for nearly four hours Thursday. ?There was a lot to talk about,? Hamilton said, without disclosing details.Police initially said Gallo lived in Riverside based on the address listed on his driver?s license. Gallo, however, gave police an address in San Gabriel when he was booked and officers were investigating that location Friday.After Wednesday night?s game at Angel Stadium in Anaheim, Adenhart went out with his friends. They were driving through neighboring Fullerton when their car was hit at an intersection.Henry Pearson of Manhattan Beach, a 25-year-old passenger in the car, and the driver, 20-year-old Courtney Stewart of Diamond Bar, were pronounced dead at the scene.Another passenger, 24-year-old Jon Wilhite of Manhattan Beach, remained in critical but stable condition Friday and doctors believe he will survive, said John Murray, a spokesman for UC Irvine Medical Center. Wilhite was being medically sedated, Murray said.According to court records reviewed by The Associated Press, Gallo pleaded guilty to drunken driving in 2006 in San Bernardino. He was sentenced to two days in jail, three years of probation, a $1,374 fine and a four-month alcohol treatment program, court records show. He didn?t serve any jail time, however, because he received credit for time served.A judge also restricted his driving privileges for three months, allowing him to commute only to and from work and his treatment program.The district attorney, however, said Gallo?s license had been suspended since 2006. Assistant District Attorney David Linden Brent said it was not unusual for the California Department of Motor Vehicles to issue a stricter suspension after an administrative hearing.Court records show Gallo violated some terms of his probation, causing it to be extended by a year, to 2010.San Bernardino County Deputy Public Defender Maria LaCorte, who represented Gallo in the 2006 drunken driving case, did not immediately return a call for comment Friday.Hamilton said Gallo was arrested for public intoxication in March 2007 and convicted of disturbing the peace in January.Court records show Gallo pleaded guilty to possession of less than one ounce of marijuana in April 2007, and was convicted of failure to wear a seat belt in 2006. He also had a minor driving infraction several years ago, court records show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still MIGHTY Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 The guy that hit him is being charged with three murder counts, DUI, DUI causing injury, driving with over .08% blood alcohol level that he personally inflicted great bodily injury, and fleeing the scene of a traffic accident causing death of injury.If convicted of all charges, he could get between 55 years to life in prisonI hope it's the latter.Also, the Ducks will hold a moment of silence before their game tonight against the Stars. | ANA | LAA | LAR | LAL | ASU | CSULB | USMNT | USWNT | LAFC | OCSC | MAN UTD | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tp49 Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Not, it's not. The act of hitting and killing constitute a separate crime. I appreciate the sentiment...but I can't give people the same punishment. It's just like most things in life, the outcome of the act affects the severity of the penalty...and it should. However, the HAS to be a much harsher standard for DUI/DWI in this country. There is too much of this happening...and as a society we don't see it as a big enough deal. People are DYING!I guess I just have to disagree. Neither of the guys chose to kill anyone, but they chose to drive drunk, which carries a risk of killing someone. IMO the crime is the driving, the killing is incidental. I know that sounds really cold, and I don't want it to sound that way, I just don't like rewarding someone for being lucky, or punishing someone for being unlucky. To exaggerate to make a point, driving drunk = attempted murder = murder.Two guys pull out guns and take a shot at someone. One's aim is a little high, the other's is a little low. The target slips and falls, so the one with the low aim kills him. One is charged with attempted murder, the other is charged with 1st or 2nd degree murder. Is that fair? IMO they both intended to kill the man, one just got lucky (or unlucky depending on how you look at it.)I think it's totally fair that their punishments are different. Their crimes are different. The issue that the intents are the same is one thing, but they have committed different crimes. The crimes are based on the actions as well as the results. The bullet hitting the intended target is the difference, and that's enough of a difference to constitute a distinctly different crime altogether. Most of life is based on being lucky/unlucky isn't it?Actually, in BBTV's example the charges would be for the guy whose bullet hit the victim 2d degree murder and the other's would be assault with a deadly weapon. Attempted murder can only be charged when there is a demonstrable intent to kill. The example doesn't show an intent to kill. You can get 2d degree murder from conduct that is so reckless it causes an unjustifiably high risk to human life (i.e., driving drunk). