An unfortunate incident... YIKES!

[dmw007]

A car driven by a suspected drunken driver crashed through the roof of a Milton home Thursday night, killing a young man who was in bed watching a basketball game.

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060617/NEWS01/606170326/1006

Thats crazy, of all the places and ways to go..... thats crazy. this kid must have cheated death elsewhere. Final Destination style

Wow, that is crazy and sad!

 

[j26]

....I've gotta say it....

I don't think drunk driving is morally wrong.
....

Thanks for listening

I will disagree with you (but no flaming or attacks). Alcohol is proven to affect your ability to drive. What's more it's effect is more or less measurable, which is why a legal limit is imposed.

When you drive while tired, it's more likely to be as a result of overdoing it. However if you take alcohol you are taking something that you know impairs your ability to drive, both in reaction time and demeanour (you get more agressive and willing to take chances the more alcohol there is in your system). You are taking control of a potentially lethal machine having taken a substance that reduces your control of it. To me that's pretty morally wrong. If you crash and kill yourself it's your own fault, but if some misfortunate happens to be in the way, you've taken that person with you. That is morally repugnant.

Me, I don't drink anything at all if I'm driving, or at the very least I leave a sufficient period to recover (a couple of hours if I just had one, the next day if I'm out on the tear). I usually travel by motorcycle, so obviously balance is important for me.

(Tiredness is a major issue btw - my sister-in-law broke her neck in a car crash years ago after falling asleep at the wheel - luckily she's walking now)

 

[bigandy]

(please note i'm not attacking you for this, just replying)

I don't think drunk driving is morally wrong.

Why? You don't think endangering the lives of others by getting intoxicated and then driving is wrong?

It is stupid and dangerous and I think the punishment should be severe if you damage someone's property or injure someone while drunk. If, on the other hand, the police pull you over for a traffic offense (speeding, swerving, etc.) and discover that you're legally drunk (but you haven't caused any sort of accident) then I think a sensible punishment is an impounded car and a night in the drunk tank to sober up (or possibly just a ride home instead).

Where I live, if you have two beers in an hour and get behind the wheel and are "caught" and convicted you are subject to a mandatory 10 day jail sentence and probably around $5000 in fines. That is absolutely insane.

Actually, I don't think it is. You are out, your alcohol consumption has lowered your ability to react to anything, and you're far more likely to kill someone.

To me it seems like you're being punished for a "pre-crime" like in "Minority Report". You haven't actually had an accident or hurt anyone, but you've increased the likelihood by some amount which is in itself somehow a crime. Maybe gun owners should be forced to pick up trash on the side of the highway since they've increased the likelihood of someone being shot.

Here gun crime is non existent, but drunk driving does exist. Carrying a gun doesn't cloud your judgement does it? Carrying a gun doesn't make you less able to swerve and/or brake if someone steps out in the road in front of you, does it?

I've seen statistics that say more accidents are caused by drowsiness than drunkenness yet I've never heard of anyone being charged with driving while sleepy. They're both equally preventable. Hmmm. Could there be an underlying social agenda? (Or maybe it's just harder to prove drowsiness so it's still legal... for now.)

I agree fully with you - but generally, accidents that are the result of a drunk driver are far more likely to be fatal for other parties than the aforementioned driver.

In the large metro area where I live there were on the order of 100 DUIs per year in the early 80's. Now there are several thousand per year. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the numbers again). Are there more irresponsible drunks per capita? Or have lawyers and politicians discovered it's very profitable to criminalize the populace? I wouldn't be surprised to find out that many of the members of MADD were defense attorneys.

Here in Scotland, drunk driving has become more of a problem. But I don't agree with you blaming lawyers and politicians - I'd blame the public. People go out, drink, and always think they've had less than they have, always think they're more able to drive than they are.

I'll stop ranting now, but for the record:
-- I've never had a DUI (or owned a gun)
-- I generally get a good nights sleep
-- One of my friends was killed by a drunk driver in 1998

And for my record:

-- I've never been stopped for drunk driving, because I've never had a drink before driving.

