PDA

View Full Version : Woman dislikes carrying coffin photo of crash victim, as ordered by court



Casshew
01-09-2004, 06:03 PM
BUTLER, Pa. (AP) - A judge ordered a woman to carry a photo of the man she killed in a head-on collision, and the man's parents complied by sending a picture of him in his casket. Now, her lawyer is crying foul and the family is refusing to provide another picture.

Prosecutors said Jennifer Langston was drunk and talking on a cellphone in June 2002 when she crossed the centre line and hit a pickup carrying teacher Glenn Clark and his pregnant wife, Annette. He died, his wife remains in a coma and their son, born by caesarean section five months after the crash, is being raised by relatives.

Besides vehicular homicide, Langston pleaded guilty in September to reckless endangerment and reckless driving. A judge sentenced her to 30 days in jail, plus house arrest and probation, and ordered her to carry a picture of Clark for five years. Clark's parents gave court officials a photo of their son in his coffin.

At a hearing Wednesday, Langston's lawyer, Michael Sherman, said the "spirit of the agreement" was that the photo be of Clark when he was alive.

"It was very unreasonable and cruel that she was given that picture," Sherman said.

District Attorney Tim McCune agreed to have the family provide a different photo.

But Rosellen Moller, Clark's mother, was unapologetic and said she had no intention of sending another picture.

"I thought it was cruel and unusual to kill my son," she told the Herald in Sharon. "We really didn't have a choice. They wanted me to send a picture of Glenn and I did."

Full Story from CNEWS (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2004/01/09/308941-ap.html)

BirdieBoo
01-09-2004, 10:29 PM
since when do criminals get to pick and choose the terms of their punishments?

CARLA
01-10-2004, 12:54 PM
:furious: TOUGH LADY, I SAY PIN THE PICTURE TO HER CHEST..!! :furious:


HEY LADY, YOU KILLED ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, HELLO..!! :bang: DON'T YOU GET IT.. :doh: OH!!! I KNOW IT WASN'T YOUR FAULT..!! :razz:

;)
CARLA

Casshew
01-10-2004, 04:31 PM
The coffin photo would be pretty sobering (forgive the pun) to carry around.

It is definately an unusual order by the Judge.

Ghostwheel
01-10-2004, 11:17 PM
Let's see. She was drunk and talking on a cell phone. She killed a man, left his wife in a coma, but miracle of miracles, the baby lived, but doesn't have it's real mom and dad.

And she is whining about carrying around a picture of this man in a casket? It's not like it's pinned in front of her eyes. She never even has to look at it. It should be in an 10X14 gilt frame in the middle of her living room.

lcookster
01-12-2004, 05:15 PM
I'm with you, Ghostwheel. We just had a 45 year old drunk driver cross the highway and plow right into a car carrying teenagers. Two were killed, aged 17. By the way, it was 8:30 at night. The guy was totally soused. He also died at the scene.

Mimi
01-12-2004, 07:21 PM
Too bad he didn't make her have it tattooed on her body! :mad:

In today's day and age there is no excuse for drunk driving..this accident could have been prevented, and the two parents would be raising their son together today!

MiMi
JMHO

feistyALgal
01-13-2004, 12:06 PM
I agree with everyone on this thread. She killed 2 people, and left a child orphaned. The mother in the coma is as good as dead, as she's not up and about, raising her child. She's dead.

And this freak has the audacity to whine that carrying that photo is unfair?

She could easily put that photo in an envelope if she was so bothered by it, but frankly, apparently it's LEGAL to murder people, as long as your drunk, in that state. Your only punishment is you have to carry around a photo of the person you murdered and you get to whine about it too.

That murderer needs to be BEHIND BARS.

AeroFanRW
06-18-2007, 04:47 PM
Woman Dies on Anniversary of Husband's Death
06-18-2007

<CENTER><TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" borderColor=#111111 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%"></TD></TR><TR><TD width="100%">

A Butler County woman whose husband was killed in a fatal car crash five years ago this past Friday, has died of her injuries.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>
http://www.insidebutlercounty.com/index.php?sid=477354407&t=news_detail&id=26479

eleven
06-18-2007, 04:52 PM
WOW. She died 5 years later TO THE DAY that her hubby died.

I wonder what ever came about with the drunk driver not wanting to carry around a photo of the man in his casket? I can't believe she only got 30 days in jail! Unreal.

Thanks for the update on this, AeroFanRW!

WholeLottaRosie
06-18-2007, 08:43 PM
wonder if the drunk driver will have new charges filed against her. I can't remember where this was at, but,no that long ago someone was charged for someone dying some years after the incident cause the drs /autopsy said the death was a result of injuries obtained in the incident. Darn, now this is bother me.

I wonder how that ever worked out with her carrying the photo. I guess she should still be on the probation.I

WholeLottaRosie
06-18-2007, 09:03 PM
I just did a little googling and all I could find was that in an article about Annette's death, in said that the state appeals court in 2006 overturned part of her sentence, the judge had ordered her to pay 20,000 dollars restitution, at apparently 50.00 per month to the son, the court overturned in saying the son was technically not a victim of the crash (not born yet). What a joke. The article said that efforts to reach the driver and the local DA were unsuccessful.

pedinurse
06-18-2007, 10:13 PM
that poor baby.

i wish they had made them tattoo it on her. she would have deserved it.

pedinurse
06-18-2007, 10:15 PM
I just did a little googling and all I could find was that in an article about Annette's death, in said that the state appeals court in 2006 overturned part of her sentence, the judge had ordered her to pay 20,000 dollars restitution, at apparently 50.00 per month to the son, the court overturned in saying the son was technically not a victim of the crash (not born yet). What a joke. The article said that efforts to reach the driver and the local DA were unsuccessful.


bull!@#%. i can't believe she is fighting that little son.

he deserves his parents. 20,000 is not even a drop in the bucket, and I am sorry but if it were me, i would feel it my duty and feel it wasn;t even enough to write the 50.00 a month.

sherri79
06-19-2007, 02:25 AM
not a victim!!! u gotta be kidding me. why do we have so many idiots on the bench!!

froggierintexas
06-19-2007, 02:48 AM
The person that lives across from her should blow up the picture she didnt want to carry, write 'remember me' in big letters and put it in their yard facing her house, apt whatever.

