Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Drunk Driver Hits Police Car And Officer


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#31 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 08 February 2009 - 08:17 PM

QUOTE (Robert Gary @ Feb 8 2009, 05:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Seems a bit draconian. We can't continue hold people in jail who have not been found guilty of a crime. Being able to post bail and be released pending trial is a fundamental right that we all enjoy. At least give her her day in court, then we can demand the death penalty.

-Robert

Hi Robert,

I think you misunderstood my point. The teenage girl that got off relatively easy for maiming those two bicyclists last year. My point was this most recent incident involved a cop. So she won't be so lucky when her day in court arrives. I doubt the DA will let her plea to non-jail time offense. IMO, the courts aren't fair. Hurt an average schmuck, you might get away with it, hurt someone in law enforcement, you're going down.
I would rather be Backpacking


#32 sunnyCA

sunnyCA

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 577 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 08:37 PM

QUOTE (Parizienne @ Feb 8 2009, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't believe she's been tried and convicted, but you people sure have her on the way to death row.

No, she hasn't been tried and convicted and I certainly never said she should go to death row. But, if the BAC tests were correct and she was driving at twice the legal limit, she had better be going to jail.

I'm not sure what it is with posters who know this woman trying to say it was a "doozy of a mistake"...driving drunk is a CRIME. Please don't pass it off as a "mistake." TWICE the legal limit is drunk, and when drunk one should not drive. There a million other options...get a cab, ask a friend for a ride, walk, sleep until you are sober, and so on. There is no earthly reason why someone should drive drunk...none. No matter how hardworking someone is, when they drive drunk they are taking lives into their [drunk] hands. It's unethical, immoral, and illegal. And yes, I believe firmly that if someone is found to have driven drunk, they should spend time in jail--first offense or not. Knowing you will be in jail if you drive drunk might make our roads a whole lot safer.

#33 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 08 February 2009 - 09:27 PM

QUOTE (camay2327 @ Feb 8 2009, 07:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No matter how you want to slice this, she was driving under the influence and was over the limit. She also hit a police car and injured a policeman so, NOT GOOD...


Let's not forget that part. This guy was just out doing his job, a dangerous one at that. I'm just glad he's going to be okay and she didn't kill anyone.

#34 Parizienne

Parizienne

    My Folsom Honeybee

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Folsom
  • Interests:History, gardening, reading, antiquing, road trips, road food, the Blues, classic rock, travel.

Posted 08 February 2009 - 11:38 PM

I never said it wasn't a crime. I also believe it was a mistake. Should she get off? Should she serve time? I think that's for a court to decide.

The point is that she's a person. She isn't a monster. If it turns out that she's a criminal, well, then she's a person who committed a crime and will do her time for it.
We don't know all of the facts. That is why it should be up to the courts to decide her guilt or innocence and the appropriate penalty -- not a bunch of people on a community forum who have nothing better to do than demonize this person.

Drunk driving is horrible and inexusable, yes. I have two friends who were killed by drunken drivers in two separate incidents. I also know that people DO make mistakes. We all SHOULD know better, but unfortunately, life doesn't always work that way.


Pari.


QUOTE (sunnyCA @ Feb 8 2009, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No, she hasn't been tried and convicted and I certainly never said she should go to death row. But, if the BAC tests were correct and she was driving at twice the legal limit, she had better be going to jail.

I'm not sure what it is with posters who know this woman trying to say it was a "doozy of a mistake"...driving drunk is a CRIME. Please don't pass it off as a "mistake." TWICE the legal limit is drunk, and when drunk one should not drive. There a million other options...get a cab, ask a friend for a ride, walk, sleep until you are sober, and so on. There is no earthly reason why someone should drive drunk...none. No matter how hardworking someone is, when they drive drunk they are taking lives into their [drunk] hands. It's unethical, immoral, and illegal. And yes, I believe firmly that if someone is found to have driven drunk, they should spend time in jail--first offense or not. Knowing you will be in jail if you drive drunk might make our roads a whole lot safer.


Pari

#35 sunnyCA

sunnyCA

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 577 posts

Posted 09 February 2009 - 07:31 AM

QUOTE (Parizienne @ Feb 8 2009, 11:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I never said it wasn't a crime. I also believe it was a mistake. Should she get off? Should she serve time? I think that's for a court to decide.

The point is that she's a person. She isn't a monster. If it turns out that she's a criminal, well, then she's a person who committed a crime and will do her time for it.
We don't know all of the facts. That is why it should be up to the courts to decide her guilt or innocence and the appropriate penalty -- not a bunch of people on a community forum who have nothing better to do than demonize this person.

