If you drink and drive you are an asshole

[dante1]

and you deserve a punch in the face and much worse. Beautiful young local couple hit by a drunk asshole and their life is basically finished. They survived but the guy Robert Kisatsky will never be whole, not even close. His utterances sound like moans and he struggles to hold a cup. He has lost 40 pounds since therapy and prognosis is very bleak. He probably will never eat, walk or talk again. His beautiful relatively recent bride lives in the house he built for them and struggles daily with pain, injuries, bills and attorneys and insurance companies. Two lives ruined not to mention the dozens of loved friends and family bearing an almost unbearable situation. Why? Because one fvckin asshole drinks and drives. His fourth offense. His judgment three to six.

I have complained to my representatives about these crazy laws before. I was told they are strict enough. This bastard could be out in less than two years for a fourth offense. Now if he was caught 4 times we both know he probably did this 400 times. I will tell you this, if it happened to be my family I would consider doing something more. Seriously, I would.

Some jurisdictions want to put non violent drug offenders away for decades, you figure it the f\*\*k out.

If you are interested you can probably read the entire article on line, Hazleton Standard Speaker, Pennsylvania.

[milwaukee mike]

sorry to hear that

around here the punishment for the 1st offense is too strict imho (immediate suspension of license for .08 which for a small woman might be one margarita), but for the 2nd, 3rd, etc like pennsylvania it is too lenient

people that don't learn by the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th offense ARE assholes, i agree

[Richkas]

I'm an asshole then.

[ngates815]

1st offense here is loss of license for 1 year and about 5-8K in fees.

Last I checked that's not worth it. Rather pay 20 bucks for a cab ride home and pick up the car the next day.



I wonder what LVbounds thoughts on this are. I think he's a cop who likes making videos of himself driving drunk home....

[dante1]

I'm an asshole then.

Oh yes, and worse. WTF is wrong with people like you? You care not about innocent people?

[ngates815]

I'm an asshole then.

How's that whore off craigslist that you paid to come spend valentines day with you doing?

[oiler]

whenthese idiots drink and drive.they dont consider the consequences.and then when something terrible happens,they hide behind the alcohol and say tha\ey didnt know what happened.there should never be any breks for people who cause an accident while drinking no matter how trivial it is.its just like when somoen on drugs kills someone and says they dont know what happened cause they were so high.

[blackbeSSt]

agreed dante. if any person in my family were killed by a drunk driver i would most certainly end up in jail for beating the ever living fukk out of that driver.

[tripas for lunch]

What if you are sleeping in a vehicle that won't run? Are you still an asshole for getting a DUI?

http://thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp

Minnesota Supreme Court Rules DUI Possible in Inoperable Vehicle

Minnesota Supreme Court upholds drunk driving conviction on a man asleep behind the wheel of an undriven, possibly inoperable vehicle.

The Supreme Court of Minnesota on Thursday upheld the drunk driving conviction of a man caught asleep behind the wheel of a vehicle that would not start. At 11:30pm on June 11, 2007, police found Daryl Fleck sleeping in his own legally parked car in his apartment complex parking lot. The vehicle's engine was cold to the touch, indicating it had not been driven recently. The keys were in the center console, not the ignition. Fleck admitted to having consumed around a dozen beers that night. Officers at the scene arrested him, and his blood alcohol level was found to be .18. A few weeks after Fleck's vehicle was impounded, a police officer tested the vehicle using the keys found in the car's center console.

"Although the key turned in the ignition, the vehicle would not start," Justice Alan C. Page explained in the unanimous decision.

Laws covering driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) have evolved over the years to cover the situations where police find a parked, but recently driven, vehicle with a drunk behind the wheel. In the 1992 case Minnesota v. Starfield, the court found a drunk passenger sitting in a vehicle stuck in a ditch guilty of DUI, but not because it could prove she really was the one who drove and caused the accident. Instead, the court ruled that "towing assistance [was] likely available" creating the theoretical possibility that the immobile vehicle could "easily" be made mobile. These defendants have been charged under an expanded definition that suggests having "dominion and control" with the mere potential to drive is a crime. Intending to sleep off a night of drinking treated as the same crime as attempting to drive home under this legal theory which does not take motive into account.