Dark Knight
06-19-2007, 05:59 AM
No new charges will be filed :mad: :furious:

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/rss/s_513269.html

angelwngs
06-19-2007, 08:43 AM
since when do criminals get to pick and choose the terms of their punishments?

Since Paris Hilton...

Paladin
06-19-2007, 08:48 AM
This is definitely going to piss alot of you off...but I think making the person carry a picture around of the person you killed falls under the "cruel and unsual" punishment in the Bill of Rights.

I would have liked to see this woman get MUCH more jail time, and have additional charges thrown at her once the wife had died.

I also think that if this woman has any conscience that she would live with the fact she killed two people, and ruined many other lives, including their families and their son's. That's why I don't see the need for her to carry a picture around, especially one in which the son is in a coffin. I believe that's a bit excessive.

Amraann
06-19-2007, 09:02 AM
This is definitely going to piss alot of you off...but I think making the person carry a picture around of the person you killed falls under the "cruel and unsual" punishment in the Bill of Rights.

I would have liked to see this woman get MUCH more jail time, and have additional charges thrown at her once the wife had died.

I also think that if this woman has any conscience that she would live with the fact she killed two people, and ruined many other lives, including their families and their son's. That's why I don't see the need for her to carry a picture around, especially one in which the son is in a coffin. I believe that's a bit excessive.


Your post did not piss me off but I am curious as to why you feel its cruel?
I posted about this on the same topic thread in the Jury Room ..
I do not think its cruel at all. Cruel is that child being born with no parents because this women had no self control, got drunk and then chose to drive.

comfort80
06-19-2007, 09:21 AM
Your post did not piss me off but I am curious as to why you feel its cruel?
I posted about this on the same topic thread in the Jury Room ..
I do not think its cruel at all. Cruel is that child being born with no parents because this women had no self control, got drunk and then chose to drive. don't forget- while talking on her cellphone... any one of those things, she could have chosen not to do... poor baby and his parents, had no choices whatsoever.

Paladin
06-19-2007, 09:22 AM
Your post did not piss me off but I am curious as to why you feel its cruel?
I posted about this on the same topic thread in the Jury Room ..
I do not think its cruel at all. Cruel is that child being born with no parents because this women had no self control, got drunk and then chose to drive.

To be honest I'm more pissed off about her being on her cellphone than her drinking. It annoys me to no end when I see people yapping away on their phones while they are driving. Hell, even when walking around the mall or the supermarket.

We were doing just fine as a society before cellphones came along, and now it's a giant annoyance and even getting people killed.

People can hardly control their driving when they're on their phones, so add in alcohol and that poor couple had no chance.

............

As to the why I think it's cruel...I think it lies in the excessiveness, especially since it's a picture of a person in a coffin. However, I think it's a fair trade off in light of the ridiculolusly small amount of jail time this woman did. If I had to choose between the two, I'd rather carry around the picture than rot in jail. She got off easy...but still, the picture creeps me out.

I guess I don't really have a good explanation for this one Amraann.

I also wonder why 99% of the time it's the drunk idiots who survive these crashes.

Amraann
06-19-2007, 09:41 AM
To be honest I'm more pissed off about her being on her cellphone than her drinking. It annoys me to no end when I see people yapping away on their phones while they are driving. Hell, even when walking around the mall or the supermarket.

We were doing just fine as a society before cellphones came along, and now it's a giant annoyance and even getting people killed.

People can hardly control their driving when they're on their phones, so add in alcohol and that poor couple had no chance.

............

As to the why I think it's cruel...I think it lies in the excessiveness, especially since it's a picture of a person in a coffin. However, I think it's a fair trade off in light of the ridiculolusly small amount of jail time this woman did. If I had to choose between the two, I'd rather carry around the picture than rot in jail. She got off easy...but still, the picture creeps me out.

I guess I don't really have a good explanation for this one Amraann.

I also wonder why 99% of the time it's the drunk idiots who survive these crashes.

I agree the picture would be creepy but she is the one who put him there so I feel its just that she be punished like that.
Especially because she only got 30 days in jail for a crime that IMO deserved much much more.
To answer you question about why drunks survive these crashes....
There actually is a medical reason... When drinking ones senses are not as accute as I am sure you know, this usually delays a persons normal reaction to tense up all of the muscles in the seconds before a crash.
In a lot of cases this saves them from more serious injury.

AeroFanRW
06-19-2007, 10:19 AM
I was not pissed off about your reply either, you are entitled to your opinion!

She didn't have to carry the coffin picture, she (actually her attorney) won that argument. She just had to carry a picture of him in life. She was supposed to have to visit the gravesite every year on the anniversary also, but argued (again, through her attorney) that this could be a dangerous situtation in that people could be waiting at the gravesite to "heckle" her.

In my opinion, they received more attention by fighting every detail, and international attention over the photograph, than they would if they would have just accepted the terms. After all, NO ONE ever said she had to LOOK at the photograph, she just had to carry it.

All that said, I think she got off WAY too easy. Cruel and unusual punishment applies more to what Annette's parents have been through visting their beautiful daughter in a nursing home for the past five years.

Lastly, although cell phones are annoying in general and maybe even a distraction while driving...I would still consider drinking and driving more dangerous and life-threatening as it causes impairment, not just a distraction.