-- My dad broke his neck in a car crash caused by a drunk driver, and spent almost 10 months in a coma. (Luckily it happened next to one of the best spinal injuries centres in the UK and he regained his ability to walk less than a year after waking up).

Even if this hadn't happened, I'd not be able to fathom how someone could think that ANY penalties for drinking, driving, and endangering other lives was ok.

 

[EricNau]

The punishment for drunk driving should be execution. Think about it... After the first person was executed for driving while intoxicated, people might just think a little harder before they got behind the wheel. I would be willing to bet DUIs would be reduced by over 90% within a year. I realize this will never happen, but it's how I feel.

It's a horrible thing that happened to that guy, and hopefully, events like this will lead to more awareness of just how dangerous drunk driving can be. It's inexcusable, selfish, and just plain stupid.


MADD is going to have a field-day with this one.

 

[bigandy]

The punishment for drunk driving should be execution. Think about it... After the first person was executed for driving while intoxicated, people might just think a little harder before they got behind the wheel. I would be willing to bet DUIs would be reduced by over 90% within a year. I realize this will never happen, but it's how I feel.

I'm not going to disagree with you...

 

[pink-pony115]

I hope that kid got to see the end of the basketball game. Mean that is terrible. Why are people stupid. In my view, alcohol should be limited for drinking at home. This really shows people how you are dangering people's lives when you hit the road drunk. BIGANDY- I agree with you 100%.
Thanks for pointing it out!

 

[EricNau]

I'm not going to disagree with you...

I think you just did...

I just like it for 2 reasons: in the long run it would be saving lives, and the ones dying would be the ones that actually deserve it (and not some innocent guy lying in bed watching a basketball game).

 

[bigandy]

I think you just did...

maybe it's cause it's late, maybe it's because i'm done with most intellectual conversations for the day, but... how?

 

[OutThere]

DUI/Manslaughter: Second Degree Felony (not more than $10,000 fine and/or 15 years imprisonment).

Hmm. She's going away, I suspect.

As far as drunk driving is concerned...I think germany has the best policies. 64 hours behind the wheel drivers training before you can get your license, then if you get caught drunk driving you permanently lose your license. Done.

Imprisonment is a big thing to wave at people so they won't drink and drive, however taking their license away for the rest of their lives is a hell of a lot more powerful.

 

[EricNau]

maybe it's cause it's late, maybe it's because i'm done with most intellectual conversations for the day, but... how?

Oh, sorry, I assumed the "roll eyes" smiley meant you disagreed.

 

[nerd]

You don't think endangering the lives of others by getting intoxicated and then driving is wrong?

Well, I guess it's a question of degree. To me, there seems to be a big difference between legally drunk and actually drunk. I think the majority of traffic fatalities are caused by people, maybe repeat offenders, with extremely high blood alcohol content (2 or 3 times the legal limit). When it comes to punishment for DUI, no distinction is made between the lesser offenders (who I contend aren't really endangering others) and the lunatics who are.

People on the road with 2 or 3 beers under their belt (that are subject to imprisonment and hefty fines) are endangering you far less than the wide assortment of legal bad drivers out there (who are sleepy, chatting, old, senile, handicapped, etc.).

I live in the southern U.S. and I really believe that most of the people supporting stricter (and stricter) DUI laws are less concerned with safety (because there are diminishing returns at this point) and more concerned with either:

A) Making Jesus and other wholesome people happy by making it more difficult for sinners to drink their evil beverages

or

B) Making money (either for the state, attorneys, DUI schools, etc.) by effectively criminalizing larger segments of the population

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Drunk drivers never seem to die, no matter how horrific the accidents they cause. Guess their extreme drunken state relaxes them so much that they take much less damage. Plus she had the car to protect her, whereas that poor kid had nothing.

