theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on May 21, 2010 9:10:06 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 21, 2010 9:40:32 GMT -5
Not sure if that was sarcastic or not, but in the event it wasn't, I'll just note that I'm certainly not ready to call her a horrible person (she may be that, but I don't know that from this story).
She did a horrible thing and I don't think her sentence was stiff enough, that's for sure. She killed two people. Jail time for that has to exceed 3.5 years by a good margin. Just has to.
But as Martin Vail once said, "sometimes good people do some very bad things."
I certainly agree with the subject line of this thread though. Regardless of drunk drivers.
EDIT: Just read a little more about her driving history. Still not ready to call her a horrible person, but someone with that many driving violations (none of the others were for DUI) really should have had that privilege taken away from her.
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 21, 2010 9:50:36 GMT -5
Virginia drivers are so much worse that maryland drivers it's not even funny. But i feel like we already had this debate. Yeah sentence wasn't stiff enough that's about all i got out of this.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 21, 2010 9:53:57 GMT -5
Not sure if that was sarcastic or not, but in the event it wasn't, I'll just note that I'm certainly not ready to call her a horrible person (she may be that, but I don't know that from this story). She did a horrible thing and I don't think her sentence was stiff enough, that's for sure. She killed two people. Jail time for that has to exceed 3.5 years by a good margin. Just has to. But as Martin Vail once said, "sometimes good people do some very bad things." I certainly agree with the subject line of this thread though. Regardless of drunk drivers. EDIT: Just read a little more about her driving history. Still not ready to call her a horrible person, but someone with that many driving violations (none of the others were for DUI) really should have had that privilege taken away from her. I agree. I think we can all agree she did a horrible thing without saying (or knowing) that she's a horrible person -- especially after reading a one-sided column that is somehow slotted under a "breaking news" banner. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on May 21, 2010 11:24:01 GMT -5
Not sure if that was sarcastic or not, but in the event it wasn't, I'll just note that I'm certainly not ready to call her a horrible person (she may be that, but I don't know that from this story). She did a horrible thing and I don't think her sentence was stiff enough, that's for sure. She killed two people. Jail time for that has to exceed 3.5 years by a good margin. Just has to. But as Martin Vail once said, "sometimes good people do some very bad things." I certainly agree with the subject line of this thread though. Regardless of drunk drivers. EDIT: Just read a little more about her driving history. Still not ready to call her a horrible person, but someone with that many driving violations (none of the others were for DUI) really should have had that privilege taken away from her. I'm sorry, but drunk driving makes me nuts. Someone who sped away from the scene of the accident after hitting someone .... at some point, even if you regret your actions and show contrition, you still killed somebody, and, at some point, you *are* a horrible person. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 21, 2010 11:29:22 GMT -5
Not sure if that was sarcastic or not, but in the event it wasn't, I'll just note that I'm certainly not ready to call her a horrible person (she may be that, but I don't know that from this story). She did a horrible thing and I don't think her sentence was stiff enough, that's for sure. She killed two people. Jail time for that has to exceed 3.5 years by a good margin. Just has to. But as Martin Vail once said, "sometimes good people do some very bad things." I certainly agree with the subject line of this thread though. Regardless of drunk drivers. EDIT: Just read a little more about her driving history. Still not ready to call her a horrible person, but someone with that many driving violations (none of the others were for DUI) really should have had that privilege taken away from her. I'm sorry, but drunk driving makes me nuts. Well then, maybe you're not the best person to decide if someone else (whom you've never met) is a "horrible" person. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on May 21, 2010 11:43:58 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but drunk driving makes me nuts. Well then, maybe you're not the best person to decide if someone else (whom you've never met) is a "horrible" person. She killed someone and sped away! She sounded contrite only after she had been caught. She willingly got behind the wheel of a car while significantly impaired - not for the first time - hit somebody, and DIDN'T CARE TO SEE IF HE WAS DEAD OR NOT. She's horrible. |
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,928
|
Post by Filo on May 21, 2010 11:57:42 GMT -5
Well then, maybe you're not the best person to decide if someone else (whom you've never met) is a "horrible" person. She killed someone and sped away! She sounded contrite only after she had been caught. She willingly got behind the wheel of a car while significantly impaired - not for the first time - hit somebody, and DIDN'T CARE TO SEE IF HE WAS DEAD OR NOT. She's horrible. I'm kinda conflicted on this one and I am not sure I want to defend her, but you don't see anything wrong with the logic of someone being "significantly impaired" and "willingly" doing something? |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on May 21, 2010 12:14:45 GMT -5