Paladin
06-19-2007, 12:23 PM
I was not pissed off about your reply either, you are entitled to your opinion!

She didn't have to carry the coffin picture, she (actually her attorney) won that argument. She just had to carry a picture of him in life. She was supposed to have to visit the gravesite every year on the anniversary also, but argued (again, through her attorney) that this could be a dangerous situtation in that people could be waiting at the gravesite to "heckle" her.

In my opinion, they received more attention by fighting every detail, and international attention over the photograph, than they would if they would have just accepted the terms. After all, NO ONE ever said she had to LOOK at the photograph, she just had to carry it.

All that said, I think she got off WAY too easy. Cruel and unusual punishment applies more to what Annette's parents have been through visting their beautiful daughter in a nursing home for the past five years.

Lastly, although cell phones are annoying in general and maybe even a distraction while driving...I would still consider drinking and driving more dangerous and life-threatening as it causes impairment, not just a distraction.

I agree that she got off way too easy.

How exactly do you enforce that sort of sentence? Does a police officer or another official randomly pop in on this woman and ask to see the picture?

christine2448
06-19-2007, 12:45 PM
Let's see. She was drunk and talking on a cell phone. She killed a man, left his wife in a coma, but miracle of miracles, the baby lived, but doesn't have it's real mom and dad.

And she is whining about carrying around a picture of this man in a casket? It's not like it's pinned in front of her eyes. She never even has to look at it. It should be in an 10X14 gilt frame in the middle of her living room.

It should be tattoed on her forhead like Katies Revenge.

AeroFanRW
06-19-2007, 04:29 PM
I agree that she got off way too easy.

How exactly do you enforce that sort of sentence? Does a police officer or another official randomly pop in on this woman and ask to see the picture?


I don't know how exactly they are supposed to enforce it but I can take a wild guess as to whether they actually do or not. I know of a couple of bars that if they actually threw out all of the people on probation that are not supposed to be there...they would have no customers at all.

My sister-in-law's probation officer actually told her that someone in law enforcement had called into his office to ask the procedure on what happens if he catches her on the weekend drinking. He told her straight out that someone watching her and trying to get her caught. He said even if she was caught on the weekend, they would have to wait until Monday morning to call her in to do a urine test and "we all know" that alcohol only shows up in urine for 24 hours, right? I would like to know whose side they are really on. :banghead:

By the way...rumor has it that someone called and complained about this situation and that probation officer got a transfer:silenced: :angel:

pedinurse
06-19-2007, 08:05 PM
No new charges will be filed :mad: :furious:

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/rss/s_513269.html


i'm sorry but in my mind the case just changed from the equivalent of attempted murder to MURDER.
i want the book thrown at this woman.

a child never knew his parents because of her.

a father never got to meet his son because of her.
a mother never even knew she gave birth or got to raise her own son for five years and then died because of her.

this case makes me LIVID.

why does no one else seem to care? shouldn't this be national news?

i would pay money to whoever lives accross the street from this woman to put a big, blown up post mortem pic of BOTH of them up in thier lawn so she could see it.

this woman sounds so unrepentful over what she did it is UNREAL. unreal. she didn't want to visit the grave. she didn't want to carry a picture. she wanted to go on living life as normal.

that baby can't live a normal life. that is for sure.

does she have children? does she care at all what she did?
i just want to cry for this family - an entire family destroyed by one person's night of drinking and carelessness. an entire child's exsistence altered - from his prenatal exsistance onward. think of how excited they were- they were going to have a baby! they had so much to live for! then it was all wiped away by her selfishness. sick witch. she even fought having to lay flowers on his grave.

pedinurse
06-19-2007, 08:16 PM
she got thirty days for killing two people and taking away a child's two parents - and she could have killed the third unborn life.


she got THIRTY DAYS


PARIS HILTON GOT MORE THAN THAT!!!!!!



WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Paladin
06-19-2007, 08:53 PM
i'm sorry but in my mind the case just changed from the equivalent of attempted murder to MURDER.
i want the book thrown at this woman.

a child never knew his parents because of her.

a father never got to meet his son because of her.
a mother never even knew she gave birth or got to raise her own son for five years and then died because of her.

this case makes me LIVID.

why does no one else seem to care? shouldn't this be national news?

i would pay money to whoever lives accross the street from this woman to put a big, blown up post mortem pic of BOTH of them up in thier lawn so she could see it.

this woman sounds so unrepentful over what she did it is UNREAL. unreal. she didn't want to visit the grave. she didn't want to carry a picture. she wanted to go on living life as normal.

that baby can't live a normal life. that is for sure.

does she have children? does she care at all what she did?
i just want to cry for this family - an entire family destroyed by one person's night of drinking and carelessness. an entire child's exsistence altered - from his prenatal exsistance onward. think of how excited they were- they were going to have a baby! they had so much to live for! then it was all wiped away by her selfishness. sick witch. she even fought having to lay flowers on his grave.

Are you nuts? Murder would denote that she willfully went out to hurt these people. She didn't attempt to murder these people.

Get a grip.

I wouldn't want to put the flowers on the grave of the person I accidentally killed. I don't care if I had a drop of alcohol or 30 barrels, I didn't MEAN to kill someone. People are careless and **** happens. Punish them accordingly, but asking them to lay flowers on their grave is above and beyond.

Amraann
06-19-2007, 08:55 PM
She cannot be charged because it would be double jeopardy.
She cannot be charged for the same crime twice.

j2mirish
06-19-2007, 08:59 PM
Are you nuts? Murder would denote that she willfully went out to hurt these people. She didn't attempt to murder these people.

Get a grip.