Drunk driving is horrible and inexusable, yes. I have two friends who were killed by drunken drivers in two separate incidents. I also know that people DO make mistakes. We all SHOULD know better, but unfortunately, life doesn't always work that way.


Pari.

No one (me included) said she was a "monster" and no one (me included) is "demonizing" her. My concern is partially with posters on here defending her. I simply pointed out that minimizing a crime by calling it a "doozy of a mistake" is a semantic shift that is not warranted here. As a society we need to hold people accountable for their actions...minimizing criminal behavior (e.g., calling drunk driving a "mistake", saying, "boys will be boys" when discussing sexual harassment, or "eh, they're just kids having fun" when justifying teenage drinking/drug use) is part of what perpetuates said behavior. It's time as a society that we call a spade a spade. And drunk driving is a crime. As you said, if the evidence shows she committed such a crime, she should do the time.

#36 Parizienne

Parizienne

    My Folsom Honeybee

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Folsom
  • Interests:History, gardening, reading, antiquing, road trips, road food, the Blues, classic rock, travel.

Posted 09 February 2009 - 09:23 AM

Oh,PLEASE! By calling it a mistake I didn't mean to excuse her behavior. My God! Can we not blow everything out of proportion??? She's a criminal if/when convicted. I don't think anybody would dispute that.

We could just all fess up because if you've ever rolled through a stop sign, gone over the speed limit or changed lanes without signaling, then you're a criminal, too. The difference is misdemeanor vs. felony and degree of severity of the offense. Somehow, we don't think of ourselves as criminals for such minor violations, but we are, aren't we? And each of those examples could also result in harm to another person.

We bristle at the term for minor infractions because the term "criminal" does imply sinister intent. Was this incredibly bad judgment or did this woman get into the car thinking, I may hit someone in my intoxicated condition.... oh.. so what, I'll do it anyway." We don't know, do we? But many here are assuming things they don't know and passing judgment as a result.

As for demonizing her -- the first poster called her an idiot. Others have implied she was a typical drunk driving out on the road. Someone else suggested that middle school kids were somehow in danger for having been around her ( uh... no kids have been around her since it happened and no one has any modicum of information to suggest she was EVER drunk around the students), and someone else suggested her arrest was a boon to the fiscal crisis because she's apparently going to lose her job.

If that's not demonizing her, then what is, pray tell?

The fact that you felt my use of the words "doozy of a mistake" minimized her offense was YOUR interpretation of what I said.

I certainly don't need your help to elucidate myself, thanks.

Pari.





QUOTE (sunnyCA @ Feb 9 2009, 07:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No one (me included) said she was a "monster" and no one (me included) is "demonizing" her. My concern is partially with posters on here defending her. I simply pointed out that minimizing a crime by calling it a "doozy of a mistake" is a semantic shift that is not warranted here. As a society we need to hold people accountable for their actions...minimizing criminal behavior (e.g., calling drunk driving a "mistake", saying, "boys will be boys" when discussing sexual harassment, or "eh, they're just kids having fun" when justifying teenage drinking/drug use) is part of what perpetuates said behavior. It's time as a society that we call a spade a spade. And drunk driving is a crime. As you said, if the evidence shows she committed such a crime, she should do the time.


Pari

#37 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 09 February 2009 - 09:29 AM

QUOTE (sunnyCA @ Feb 9 2009, 07:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No one (me included) said she was a "monster" and no one (me included) is "demonizing" her. My concern is partially with posters on here defending her. I simply pointed out that minimizing a crime by calling it a "doozy of a mistake" is a semantic shift that is not warranted here. As a society we need to hold people accountable for their actions...minimizing criminal behavior (e.g., calling drunk driving a "mistake", saying, "boys will be boys" when discussing sexual harassment, or "eh, they're just kids having fun" when justifying teenage drinking/drug use) is part of what perpetuates said behavior. It's time as a society that we call a spade a spade. And drunk driving is a crime. As you said, if the evidence shows she committed such a crime, she should do the time.

I believe in this 100%, too bad the PC crowd can't understand that.
I would rather be Backpacking


#38 Parizienne

Parizienne

    My Folsom Honeybee

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Folsom
  • Interests:History, gardening, reading, antiquing, road trips, road food, the Blues, classic rock, travel.

