WM -

Probably makes fiscal sense.

But I need to know a lot more to support any kind of 20 year sentence for an accident resulting in death.

How high was her BAC level?  A repeat offender or first timer?  Age?

I don't use the term "drunk driving" to describe a simple DUI violation of an arbitrary .08% limit.  While one's reactions are a bit diminished at .08, it's far from "drunk".  So how high was this person's BAC?

OK. 0.229% IS drunk, no question about that.

So, given her condition (let's assume permanent disability ), what's the appropriate penalty?  Certainly a tragedy for all concerned, including the woman driving.

I certainly don't feel that 20 years in the slammer is apropriate, given the fact that everyday she'll feel the permanent effects herself from her misdeed.

Glad I don't have to make the call on this one - jailing an already disabled person doesn't do much to prevent a repeat, does it?  Yet, you can't let her go scott free.

As an aside, this is the sort of BAC level that we need to be concerned about; not .08%.  Once a person gets in the range of .17% or higher, then this sort of "wrong way up the freeway", or other serious deviations happen.

But at .08 it doesn't.  At .08, you might take a turn a little tight and have your front tire brush the center line with no oncoming traffic in sight (the cop's delight - gotcha even though you haven't done anything dangerous), but that's about it.

I've advocated for years that we return to a limit of .15%, like is was for decades before the MADD women became so powerful, then lay the hammer down on those violators.  But leave the guy alone who had a couple of beers after work.

.08% is no more impaired than a person whose concentration is diverted by using a cell phone, or whose reactions have simply diminished as he has aged beyond about 75 for a normal person.

If the old guy ever does get out,... I hope he doesn't find a new girlfriend...
That could be dangerous... ...

This was a rambling reading of how statistics are used against minority groups.

The highlighted quote is an absolute lie.  But the report is written w/o any clear objective and many contradictions.  You have to skip to table 22 just to find a hint at the crash causes, 35% of the time cars fail to yield to m/c's vs. 4% m/c's to cars.  I believe the limited scope of the report negates it's validity.  The only thing I could say about this report is 3/4 of the riders that are killed are stupid.

And all of the noise off people are stupid for thinking that because 45% of 2.5% are riders with modified exhausts have excessive noise.  And everyone of them is in violation of the law.  If they have their way the only muffler that you can use will be stock, regardless if it just as quiet or not.

http://www.noiseoff.org/motorcycles.php

Quote:


http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/810834.pdf

Quote:

Verslagen -

I can't take time this afternoon to reda the reports.  One thing that does amaze me is the number of bikes I see parked outside of bars.

While I'll drive after a drink or two, I won't ride after even one.

Ridng is like flying and driving very fast - all require sharp reactions and a steady head to make snap decisions, and to most importantly stay ahead of the bike, plane, or car.

babyhog wrote on 12/28/10 at 05:17:08:

Pete Rose, wow what a blast from the past. If I remember, George Steinbrenner got convicted/or at least nailed for the same thing and was barred from running the NY Yankees? Yeah, pete could no longer be employed in baseball, and george was back running things in a very short time.

Can people change? Do people feel remorse after committing a violent act/crime? Of course some people do. The hard part is determining who those people are. A job for the parole board.

There are expungement statutes here in NJ, and a bill passed earlier this year made it easier for those convicted of certain crimes to petition the court to have their records sealed off. It used to be a 10 year wait, and no drug convictions could be expunged. It's now a 5 year wait and some drug charges can now be expunged. People can get a felony conviction expunged and put down "no" when asked if they were ever convicted of a felony, when applying for truck/livery driver certifications, and jobs like nurses, lawyers etc. There are exceptions like applying for a job in law enforcement. So, the conviction is never really destroyed from the files, just kind of hidden.

back to this original posting: (with side bar)


the nfl should of banned vick from ever playin again...
sidebar
the  nba should of banned rodman from ever playin again after he kicked the photo guy
jmo