I wouldn't want to put the flowers on the grave of the person I accidentally killed. I don't care if I had a drop of alcohol or 30 barrels, I didn't MEAN to kill someone. People are careless and **** happens. Punish them accordingly, but asking them to lay flowers on their grave is above and beyond.
why??
so as long as someone doesnt mean to kill someone else, it just doesnt count or what?? :bang:

Paladin
06-19-2007, 09:00 PM
why??
so as long as someone doesnt mean to kill someone else, it just doesnt count or what?? :bang:

No, it's not that it doesn't count. But this person didn't murder someone, in the legal sense of the word.

j2mirish
06-19-2007, 09:07 PM
Are you nuts? Murder would denote that she willfully went out to hurt these people. She didn't attempt to murder these people.

Get a grip.

I wouldn't want to put the flowers on the grave of the person I accidentally killed. I don't care if I had a drop of alcohol or 30 barrels, I didn't MEAN to kill someone. People are careless and **** happens. Punish them accordingly, but asking them to lay flowers on their grave is above and beyond.


why??
so as long as someone doesnt mean to kill someone else, it just doesnt count or what?? :bang:


No, it's not that it doesn't count. But this person didn't murder someone, in the legal sense of the word.

ok-- so she didnt MURDER them- she simply killed them ( by accident) - took 1 of the 2 five years to die from her injuries...and that left a 5 year old child, parentless....does that sound better ?

sorry- I realize it was not intentional...but for God sakes- take some resposobilty for the actions--I dont think carrying a picture, or placing flowers on a grave is asking ANYTHING from this person- especially after serving 30 fricking days-- whoopty -doooo

Paladin
06-19-2007, 09:10 PM
ok-- so she didnt MURDER them- she simply killed them ( by accident) - took 1 of the 2 five years to die from her injuries...and that left a 5 year old child, parentless....does that sound better ?

sorry- I realize it was not intentional...but for God sakes- take some resposobilty for the actions--I dont think carrying a picture, or placing flowers on a grave is asking ANYTHING from this person- especially after serving 30 fricking days-- whoopty -doooo

Personally I'd rather see this person rot in jail for a few years than carry around a picture of someone.

j2mirish
06-19-2007, 09:49 PM
Personally I'd rather see this person rot in jail for a few years than carry around a picture of someone.

that works too-

Dark Knight
06-19-2007, 10:18 PM
She cannot be charged because it would be double jeopardy.
She cannot be charged for the same crime twice.

The other crime should have changed once the person died. Same victim, but a different crime. It wouldn't be the same charge, is what I am saying. I think the DA is just lazy or clueless, but I could be wrong.

Dark Knight
06-19-2007, 10:22 PM
Are you nuts? Murder would denote that she willfully went out to hurt these people. She didn't attempt to murder these people.

Get a grip.

I wouldn't want to put the flowers on the grave of the person I accidentally killed. I don't care if I had a drop of alcohol or 30 barrels, I didn't MEAN to kill someone. People are careless and **** happens. Punish them accordingly, but asking them to lay flowers on their grave is above and beyond.

2nd degree murder doesn't require premeditation. I have always felt the law should state drunk driving is premediated murder since you knew you were drinking and could kill someone but you drove anyways.

But the charge should have become vehicular homicide, anyways, which it wasn't for his wife originally. It shouldn't be double jeopardy when the charge is different due to a change in circumstances. (Her death.)

PSUfan
06-19-2007, 10:25 PM
Are you nuts? Murder would denote that she willfully went out to hurt these people. She didn't attempt to murder these people.

Get a grip.

I wouldn't want to put the flowers on the grave of the person I accidentally killed. I don't care if I had a drop of alcohol or 30 barrels, I didn't MEAN to kill someone. People are careless and **** happens. Punish them accordingly, but asking them to lay flowers on their grave is above and beyond. She got behind the wheel of a car, drunk, and killed 2 people. She should be on her knees, begging to give back to this family.... and if this family wants her to carry around a picture of the folks she killed.. in the coffin, then she should absolutely do it. She should carry this burden for the rest of her life.

Opie
06-19-2007, 10:58 PM
An accident is one thing. Making the choice to drink and drive is NOT an accident, it is a choice, albeit a very bad one. Talking on a cell phone is also a choice. Pull over and stop the car and THEN talk on the cell phone. I am sick of hearing that drunk driving causes ACCIDENTS or someone should not be held responsible for something because they were drunk or drugged. Those are choices and should have no bearing on whether someone is responsible for something.

Texana
06-19-2007, 11:44 PM
Are you nuts? Murder would denote that she willfully went out to hurt these people. She didn't attempt to murder these people.

Get a grip.

I wouldn't want to put the flowers on the grave of the person I accidentally killed. I don't care if I had a drop of alcohol or 30 barrels, I didn't MEAN to kill someone. People are careless and **** happens. Punish them accordingly, but asking them to lay flowers on their grave is above and beyond.

I"ve got a 14 year old that just finished 8th grade health and has a pretty good understanding that if you drink, you drive impaired, and you may very well kill someone. They put on these glasses that show what the impaired vision is, among other things. It's not hard for a 14 year old to understand, so I think that makes it obvious.

An accident is when you pull out in front of someone in your blind spot.

Deliberately killing someone is when you decide to have a few drinks and then more and then turn the key in your ignition.

"People are careless" is about the most enabling and pathetic description of a drunk driver I've heard in my lifetime.

The statistics are that most drunk drivers have been driving drunk repeatedly many times before they finally kill someone. We are not talking about people who had an extra glass of wine with dinner.

Drinking and driving is a deliberate act of choice, not an "accident."

sillygoose
06-20-2007, 12:49 AM
Cruel and unusual punishment used to mean the iron maiden or the rack. Apparently these days cruel and unusual means to hurt the perp's feelings. :boohoo:

sherri79
06-20-2007, 12:51 AM
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Cruel and unusual punishment used to mean the iron maiden or the rack. Apparently these days cruel and unusual means to hurt the perp's feelings. :boohoo:

Details
06-20-2007, 01:25 AM
She killed them by her choices. If she had any real remorse, she wouldn't be fussing about what type of picture, she'd carry it to remind her not to ever make such a mistake again. This is lenient and mild punishment, not cruel and unusual.