That woman must be locked away for a very, very, very long time.

Having been a witness, or near witness - to drunk driving crashes - this is all too true.

 

[bigandy]

Well, I guess it's a question of degree. To me, there seems to be a big difference between legally drunk and actually drunk. I think the majority of traffic fatalities are caused by people, maybe repeat offenders, with extremely high blood alcohol content (2 or 3 times the legal limit). When it comes to punishment for DUI, no distinction is made between the lesser offenders (who I contend aren't really endangering others) and the lunatics who are.

People on the road with 2 or 3 beers under their belt (that are subject to imprisonment and hefty fines) are endangering you far less than the wide assortment of legal bad drivers out there (who are sleepy, chatting, old, senile, handicapped, etc.).

I live in the southern U.S. and I really believe that most of the people supporting stricter (and stricter) DUI laws are less concerned with safety (because there are diminishing returns at this point) and more concerned with either:

A) Making Jesus and other wholesome people happy by making it more difficult for sinners to drink their evil beverages

or

B) Making money (either for the state, attorneys, DUI schools, etc.) by effectively criminalizing larger segments of the population

I think that's a load of bull.

The minute you put alcohol in your system you are impairing your ability to think, and make swift decisions. you may not notice this until after 2-3 pints, but it makes one hell of a difference on the road, even after one pint.

People that believe that having 2-3 pints and driving home is alright are deluding themselves, and I actually believe there may be a link between thinking it's ok to do that, then eventually slipping into the 'well, if 2-3's ok, then 3-4, or 4-5 can't be bad either', and before you know it, they're careering down the road and slaughtering your daughter.

I cannot understand how someone could reason it is acceptable to have even a pint and drive, when it clouds your ability to actually operate a vehicle.

 

[Lau]

I think that's a load of bull.

The minute you put alcohol in your system you are impairing your ability to think, and make swift decisions. you may not notice this until after 2-3 pints, but it makes one hell of a difference on the road, even after one pint.

People that believe that having 2-3 pints and driving home is alright are deluding themselves, and I actually believe there may be a link between thinking it's ok to do that, then eventually slipping into the 'well, if 2-3's ok, then 3-4, or 4-5 can't be bad either', and before you know it, they're careering down the road and slaughtering your daughter.

I cannot understand how someone could reason it is acceptable to have even a pint and drive, when it clouds your ability to actually operate a vehicle.

Totally agree with this. I don't know why you'd even risk it. I'm not anti-drinking (by any stretch if the imagination *hic* ) but I just think it's not even worth risking. One pint does make a difference. I wouldn't even ride my bike on the road after a pint. I also agree that tired, distracted and just plain crappy drivers are a huge risk, but I don't see why that means it's ok for you to drive under the influence.

 

[celebrian23]

I've recently graduated from high school and we all think we're superman, that we're invincible. I don't care what the situation is- you should never ever drive home having drunk. There's a cross outside my neighborhood to mark the spot where someone was killeed because of a drunk driver- that person could be me or you just because someone thought they were sober enough to drive

 

[Sharewaredemon]

I've recently graduated from high school and we all think we're superman, that we're invincible. I don't care what the situation is- you should never ever drive home having drunk. There's a cross outside my neighborhood to mark the spot where someone was killeed because of a drunk driver- that person could be me or you just because someone thought they were sober enough to drive

So true.

Drunk driving is scary as heck (not cause I do it, but because I am scared of drunk drivers)

 

[Tastannin]

How sad!! And the saddest part is that this should have never happened at all! The drunk driver was on THREE yrs probation for a prior incident, and was only supposed to drive for business purposes. As a result an arrest warrant has been issued and she will go straight from the hospital to jail to await the results of the investigation and filing of the charges.

Our legal system has failed the family of this boy. Because of the reckless behavior of the drunk driver in her prior case, she should not have been allowed to drive again, period. She failed a field sobriety test TWO hours AFTER she was caught!! This is no case of "oops, I had a couple of beers, and thought I was ok to drive". She had an open bottle of wine in the car!