Posted 09 February 2009 - 09:36 AM

Well, after all, it is a purely black and white world with positively no gray area, whatsoever.


QUOTE (Bill Z @ Feb 9 2009, 09:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I believe in this 100%, too bad the PC crowd can't understand that.


Pari

#39 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 09 February 2009 - 09:40 AM

IF she's convicted, she should get a punishment like having to stand in the middle of the Police Motorcycle Exhibition.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#40 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 09 February 2009 - 09:50 AM

QUOTE (Parizienne @ Feb 8 2009, 11:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
She isn't a monster.




Yes, she is!!!!!!!!!!!

She voluntarily drank that alcohol.

She voluntarily got into that damned car.

She injured a human being.

There was no excuse for her actions like--OMG, I was trying to protect myself from an attacker.


No.

She hurt another person through stupidity.

She is an alcohol monster.

Period.

#41 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 09 February 2009 - 10:00 AM

QUOTE (Parizienne @ Feb 9 2009, 09:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, after all, it is a purely black and white world with positively no gray area, whatsoever.

Not being PC isn't just about defining everything in black & white terms. The novel 1984 term double-speak was all about the use of PC words to change the meaning.

Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Intoxicated are direct violations of the Vehicle Code. If we as a society allow people to get away with "making mistakes", we end up encouraging this behavior. Our society used to be more lax about drinking and driving, but MADD brought about some real changes. But our society still tolerates this behavior far too much, and as long as we tolerate it, it will continue.
I would rather be Backpacking


#42 sunnyCA

sunnyCA

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 577 posts

Posted 09 February 2009 - 10:10 AM

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Feb 9 2009, 10:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Not being PC isn't just about defining everything in black & white terms. The novel 1984 term double-speak was all about the use of PC words to change the meaning.

Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Intoxicated are direct violations of the Vehicle Code. If we as a society allow people to get away with "making mistakes", we end up encouraging this behavior. Our society used to be more lax about drinking and driving, but MADD brought about some real changes. But our society still tolerates this behavior far too much, and as long as we tolerate it, it will continue.

Indeed!

#43 Robert Gary

Robert Gary

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 981 posts

Posted 09 February 2009 - 10:56 AM

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Feb 8 2009, 08:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hi Robert,

I think you misunderstood my point. The teenage girl that got off relatively easy for maiming those two bicyclists last year. My point was this most recent incident involved a cop. So she won't be so lucky when her day in court arrives. I doubt the DA will let her plea to non-jail time offense. IMO, the courts aren't fair. Hurt an average schmuck, you might get away with it, hurt someone in law enforcement, you're going down.


Unfortunately the penal code allows for a different punishment for assaulting a police officer, a minority, and other particular groups. Its all pretty stupid since a person is a person. Not sure what they intend to charge her with though. The higher the charge, the more likely the jury will have symapthy towards her and the more difficult it is to prove (since higher charges have specific criteria under the law).

-Robert


#44 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 09 February 2009 - 11:03 AM

QUOTE (Robert Gary @ Feb 9 2009, 10:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Unfortunately the penal code allows for a different punishment for assaulting a police officer, a minority, and other particular groups. Its all pretty stupid since a person is a person. Not sure what they intend to charge her with though. The higher the charge, the more likely the jury will have symapthy towards her and the more difficult it is to prove (since higher charges have specific criteria under the law).

-Robert

I may be wrong---but it is my understanding that any time a person drives under the influence of alcohol and harms a person they are automatically charged with a minimum of attempted manslaughter with a deadly weapon.

Which is how it should be.

#45 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 09 February 2009 - 11:15 AM

QUOTE (supermom @ Feb 9 2009, 11:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I may be wrong---but it is my understanding that any time a person drives under the influence of alcohol and harms a person they are automatically charged with a minimum of attempted manslaughter with a deadly weapon.

Which is how it should be.

According to Wikipedia I was wrong. I think this is even worse for the driver --which it should be.



{The various versions of "driving under the influence" generally constitute a misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail). However, the offense may be elevated to a felony (punishable by a longer term in state prison) if the incident caused serious injury (felony DUI), death (vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide), or extensive property damage (a state specified dollar amount) or if the defendant has a designated number of prior DUI convictions within a given time period (commonly, 3 prior convictions within 7 years). California, which is being followed by a growing number of states, now charges second-degree murder where the legal state of mind of malice exists -- that is, where the defendant exhibited a reckless indifference to the lives of others.}


------I suppose that is on;y if the driver succeeds in killing the person, while driving?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users