Paladin
06-20-2007, 07:55 AM
I"ve got a 14 year old that just finished 8th grade health and has a pretty good understanding that if you drink, you drive impaired, and you may very well kill someone. They put on these glasses that show what the impaired vision is, among other things. It's not hard for a 14 year old to understand, so I think that makes it obvious.

An accident is when you pull out in front of someone in your blind spot.

Deliberately killing someone is when you decide to have a few drinks and then more and then turn the key in your ignition.

"People are careless" is about the most enabling and pathetic description of a drunk driver I've heard in my lifetime.

The statistics are that most drunk drivers have been driving drunk repeatedly many times before they finally kill someone. We are not talking about people who had an extra glass of wine with dinner.

Drinking and driving is a deliberate act of choice, not an "accident."

Our definitions of deliberate seem to be different.

And people are careless, otherwise we'd be learning from each other's mistakes and we wouldn't be discussing this. People are going to continue to do what they do. It's not enabling, it's telling the truth.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

froggierintexas
06-20-2007, 08:30 AM
Driving is a privelage, not a right. You choose to get a car, you choose to operate that car, you choose to drink beforehand, you choose to talk on a cellphone (and let's be real, we all know it wasn't an emergency that couldn't wait) and those choices are yours. You own them and any consequences resulting from your actions.
I guess to some, her sentence was so harsh, we should have hugged her and gave her a six pack, a new car and sent her back to destroy lives. After all we should just be glad she was kind enough not to kill anymore people. Oh wait, she still could.

I really feel sorry for those that think the sentence she recieved was harsh. A little out of touch with the value of life, IMO.

Paladin
06-20-2007, 08:52 AM
Driving is a privelage, not a right. You choose to get a car, you choose to operate that car, you choose to drink beforehand, you choose to talk on a cellphone (and let's be real, we all know it wasn't an emergency that couldn't wait) and those choices are yours. You own them and any consequences resulting from your actions.
I guess to some, her sentence was so harsh, we should have hugged her and gave her a six pack, a new car and sent her back to destroy lives. After all we should just be glad she was kind enough not to kill anymore people. Oh wait, she still could.

I really feel sorry for those that think the sentence she recieved was harsh. A little out of touch with the value of life, IMO.

I don't think it was harsh. I think the sentence she received was stupid. She should be sitting in jail, and not carrying a picture around of the person she killed or putting flowers on their graves. If anything, she got off easy. Laws are there to protect us, and teach us a lesson. What are you teaching other would-be drunk drivers when you give the person a light jail sentence and are told to carry around a picture of someone?

None of you know what this person is carrying around (mentally) without the added pressure of carrying around the photo of someone in their coffin. Contrary to what you may think, even if you commit a crime, you still have some rights. They're not always necessarily forfitted like you would want.

Why is everything so black and white with most of you around here when it comes to law? A person makes a mistake so automatically we should throw them away so we never have to deal with them again? They may a mistake but still, it surely was deliberate what she did, so that makes her a murderer? Give me a freaking break.

What sheltered lives you must lead. It's so easy to point fingers and criticize until something like this happens to you or your family. Really, I'm not trying to take anything away from the victims of this, but I'm sure I'll get blasted for not including them in the point of my post.

I bet a few of you criticizing this woman have driven over the legal limit at least once.

Go ahead and feel sorry for me if you want. I'm rather honored you would spend any of your energy focusing on me.

froggierintexas
06-20-2007, 09:23 AM
I don't think it was harsh. I think the sentence she received was stupid. She should be sitting in jail, and not carrying a picture around of the person she killed or putting flowers on their graves. If anything, she got off easy. Laws are there to protect us, and teach us a lesson. What are you teaching other would-be drunk drivers when you give the person a light jail sentence and are told to carry around a picture of someone?

None of you know what this person is carrying around (mentally) without the added pressure of carrying around the photo of someone in their coffin. Contrary to what you may think, even if you commit a crime, you still have some rights. They're not always necessarily forfitted like you would want.

Why is everything so black and white with most of you around here when it comes to law? A person makes a mistake so automatically we should throw them away so we never have to deal with them again? They may a mistake but still, it surely was deliberate what she did, so that makes her a murderer? Give me a freaking break.

What sheltered lives you must lead. It's so easy to point fingers and criticize until something like this happens to you or your family. Really, I'm not trying to take anything away from the victims of this, but I'm sure I'll get blasted for not including them in the point of my post.

I bet a few of you criticizing this woman have driven over the legal limit at least once.

Go ahead and feel sorry for me if you want. I'm rather honored you would spend any of your energy focusing on me.


Actually my comment was directed to you, if it was, I would have said so. Sorry you are so sensitive and feel that it was.

As for the sheltered life, I have seen the results of drunk driving, want me to send you a picture? It has happened to my family. She was a mother of two, and she lost half of her face on the pavement. They had to fill her face with clay to make her a little more presentable so her mother could say goodbye. Her children cry for her still. I do too.

Not once did I say throw her away. I am all for rehabilitating people if they are willing to do their part. What I am not for is the idea that because she hurts over something SHE DID, she gets to forget about it. She should be reminded of it, lest she forget and climb behind the wheel for a second round of intoxicated manslaughter.

So, she has rights, good for her. She took away the rights of her victims. The right to live without being plowed down for no good reason.

I think she deserved 10 or 15 years, community service, a picture to carry around, halfway house, rehab, just to start. That isn't throwing her away now is it, its letting her turn her life around after punishment.