She killed someone and sped away! She sounded contrite only after she had been caught. She willingly got behind the wheel of a car while significantly impaired - not for the first time - hit somebody, and DIDN'T CARE TO SEE IF HE WAS DEAD OR NOT. She's horrible. I'm kinda conflicted on this one and I am not sure I want to defend her, but you don't see anything wrong with the logic of someone being "significantly impaired" and "willingly" doing something? During the night of drinking, she continued to drink, knowing that she would get drunk. When she got into the car, she knew she was drunk. When she hit - and killed - the guy, she kept driving until she was picked up. Even after she was picked up, a little while after she hit him, she was still legally drunk. And not just barely tipping the Breathalyzer. There is a difference between having your faculties impaired to the point where you are a fatal menace to other people on the road and being impaired so much that you can't designate right and wrong. In coverage of murders and accidental deaths in cases of temporary insanity, alcoholic stupor, and under the influence of other drugs, the majority of people, if I'm not mistaken, realize that they've done a horrible thing. Part of my thinking on this comes from an old Lewis Grizzard column on an off-duty police officer who was killed by a drunk driver. Grizzard wrote that the offender came to court in a nice suit, looking as presentable as possible, and expressing contrition. But, he says, when he interviewed a relation of the man who died, she had that the police report said that, when he was pulled over, he was snarling and nasty. "And he was drunk". Kelli Loos made a decision to get behind the wheel of a car, when she knew that she would be a danger to all people on the road that night - other people who called the police and gave her a wide berth. There is no way you can excuse this by something like "it was only one drink over, it was a horrible accident" - she was a menace. She, Kelli Loos, acted with willful disregard for human life - for people whose only fault was that they were unlucky enough to be out on the road with her that night. That's what I define as a horrible person. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 21, 2010 12:50:56 GMT -5
She killed someone and sped away! She sounded contrite only after she had been caught. She willingly got behind the wheel of a car while significantly impaired - not for the first time - hit somebody, and DIDN'T CARE TO SEE IF HE WAS DEAD OR NOT. She's horrible. I'm kinda conflicted on this one and I am not sure I want to defend her, but you don't see anything wrong with the logic of someone being "significantly impaired" and "willingly" doing something? I think the missing word is "voluntarily," as in "voluntarily significantly impaired." Even if one accepts the premise that alcohol alone (rather than alcohol combined with a sinister mental state) could cause this sort of behavior, the defendant knew or should have known of the potential consequences of consuming excessive quantities of alcohol followed by driving on a US interstate highway. The fact that the defendant may have had an addiction to alcohol -- which may have reduced the defendant's ability to act rationally and responsibly in terms of controlling alcohol consumption -- seems to have been a mitigating factor for the judge. And the defendant's remorse seems to be genuine -- it would be very difficult to fake sobbing for nearly an hour (though I guess there's the possibility she's sobbing for herself and not the victims). These cases are often very difficult for the families of victims. When a family member is taken away suddenly by a person acting so recklessly, many families would like a death penalty option. The reality is that the punishment range is much lower, particularly for first-time offenders (In Texas, the range is 2 to 20 years with an optional fine of up to $10,000). I wonder: if the judge had given the maximum of 20 years, would that satisfy theexorcist? Or does the punishment range for this type of offense need to be increased in Maryland? Should Maryland at least classify intoxication manslaughter as a "violent offense?" Also, I wonder what Virginia did with its DWI case. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on May 21, 2010 13:01:54 GMT -5
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure what the penalty should be. It's just that drunk drivers who kill people while drunk get off easy - Leonard Little on the Rams, and some Cleveland Browns player who just got house arrest (if I recall correctly) and was still let out to practice with a personal trainer. The drunk driver usually gets treated with what's a slap on the wrist if they show up, clean-shaven and sad, and say that they're sorry and that, if it's any consolation, their life is ruined. The parade of people out to this sentencing shows that any person who dies through a random act of violence is going to touch so many lives, and the idea of a sentencing commensurate with a crime that involves no one dead just makes me sad.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 21, 2010 13:30:51 GMT -5
I am completely with you on the sentencing part, exorcist. In no way am I trying to mitigate the act itself, or the punishment that should be required for such a, yes, horrible act.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on May 23, 2010 0:03:06 GMT -5
I have no problem driving in Maryland so I think the title of this is a little hyperbolic, dont ya think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on May 28, 2010 17:35:04 GMT -5
Wow dude, I feel like I'm back in 1L crim law!
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 28, 2010 17:45:01 GMT -5
Wow dude, I feel like I'm back in 1L crim law! I had Ken Feinberg for crim law - that was a great class. |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on May 31, 2010 18:13:22 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 1, 2010 7:39:28 GMT -5
Us older drivers did better than relative youngsters.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 1, 2010 8:45:41 GMT -5
Older = better, I think, because when I was in high school, driver's education was still offered (and my recollection may be hazy, but I want to say mandatory). As I understand, it is not even offered today in public schools.
|
|
PhillyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,016
|
Post by PhillyHoya on Jun 1, 2010 9:03:04 GMT -5
It was offered in my high school but for a fee and classes were after school. It definitely wasn't part of the curriculum.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jun 1, 2010 10:56:40 GMT -5
Im only 22 and I got 20 out of 20 on that quiz, also i have never gotten a moving violation. Older does not necessarily equal better; smarter equals better. It also helps when people dont text and drive, it just happens that the young are usually stupid and like to text and drive.
|
|