Lock 'er up, throw the key away, and put a bottle of wine just outside her window. It'll drive her nuts trying to get to the wine for the rest of her sad life.

It's not the drunkenness that bothers me - she can be a wino for all I care, but it's the absolute disregard for others she apparently has (even if it only appears when inebriated). That is what really irks me, its all about her and her having a good ol' bender of a time!

 

[floriflee]

Is it just me or was anyone else annoyed by the smirk on the lady's face in the article? I'm assuming that was taken when she was booked for her previous DUI...

In any case, this situation is just tragic. It makes me think that you're not even safe in your own home anymore....

All in all, it just makes it more evident that people cannot assume that their actions won't affect anyone else. We are responsible for our actions and how they affect others, and we should own up to the consequences. I hope she will own up to what she's done and make some serious life changes. Driving under the influence is just unacceptable. Too many people are put in danger when it's done.

With that said, I also have reservations about driving drowsy. My brother-in-law's brother-in-law (bil) was killed when my bil's bil's mother fell asleep at the wheel. She ended up killing her son and her husband IIRC. I can only imagine the guilt she's having to live with for letting herself sleep. It's terrible what happened and something that was entirely preventable. It makes me more cautious about driving when drowsy. I'm more apt to pull over now if I get really sleepy, and I kick myself when I think about times when I didn't pull over and should have--was just lucky, but it's stupid to think the luck will last.

 

[tbrinkma]

The photo of the driver looks an awful lot like a DMV photo. I really doubt it was taken during booking. That said, I hope that lady never sees the outside of a prison again. If you're sober enough to recognize that you're going to get in trouble if you get pulled over, you're sober enough to realize you shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place. Running from the cops is a bad idea regardless. If you *or* the officer causes an accident/damage/injury during the chase, *YOU* are legally liable for it.

A family on my street had a similar incident happen to them last year. Nobody got hurt, but it was through sheer luck. A drunk driver was going to fast in a 25MPH suburb and didn't make a corner, mssed the house by about 3-4 inches, and ended up parked across the bed of the father's pickup truck, having ripped a steel railing off the front porch. The corner of the house the driver missed was their daughter's bedroom with a big picture window.

Of course, on the even freakier side, a friend in elementary school had a small single engine plane crash into his bedroom, while he was downstairs in the kitchen doing his homework. As I recall, the pilot had just taken off from a nearby air strip, and the plane suddenly lost power. He was trying to make it to the street just past the house, but didn't have enough altitude to make it, and stalled the plane trying to coax it over the roof top.

- - - - -
As a complete aside, I love your signature, floriflee. I once pulled off 'quagmire' in the bottom right corner of a scrabble board once. 198 points, I think it was. Didn't get the used-all-your-tiles bonus because the 'g' and the 'r' were already there, but grabbing two tripple-word scores does wonders. (My wife has refused to play Scrabble with me since. She just mutters something about my crazy luck and suggests a different game. )

 

[Pistol Pete]

That is incrediblly sad. All that boy was doing was an innocent thing- watching a game. I hate drunk drivers

not just that....he was in his effin bed...

i mean i understand walking on the road and being hit by a DD but damn.

 

[sushi]

not just that....he was in his effin bed...

Unbelieveable when you think about it.

Home in bed watching TV and get hit (killed) by a car...that came in through the roof no less.

 

[Mord]

this is why i'd never drink and drive, or let anyone i know do so.

i have walked 7 miles home from parties before in the middle of the night.

 

[sushi]

this is why i'd never drink and drive, or let anyone i know do so.

i have walked 7 miles home from parties before in the middle of the night.

Good for you!

All it takes is one time and you are hosed.

I really hate drunk drivers. I've been run off the road a couple of times, but not hit luckily.

 

[nerd]

I think that's a load of bull.