As for living, I was a bondsman for more years than I care to remember. I believed until innocent until proven guilty before that, now I see how people can really be. How the legal system really works. And after seeing thousands of men and women pull the boohoo I am so sorry act then tip the bottle to the sky and drive again. I say she isn't as sorry as you think she is.

IMO

Paladin
06-20-2007, 10:29 AM
Actually my comment was directed to you, if it was, I would have said so. Sorry you are so sensitive and feel that it was.

As for the sheltered life, I have seen the results of drunk driving, want me to send you a picture? It has happened to my family. She was a mother of two, and she lost half of her face on the pavement. They had to fill her face with clay to make her a little more presentable so her mother could say goodbye. Her children cry for her still. I do too.

Not once did I say throw her away. I am all for rehabilitating people if they are willing to do their part. What I am not for is the idea that because she hurts over something SHE DID, she gets to forget about it. She should be reminded of it, lest she forget and climb behind the wheel for a second round of intoxicated manslaughter.

So, she has rights, good for her. She took away the rights of her victims. The right to live without being plowed down for no good reason.

I think she deserved 10 or 15 years, community service, a picture to carry around, halfway house, rehab, just to start. That isn't throwing her away now is it, its letting her turn her life around after punishment.

As for living, I was a bondsman for more years than I care to remember. I believed until innocent until proven guilty before that, now I see how people can really be. How the legal system really works. And after seeing thousands of men and women pull the boohoo I am so sorry act then tip the bottle to the sky and drive again. I say she isn't as sorry as you think she is.

IMO

I'm truly sorry for your experience, but what I meant when I said "it's easy to criticize until something like this happens to you or your family", was about getting in trouble with the law. I know people who have gotten DUIs and DWIs (thankfully no one was hurt), and they have learned from their mistakes.

I fully understand that this website is victim-centric, and that is perfectly fine. I forget that from time to time and it causes me to argue points that no one will see (well, some do, but they choose to agree with me in PM instead of sending themselves up for slaughter). I always try to look at the bigger picture, and that often lands me in the devil's advocate role.

pedinurse
06-20-2007, 11:04 AM
i mean the point of the punishment was the make her feel bad. it wasn't "cruel and unusual."

she slaughtered an entire family.

pedinurse
06-20-2007, 11:09 AM
She killed them by her choices. If she had any real remorse, she wouldn't be fussing about what type of picture, she'd carry it to remind her not to ever make such a mistake again. This is lenient and mild punishment, not cruel and unusual.
exactly. the public is screaming out about how she has gotten off with a slap on the wrist had has lived her life as normal - she has NOT had to pay resitituion, she did not have to carry the coffin picture, she didn't have to visit the gravesite or send flowers - nothing. but that entire families life was changed forever, and a child was left orphaned. and she says it is cruel and unusual punishment. what a selfish person. i wouldn't be able to live with myself.

froggierintexas
06-20-2007, 11:11 AM
You know, if you are so disillusioned with this site, there is always the option to not stop by. You say this site is 'victim-'centric', who is sounding like a victim now?

I have seen both sides (whole step family of alcholics) but that's all the detail I will go into because I am done with this. I stated how I felt, you thought I was personally attacking you. I stated I wasn't and why I felt the way I do, and that's that.

Paladin
06-20-2007, 11:13 AM
You know, if you are so disillusioned with this site, there is always the option to not stop by. You say this site is 'victim-'centric', who is sounding like a victim now?

I'm not disillusioned. I'll be around as long as they let me. :)

Edit: And this site is victim-centric, it's pretty much explicitly stated in the terms of service here (TOS). And my pointing that out wasn't a complaint by me. I'm just curious as to why you think I'm making myself sound like a victim?

pedinurse
06-20-2007, 12:58 PM
You know, if you are so disillusioned with this site, there is always the option to not stop by. You say this site is 'victim-'centric', who is sounding like a victim now?

I have seen both sides (whole step family of alcholics) but that's all the detail I will go into because I am done with this. I stated how I felt, you thought I was personally attacking you. I stated I wasn't and why I felt the way I do, and that's that.


There really isn't any reason to attack Paladin personally on this thread - he/she is just taking an opposing viewpoint. It's called freedom of speech and is OK in our society!! Even though I don't agree with some of the viewpoints, that isn't a reason to go make personal jabs and be hateful towards him / her. Even though I was told I was nuts earlier in the thread :-) .

Paladin
06-20-2007, 02:19 PM
Even though I was told I was nuts earlier in the thread :-) .

Yeah, I'm sorry about that. You're not nuts. I am though, on most occasions. :dance:

southcitymom
06-20-2007, 03:31 PM
I'm on your side of the street with this one, Paladin. I think plenty of people don't think they're drunk when they get in their car to drive. That's the nature of being impaired on alcohol - you don't always know that you are.

A smarter law would be - 0 tolerance -you are not allowed to drive if you have even had a sip of alcohol. But that will never fly over here because we are a nation of drinkers. I don't think many people would know if they were at or past the legal limit unless they had a breathalyzer in their car.

I don't mind the Judge's order to carry around a picture, but the jail time seems awfully light. It seems like the Judge knows some facts/circumstances we don't.

j2mirish
06-20-2007, 03:35 PM
I'm on your side of the street with this one, Paladin. I think plenty of people don't think they're drunk when they get in their car to drive. That's the nature of being impaired on alcohol - you don't always know that you are.

A smarter law would be - 0 tolerance -you are not allowed to drive if you have even had a sip of alcohol. But that will never fly over here because we are a nation of drinkers. I don't think many people would know if they were at or past the legal limit unless they had a breathalyzer in their car.

