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.
Woman dislikes carrying coffin photo of crash victim, as ordered by court
- Thread starter Casshew
- Start date
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.
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.
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
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2005
- Messages
- 10,392
- Reaction score
- 330
It should be tattoed on her forhead like Katies Revenge.
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:
No new charges will be filed: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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
she got THIRTY DAYS
PARIS HILTON GOT MORE THAN THAT!!!!!!
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,649
- Reaction score
- 82
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,649
- Reaction score
- 82
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.)
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
Well-Known Member
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.