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrySmalls Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 The guy that hit him is being charged with three murder counts, DUI, DUI causing injury, driving with over .08% blood alcohol level that he personally inflicted great bodily injury, and fleeing the scene of a traffic accident causing death of injury.If convicted of all charges, the most he'd get is 55 years in prison.That is nowhere near enough.Let's see, he's 22 and 55 years isn't enough? He'll be 77/78 if he's out of jail, if he makes it that far. Imagine being released 55 years later to a completely unknown America. Besides, he'll be rotting in hell in his afterlife anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tp49 Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 The guy that hit him is being charged with three murder counts, DUI, DUI causing injury, driving with over .08% blood alcohol level that he personally inflicted great bodily injury, and fleeing the scene of a traffic accident causing death of injury.If convicted of all charges, he could get between 55 years to life in prisonI hope it's the latter.Also, the Ducks will hold a moment of silence before their game tonight against the Stars.No, the most he can get is life. The sentencing range for PC 187 (the most severe of the counts) is 15 years to life. The calculation you saw would be minumum time on all of the counts in the complaint including the Vehicle Code violations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tp49 Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 The guy that hit him is being charged with three murder counts, DUI, DUI causing injury, driving with over .08% blood alcohol level that he personally inflicted great bodily injury, and fleeing the scene of a traffic accident causing death of injury.If convicted of all charges, the most he'd get is 55 years in prison.That is nowhere near enough.Let's see, he's 22 and 55 years isn't enough? He'll be 77/78 if he's out of jail, if he makes it that far. Imagine being released 55 years later to a completely unknown America. Besides, he'll be rotting in hell in his afterlife anyway.Parole eligibility would see him possibly getting out if sentenced to 55 years in something along the lines of 18 1/3d years. However, that would be up to the parole board and would also take into account his conduct in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshhockey Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 When I first saw this news it actually brought tears to my eyes and everytime I think about it I get chills down my spine. It's just too tragic. Sometimes we just have to think about how lucky we are to be living and how quickly this beautiful thing called life can be taken away.We'll miss you Nick. God bless his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 Not, it's not. The act of hitting and killing constitute a separate crime. I appreciate the sentiment...but I can't give people the same punishment. It's just like most things in life, the outcome of the act affects the severity of the penalty...and it should. However, the HAS to be a much harsher standard for DUI/DWI in this country. There is too much of this happening...and as a society we don't see it as a big enough deal. People are DYING!I guess I just have to disagree. Neither of the guys chose to kill anyone, but they chose to drive drunk, which carries a risk of killing someone. IMO the crime is the driving, the killing is incidental. I know that sounds really cold, and I don't want it to sound that way, I just don't like rewarding someone for being lucky, or punishing someone for being unlucky. To exaggerate to make a point, driving drunk = attempted murder = murder.Two guys pull out guns and take a shot at someone. One's aim is a little high, the other's is a little low. The target slips and falls, so the one with the low aim kills him. One is charged with attempted murder, the other is charged with 1st or 2nd degree murder. Is that fair? IMO they both intended to kill the man, one just got lucky (or unlucky depending on how you look at it.)I think it's totally fair that their punishments are different. Their crimes are different. The issue that the intents are the same is one thing, but they have committed different crimes. The crimes are based on the actions as well as the results. The bullet hitting the intended target is the difference, and that's enough of a difference to constitute a distinctly different crime altogether. Most of life is based on being lucky/unlucky isn't it?Actually, in BBTV's example the charges would be for the guy whose bullet hit the victim 2d degree murder and the other's would be assault with a deadly weapon. Attempted murder can only be charged when there is a demonstrable intent to kill. The example doesn't show an intent to kill. You can get 2d degree murder from conduct that is so reckless it causes an unjustifiably high risk to human life (i.e., driving drunk).But the guy that missed yelled "I'm going to kill you! I hope this bullet goes right into your face!" right before he fired his gun. I'd say that demonstrates intent. You must not have asked the witnesses if they heard the suspects say anything before shooting. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 To me the key is making the penalty for the first DUI offense a lot tougher. This is Ohio's DUI penalty for a first offense...Administrative License Suspension (ALS) for a prohibited BAC;ALS for test refusal = one year license suspension;Jail - Minimum of three consecutive days or 3-day driver intervention program;Fine - Minimum $200 and not more than $1,000;Court License Suspension - 6 months to 3 years.That's not bad but I still think a first offense should result in more jail time, bigger fines, and a longer suspension of driving privileges. In Ohio all you have to do is whine about your job and the courts will let you continue to drive to work. When I was in radio one of our sales people picked up her 5th DUI and all it took to keep her on the road was a letter to the judge from our General Manager. She was supposed to only drive to and from work but she continued to drive wherever she wanted and worse, she continued to drive drunk. I also think that once you've had even one DUI conviction you should have to use special license plates. At least if they have the plates I'll know to who to avoid on the roads. I know there's the argument that once a person has "paid their debt to society" they should be free to get on with their lives but driving doesn't really fall into the "rights" category. The crime of DUI is committed while exercising a privilege not a right. I'm not saying these people should be branded for life but I also think it's only fair to let everyone else on the road know what they're up against. That's what I think anyway... All roads lead to Dollar General. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I also think that once you've had even one DUI conviction you should have to use special license plates. At least if they have the plates I'll know to who to avoid on the roads.Just operate under the premise that you can be killed by anyone at any time. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I also think that once you've had even one DUI conviction you should have to use special license plates. At least if they have the plates I'll know to who to avoid on the roads.Because you can see someone's license plate when they're driving towards you, right?Also, it's not like most DUI accidents are caused by repeat offenders. I don't have any stats, but I'd bet that the first timers vs. repeat offenders is pretty close, if not in favor of the 1st timers. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMU Posted April 12, 2009 Author Share Posted April 12, 2009 The way I see it, if you can be forced to register for life as a sex offender, why not have to get special license plates or a special license as a DUI convictee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Should people have to register as sex offenders, though? ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Honestly, how many people have driven under the influence, and just haven't been caught (or had a tragedy happen?) The number is much higher than you may think. You'd be applying the label to 30% of the offenders, and then tricking people into feeling safe because they have some false sense of awareness of one-third of the possible drunk drivers out there. Special plates are useless at best, and detrimental at worst.-typed while drunk... in a situation where he could (and did) walk home from any number of the spots he was at. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Honestly, how many people have driven under the influence, and just haven't been caught (or had a tragedy happen?) The number is much higher than you may think. You'd be applying the label to 30% of the offenders, and then tricking people into feeling safe because they have some false sense of awareness of one-third of the possible drunk drivers out there. Special plates are useless at best, and detrimental at worst.-typed while drunk... in a situation where he could (and did) walk home from any number of the spots he was at.I was half-joking when I said I'd know what I am up against with the special plates. I ride a Motorcycle. I already assume that everyone on the road is going to do the dumbest thing they can possibly do at any given moment. The idea for the plates isn't about being safe. It's a punishment. Maybe if we tossed in a little shame to go with their three day weekend at a hotel that serves as their jail time they might be less likely to be as cavalier about driving drunk the next time. All roads lead to Dollar General. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsfan Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Here is my opinion about drink driving. DUI penalties should be harsh. (10 years maybe??) The simple reason being there is NO excuse for it. Now the problem comes when you get to this type of incident. My view is that any death caused by a driver under the influence should be treated not as manslaughter but the least severe kind of murder. Let me explain why. If you are carrying a gun and it goes of unexpectedly, to me thats manslaughter. Its not that you can't look after the gun responsibly. However there is enough evidence to say that a someone under the influence of drink (or any otehr drug for that matter) cannot control there car responsibly. They have made a conscious decision to drive the car whilst under the influence. They have deliberately put themselves into a position that has caused the death of another. 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.