I don't mind the Judge's order to carry around a picture, but the jail time seems awfully light. It seems like the Judge knows some facts/circumstances we don't.
scm-- what could those possibly be? :confused:

AeroFanRW
06-20-2007, 05:23 PM
They didn't charge her with the DUI because they didn't get the blood alcohol soon enough after the accident.

pedinurse
06-20-2007, 05:48 PM
I'm on your side of the street with this one, Paladin. I think plenty of people don't think they're drunk when they get in their car to drive. That's the nature of being impaired on alcohol - you don't always know that you are.

A smarter law would be - 0 tolerance -you are not allowed to drive if you have even had a sip of alcohol. But that will never fly over here because we are a nation of drinkers. I don't think many people would know if they were at or past the legal limit unless they had a breathalyzer in their car.

I don't mind the Judge's order to carry around a picture, but the jail time seems awfully light. It seems like the Judge knows some facts/circumstances we don't.
well also a lot of cough syrups do have some alcohol content so that wouldn't work. but you know - i know that myself and others included won't drive at all if we have drank a drop OR taken medication that effects us. my husband and and i won't even taste each others drinks. we're just really against that.

southcitymom
06-20-2007, 06:55 PM
scm-- what could those possibly be? :confused:

So many decisions can factor into a Judge's decision and unless I know them all, I have faith in the Judge.

Circumstances that could have factored in this case: the age of the woman who pled guilty, the circumstances surrounding her being legally drunk and driving (was she blotto or just over the limit and not know it), the fact that she pled, whether or not she had a criminal record for drunk driving or other crimes, her level of remourse, the feelings of the victim's family, restitution paid, whether or not the injured parties contributed in any way to the incident, whether or not she completed an alcohol treatment program and seemed genuinely on the road to rehabilitation.....these are just off the top of my head - there are probably others.

I'm not saying any of these factors (or others I'm not thinking of) were taken into consideration in this case. But if she pled, both the prosecutor and the defense had to be comfortable with what type of punishment would potentionally be levied against her.

I think the sentence is light, but I'm willing to believe that the Court has a better vantage point of the evidence.

southcitymom
06-20-2007, 06:57 PM
well also a lot of cough syrups do have some alcohol content so that wouldn't work. but you know - i know that myself and others included won't drive at all if we have drank a drop OR taken medication that effects us. my husband and and i won't even taste each others drinks. we're just really against that.

That's awesome, pedinurse. I wish more people did that.

I do think that if the law wanted to be cut and dried on this point, then it could be. There is a lot of personal error that occurs when drinking people try to self judge their level of inebriation.

Tricia
06-21-2007, 01:18 AM
We interrupt this thread for a word from our owner...

Just so you know...I am the only one around here who is officially nuts. Therefore it is a rhetorical question to ask me, "Are you NUTS?"

Now, back to the discussion.

Amraann
06-21-2007, 01:25 AM
We interrupt this thread for a word from our owner...

Just so you know...I am the only one around here who is officially nuts. Therefore it is a rhetorical question to ask me, "Are you NUTS?"

Now, back to the discussion.

LOLOLOL

Thank you for the laugh!

pedinurse
06-21-2007, 01:09 PM
So many decisions can factor into a Judge's decision and unless I know them all, I have faith in the Judge.

Circumstances that could have factored in this case: the age of the woman who pled guilty, the circumstances surrounding her being legally drunk and driving (was she blotto or just over the limit and not know it), the fact that she pled, whether or not she had a criminal record for drunk driving or other crimes, her level of remourse, the feelings of the victim's family, restitution paid, whether or not the injured parties contributed in any way to the incident, whether or not she completed an alcohol treatment program and seemed genuinely on the road to rehabilitation.....these are just off the top of my head - there are probably others.

I'm not saying any of these factors (or others I'm not thinking of) were taken into consideration in this case. But if she pled, both the prosecutor and the defense had to be comfortable with what type of punishment would potentionally be levied against her.

I think the sentence is light, but I'm willing to believe that the Court has a better vantage point of the evidence.

i can't tell if she's 30 now (which would make her 25) or when it happened (which would make her 35 now). but i doubt that age was a factor. i think i read in one article that this (the jailtime and parole) was the max (even though the judge did lots of add ons she successfully fought through her good lawyer) because the breathalyzer wasn't within 30 minutes - but i thought that if they did a breathalyzer, that they had to observe that you didn't have anything in your mouth for at least 15 then administer? does anyone know?
i'm not sure of the procedure and how it is done - but it seems like if there is an observation period, 30 minutes is a short window when you have a car wreck with fatalities like this. i bet that watching that woman to give her breathalyzer while doing the other parts of the job (there was a crime scene / accident to secure and people to keep safe) that would have been difficult depending on who ended up on the scene first (emt, fire, police) and who was available, and could have taken away from the safety of the public and the others on the scene depending on the circumstances.

pedinurse
06-21-2007, 01:11 PM
They didn't charge her with the DUI because they didn't get the blood alcohol soon enough after the accident.

was it blood alcohol?

sherri79
06-21-2007, 03:55 PM
So many decisions can factor into a Judge's decision and unless I know them all, I have faith in the Judge.

Circumstances that could have factored in this case: the age of the woman who pled guilty, the circumstances surrounding her being legally drunk and driving (was she blotto or just over the limit and not know it), the fact that she pled, whether or not she had a criminal record for drunk driving or other crimes, her level of remourse, the feelings of the victim's family, restitution paid, whether or not the injured parties contributed in any way to the incident, whether or not she completed an alcohol treatment program and seemed genuinely on the road to rehabilitation.....these are just off the top of my head - there are probably others.

I'm not saying any of these factors (or others I'm not thinking of) were taken into consideration in this case. But if she pled, both the prosecutor and the defense had to be comfortable with what type of punishment would potentionally be levied against her.