As Fleck was an unsympathetic figure with multiple DUI convictions in his past, prosecutors had no problem convincing a jury to convict. The court took up Fleck's case to expand the precedent to cover the case of mere presence in an undriven -- and perhaps undrivable -- car into the definition of drunk driving. The court relied on Fleck's drunken claim that his car was operable to set aside the physical evidence to the contrary.

"Although the facts of this case are not those of the typical physical control case in which a jury can infer that the defendant was in physical control because he drove the vehicle to where it came to rest, a jury could reasonably find that Fleck, having been found intoxicated, alone, and sleeping behind the wheel of his own vehicle with the keys in the vehicle's console, was in a position to exercise dominion or control over the vehicle and that he could, without too much difficulty, make the vehicle a source of danger," Page wrote. "Based on the totality of the circumstances, the facts in the record, and the legitimate inferences drawn from them, we hold that a jury could reasonably conclude that Fleck was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of being in physical control of a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more."

Fleck's three prior convictions elevated his sentence to a felony for which the trial judge imposed four years in prison.

[dante1]

agreed dante. if any person in my family were killed by a drunk driver i would most certainly end up in jail for beating the ever living fukk out of that driver.

and I would find you not guilty.

[oiler]

has a lady in the subrbs all upset with life and decided to go get drunk and decided to pull out in the middle of traffic and kill herself...and guess what she managed to survive and end up killing 3 people.its amazing what alcohol does to a persons mind when they get drunk.now she will be in jail for a long ass time and give her time to think about what she did to her and her family and the families who lives she destroyed

[str]

Anyone caught should have to blow in a breathalyzer to start the car for at least 10 years and any positives should restart the 10 year clock.Won't help those who have had their lives ruined but it will prevent the continuance of it.

[ngates815]

What if you are sleeping in a vehicle that won't run? Are you still an asshole for getting a DUI?

My friend got one like that. Wasn't in his car, but he was in the backseat of a jeep and they were pulled over on the side of a highway. He hopped in the front seat and turned the car so the heat came on(car not running but keys in the ignition) cop came up, got a dui.

Lost his license for 6 months.

[oiler]

Anyone caught should have to blow in a breathalyzer to start the car for at least 10 years and any positives should restart the 10 year clock.Won't help those who have had their lives ruined but it will prevent the continuance of it.

thats a good idea but they have found away around that too.if these drivers would spend more time on thinking what the effects of peoples lives they would do and less time on how to beat the system..there would be less drunk drivers

[Regul8er]

Richkas.....you make me sick.
Sensitive story, and you come in and make an a$$hole comment. It's low lifes like yourself who make me cringe!

[ngates815]

Richkas.....you make me sick. Sensitive story, and you come in and make an a$$hole comment. It's low lifes like yourself who make me cringe!

Look at the fuckkin guy, do you expect anything less?

[oiler]

I'm an asshole then.

then u know actually how drunk drivers feel...maybe u are one of them?

[blueghost]

david lee roth said; thats why god invented taxi cabs.....30 bucks max and your home

[topgame85]

Punishment for drunk driving is far too serious until you wreck someone and then not serious enough once you do. And hiding behind the alcohol is not a ploy it is fact that drunk driving is a catch 22 because the drunker you get the harsher the penalty however you are also more likely to drive the drunker you get but are less likely to believe you are drunk or know how to maintain proper control or often even why you are in the car period. Tragedy is tragedy but to generalize about something that is common practice among everyone from cops to lawyers, senators governors and the electrician and construction workers all the same is misinformed. If someone is culpable it is the states more than anyone. They make a fortune off of alcohol and in many states they run the stores themselves. They are the pusher of the drug and are the first to demonize its use. It is hypocrisy and bull shit. Convicted felons can't own firearms, Bars can be sued if they choose to overserve you but the state who pushes hard liquor sales is not liable for continuing to allow sales to people who clearly have a problem with alcohol? They are too busy counting their money from both alcohol sales and dui fines to give a damn about preventing people addicted from accesing the substance or to give a rats ass about someone killed. The victim and the repeat drunk driver are both victims of the states greed. Prohibition was in place for a reason as alcohol is a dangerous drug far more devastating than pot or even cocaine yet they are illegal to own sell or possess while the state pushes the booze for profits in the hundreds of millions.

