Woman dislikes carrying coffin photo of crash victim, as ordered by court

[Texana]

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 *advertiser censored* 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]

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]

: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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[AeroFanRW]

They didn't charge her with the DUI because they didn't get the blood alcohol soon enough after the accident.

 

[pedinurse]

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]

scm-- what could those possibly be?

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.