I think the sentence is light, but I'm willing to believe that the Court has a better vantage point of the evidence. she has fought her punishment every step of the way. she was ordered to pay 20k to the child but that was overturned when she fought it on grounds the baby was not really a victim. the victims family is still very angry. the refused to replace the coffin picture with something to make her feel better.

pedinurse
06-21-2007, 05:19 PM
she has fought her punishment every step of the way. she was ordered to pay 20k to the child but that was overturned when she fought it on grounds the baby was not really a victim. the victims family is still very angry. the refused to replace the coffin picture with something to make her feel better.
thats the thing. why cant she just act sorry?

Amraann
06-21-2007, 05:42 PM
thats the thing. why cant she just act sorry?


Her attorney is fighting this... I am not so sure if that is a reflection of her so much as a reflection of an Atty who see's $$ signs..

Not defending her but just pointing out that little tidbit.

SadieMae
06-21-2007, 05:47 PM
To be honest I'm more pissed off about her being on her cellphone than her drinking. It annoys me to no end when I see people yapping away on their phones while they are driving. Hell, even when walking around the mall or the supermarket.

We were doing just fine as a society before cellphones came along, and now it's a giant annoyance and even getting people killed.

People can hardly control their driving when they're on their phones, so add in alcohol and that poor couple had no chance.

............

As to the why I think it's cruel...I think it lies in the excessiveness, especially since it's a picture of a person in a coffin. However, I think it's a fair trade off in light of the ridiculolusly small amount of jail time this woman did. If I had to choose between the two, I'd rather carry around the picture than rot in jail. She got off easy...but still, the picture creeps me out.

I guess I don't really have a good explanation for this one Amraann.

I also wonder why 99% of the time it's the drunk idiots who survive these crashes.

I can't stand people paying more attention to their phone conversation that to their driving. I've had way too many near misses with these a**holes. I have seperate ringers on my phone, and general calls just have to leave me a message, I don't answer it. I'll pick up known callers on my bluetooth and I don't carry on drawn out conversations.
You're right, why is it the drunk usually lives?

In this story, why did she ONLY get 30 DAYS in jail? That wasn't justice or punishment IMO. And she had the NERVE to complain about the other terms of her sentence!!!?? I think she should have been given an ALBUM with crash scene photos, photos of the wife in her coma, photos of the baby she left orphaned, along with the casket photos. All in all, I hope karma bites her in the *ss big time. JMO.

sherri79
06-21-2007, 06:05 PM
Her attorney is fighting this... I am not so sure if that is a reflection of her so much as a reflection of an Atty who see's $$ signs..

Not defending her but just pointing out that little tidbit. the attorney can not fight it without her. if she wanted to take her punishment out of guilt the attorney can not file on her behalf. it's easy to blame the lawyer when they have scum for a client but it wont make the client less repulsive.

Paladin
06-21-2007, 06:15 PM
the attorney can not fight it without her. if she wanted to take her punishment out of guilt the attorney can not file on her behalf. it's easy to blame the lawyer when they have scum for a client but it wont make the client less repulsive.

Do you think this particular person is scum?

pedinurse
06-21-2007, 10:32 PM
Do you think this particular person is scum?
well if someone else is going to bring up that terminology i'm not going out of my way to disagree...

i think we all have some redeeming qualities. but i sure do think her behavior is repulsive. she needs to take some responsibility for what she did and act regretful in some manner for slaughtering this family.

Texana
06-21-2007, 11:13 PM
I think she needs to shut up and quit complaining. She could be in jail still. She could be dead, as the result of her own actions.

Whatever word one uses to describe her, she is clearly a woman who needs to stop complaining and start being grateful for the life she still has.

sherri79
06-22-2007, 12:11 AM
Do you think this particular person is scum?yep. her actions started off as careless and selfish. she drank then chatted on the phone as she drove. after she killed a man sent a woman on a slow path to death and left a child with no parents she had choices. she could change her ways. give up the need to be selfish and try to make up for what she had done. she could have taken a second job to pay the 20k to the child that wont have a mom and dad to pay for his higher education. she could have taken the picture and had it blown up to use when she spoke at schools to tell kids the danger of drinking and using a cell phone when you should watch the road. she did not. she still acts so selfishly. "poor me. i shouldnt have to pay this child. he wasnt alive when i killed his daddy and mommy. its not fair" "poor me. i shouldnt have to carry this sad picture. i suffer to much so i'll drag his family thru more grief demanding a less stressful picture" to me the measure of a person matter less in the mistakes they make but what they do after them.

Texana
06-24-2007, 12:48 AM
Anybody who is old enough to legally drink and says that they didn't understand what the effects of 3 or 5 or 7 drinks would be upon his/her driving is a liar, plain and simple.

We do people no favors when we disallow them the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions.

We create further opportunities for people to cause harm to others when we say that they couldn't know how impaired they were when they were driving.

Most drunk drivers who cause fatality accidents are not just a little bit over the line. They are usually almost twice or more the legal limit for driving--because they are serial drinker-and-drivers.

wandering
06-24-2007, 07:46 AM
This is definitely going to piss alot of you off...but I think making the person carry a picture around of the person you killed falls under the "cruel and unsual" punishment in the Bill of Rights.

I would have liked to see this woman get MUCH more jail time, and have additional charges thrown at her once the wife had died.

I also think that if this woman has any conscience that she would live with the fact she killed two people, and ruined many other lives, including their families and their son's. That's why I don't see the need for her to carry a picture around, especially one in which the son is in a coffin. I believe that's a bit excessive."Excessive?!" Excessive is that two people died and a child is without it's parents!

Paladin
06-24-2007, 10:21 AM
"Excessive?!" Excessive is that two people died and a child is without it's parents!

I just think it's an inapproriate punishment. The woman should be behind bars. Not free carrying around a picture of my son's corpse.

I also wouldn't think this lady would deserve to lick the dirt off of my dead child's shoes, let alone carry a picture around of him.