The minute you put alcohol in your system you are impairing your ability to think, and make swift decisions. you may not notice this until after 2-3 pints, but it makes one hell of a difference on the road, even after one pint.

That depends on your body mass, of course. If drinking one pint made a hell of a difference on the road then I'm sure that would be illegal too.

Here's a link to some interesting statistics:

http://www.alcoholstats.com/mm/docs/2123.pdf

I cannot understand how someone could reason it is acceptable to have even a pint and drive, when it clouds your ability to actually operate a vehicle.

Do you support a zero tolerance DUI law (meaning that people would be breaking the law if they drove with a blood alcohol content above 0.0)?

If so, do you also support legislation that would require cars to be made out of big, fluffy pillows? My point is that driving is inherently dangerous. Any time tons of metal are zipping around at 50+mph and are only separated by stripes painted on the ground, bad things are going to happen. I'm all for mitigating those risks, but in the case of drunk driving I think the risks are being exaggerated (and the restrictions increased) to further other agendas. You can see from the link above that two thirds of the fatalities are caused by people with BACs over nearly twice the legal limit. On top of that, those numbers only show correlation, not causation (i.e. it's possible to have a fatal accident while drunk that is unrelated to the impairment).

If not, then we're just arguing over an acceptable level of risk. I think the laws where I live go too far. I think the statistics from the link above show that the people who are having two glasses of wine at dinner aren't the menaces to society here even though the law says otherwise.

People who are stupid and/or irresponsible are going to continue screwing up society for the rest of us regardless of the current laws. I don't want to put these people in jail and pay for them to lift weights. I want them to run into telephone poles and die. It's good for the gene pool. And I'm willing to join them on the road and bet that I can avoid them through probability and my cat-like reflexes.

 

[bigandy]

Do you support a zero tolerance DUI law (meaning that people would be breaking the law if they drove with a blood alcohol content above 0.0)?

If so, do you also support legislation that would require cars to be made out of big, fluffy pillows? My point is that driving is inherently dangerous. Any time tons of metal are zipping around at 50+mph and are only separated by stripes painted on the ground, bad things are going to happen. I'm all for mitigating those risks, but in the case of drunk driving I think the risks are being exaggerated (and the restrictions increased) to further other agendas. You can see from the link above that two thirds of the fatalities are caused by people with BACs over nearly twice the legal limit. On top of that, those numbers only show correlation, not causation (i.e. it's possible to have a fatal accident while drunk that is unrelated to the impairment).

If not, then we're just arguing over an acceptable level of risk. I think the laws where I live go too far. I think the statistics from the link above show that the people who are having two glasses of wine at dinner aren't the menaces to society here even though the law says otherwise.

People who are stupid and/or irresponsible are going to continue screwing up society for the rest of us regardless of the current laws. I don't want to put these people in jail and pay for them to lift weights. I want them to run into telephone poles and die. It's good for the gene pool. And I'm willing to join them on the road and bet that I can avoid them through probability and my cat-like reflexes.

I have made it quite plainly obvious that I do not condone driving with ANY BLOOD/ALCOHOL LEVEL OVER 0.0.

This is because, and the majority of people who have any common sense will back me up, as I said before, any alcohol inside you has an affect on you, for the worse. Be it a sip or a bucket worth, it STILL MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

Yes, cars are dangerous objects. You are defeating your own argument about DUI laws wherever you live being too much, because of this admission. Driving a car = dangerous. Driving while under the influence (however small) of alcohol = more dangerous.

So why THE HELL should people be allowed to drive with ANY alcohol in their blood WHATSOEVER?

it's possible to have a fatal accident while drunk that is unrelated to the impairment

yeah? explain. It's also impossible to prove that something wasn't to do with being drunk. And then, come on, who the heck would ever believe that, for example, this news story wasn't because the woman was drunk, it's because all she wanted to do was change the CD, looked away, and hit the kerb. Come on, tell me you believe if that's what happened you wouldn't believe it was because she was drunk....