[tripas for lunch]

My friend got one like that. Wasn't in his car, but he was in the backseat of a jeep and they were pulled over on the side of a highway. He hopped in the front seat and turned the car so the heat came on(car not running but keys in the ignition) cop came up, got a dui.

Lost his license for 6 months.

I wonder when the day will when you can be arrested for OWNING a car and having liquor in your house.

You probably think I'm kidding.

[JerseyLove]

horrible story, very sad.

[dante1]

I wonder when the day will when you can be arrested for OWNING a car and having liquor in your house.

You probably think I'm kidding.

No I don't think you are kidding but how did this thread birth this comment?
Geez!

[crustyme]

the drunk who killed angels pitcher and two others got 51 to life so there is some justice in the world.

[topgame85]

51 years = eligible for parole in 17 years to me sounds about right for the circumstances 3 years is awful short over 20 is awful long

[tripas for lunch]

No I don't think you are kidding but how did this thread birth this comment?
Geez!

Because it's best we not let people make ridiculous legal decisions based on knee jerk reactions to emotional events.

[Deuce]

A kid I went to HS with was drunk, drag racing in the snow, rolled his car, killed the chick in his passenger seat, ran from the scene and got 5 years.

[oiler]

51 years = eligible for parole in 17 years to me sounds about right for the circumstances 3 years is awful short over 20 is awful long

really?where i live u have to do 75%of sentence before u can be considered for parole

[milwaukee mike]

51 years = eligible for parole in 17 years to me sounds about right for the circumstances 3 years is awful short over 20 is awful long

in wisconsin we have truth in sentencing laws so i think 51 years HERE is actually 51 years?

[philswin]

Read about this case. It is sickening that this guy could be free in 3 years. His blood alcohol was .182 over twice the legal limit and he blew through a red light going 58 in a 35 zone.

[dante1]

Because it's best we not let people make ridiculous legal decisions based on knee jerk reactions to emotional events.

You must mean 3 to 6 for fourth offense which included horrible physical harm to two innocent people. I agree that is extremely ridiculous.

[dante1]

Read about this case. It is sickening that this guy could be free in 3 years. His blood alcohol was .182 over twice the legal limit and he blew through a red light going 58 in a 35 zone.

And yet we still have stupid people making stupid comments about knee jerk decisions.

Hey Phil, hi bud.

[beaunose2002]

everyone knows that craigslist doesnt have Ho's listing anymore ;-)

[sideloaded]

but what if you drive better drunk?

[sideloaded]

everyone knows that craigslist doesnt have Ho's listing anymore ;-)

look under strictly platonic.

[topgame85]

He won't be free in 3 years minimum is 17, It was in california and he was already on parole for a felony dui conviction and was 3 times over the limit. What he did was wrong and he will pay for it but the difference is intent. Alcoholics don't have intent and that is half the crime. No drunk driver INTENDS to hurt or kill someone or wants to hurt or kill someone or often even remember getting in the car or where they are headed. To treat drunk drivers the same as someone who beats someone with a bat half to death or wants to kill someone is a joke. The society chose to sell the substance for a profit for buisiness as well as government and therefore it is their responsibility to either exclude certain people with addiction from consuming with a state database or to cure the addiction. How hard would it be to have an alcoholic repeat offender list and force stores to look for a mark on an ID or to scan it in a database before serving people. Low cost and would save a lot of trouble but then they lose revenue from DUI fines and alcohol sales because who make alcohol such a honey hole for the state? The alcoholics who have no control who spend three hundred a week out at the bar then drive home. It is just plain hypocrisy.