Man spends 2 years in solitary after dwi (with no trial).

[Libertarian_Geek]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... dwi-arrest

No arrests, no reprimands, no punishment for those guilty of depriving this man of his rights?

[rogerme]

I do not like the guy did not get a trial. Two years in solitary for DUI sounds good though.

[jlwilliams]

Two years hard time, without trial. That wouldn't have happened in America. America was a great nation, I miss it. Too bad it's gone.

[D9M9TR9S]

Two years hard time, without trial. That wouldn't have happened in America. America was a great nation, I miss it. Too bad it's gone.

+1, long gone and getting worse each day.

[Hush]

At least they didn't forget to feed him.

[continuity]

I do not like the guy did not get a trial. Two years in solitary for DUI sounds good though.

Have you ever spent time in jail/prison?

I will guarantee you that 2 years solitary is something most people would come out of more mentally vegetable than human. For something that was a dangerous behavior, but with no actual victim. Add no adjudication, and it's beyond my ability to get my head around it.

Wonder what punishment you think a habitual jaywalker should be subjected to?

[rogerme]

I do not like the guy did not get a trial. Two years in solitary for DUI sounds good though.

Have you ever spent time in jail/prison?

I will guarantee you that 2 years solitary is something most people would come out of more mentally vegetable than human. For something that was a dangerous behavior, but with no actual victim. Add no adjudication, and it's beyond my ability to get my head around it.

Wonder what punishment you think a habitual jaywalker should be subjected to?

No I have never been. I have owned a tow company and know what drunk drivers do. I have ZERO sympathy for them. IMHO if you drive drunk ONE single time you should do time. Jaywalkers do not cause the deaths of others like drunk drivers do. Drunk drivers also do very little if any time for the damage they cause. It is a 100 percent preventable problem. If they come out a veg then they wont be driving anymore will they???

[ick]

Reminds me of the solitary confinement mongo had to do for being guilty of getting in the way of a drunk driver. What was that, one year in the hospital and a lifetime of pain? ....for being legally stopped at a red light and in the path of an out of control drunk?

What did the drunk driver get... a weekend in jail and a license suspension?

[TROOPER]

No drunk driver is going to get sympathy from me.

That said, his charge is DUI. It could be alcohol related, it could be sleep-deprivation related. He might have been doing 56 in a 55, and when pulled over got asked if he'd been drinking and replied that he had one beer four hours ago. That's still a DUI.

Nevermind the fact that he wasn't found guilty of a damn thing.

Continuity -- Iran routinely sentences people to solitary for decades.

[Libertarian_Geek]

No drunk driver is going to get sympathy from me.

That said, his charge is DUI. It could be alcohol related, it could be sleep-deprivation related. He might have been doing 56 in a 55, and when pulled over got asked if he'd been drinking and replied that he had one beer four hours ago. That's still a DUI.

Nevermind the fact that he wasn't found guilty of a damn thing.

Continuity -- Iran routinely sentences people to solitary for decades.

Excellent points ^

[continuity]

...

Continuity -- Iran routinely sentences people to solitary for decades.

It's great not to live in Iran.

[Bargsbeer]

This man hasn't even been to court. So I don't think it's fair to prematurely convict him. That being said I think drunk driving laws should be abolished,It's not even about safety it's about generating revenue for local municipalities.

[continuity]

This man hasn't even been to court. So I don't think it's fair to prematurely convict him. That being said I think drunk driving laws should be abolished,It's not even about safety it's about generating revenue for local municipalities.

OVI/DUI legislation is a result of insurance company lobbying.

[rogerme]

That being said I think drunk driving laws should be abolished,It's not even about safety it's about generating revenue for local municipalities.

That is why the laws are so loose and the habitual drinkers get 20 30 or more dui's and keep driving. Back years ago when I was towing in MD right outside DC I could teach a new guy in a week how to tell if the person who wrecked was drunk. First clue face print in windshield second clue no major injury to that driver ( not always the case with the car or cars they hit ) third clue when you go to hook up to there car you get light headed from the alcohol fumes in the car and more often then not a large amount of beer bottles or cans or a close to empty 5th of something.

I have sat at many wrecks waiting for life flight to take the innocent person the drunk hit watching the drunk one in a daze. Then the life flight would take the injured away and I would hook up and take the wrecks left behind.


Anybody who think drunk driving is not a problem go out near a city and ride along in a tow truck on Thursday Fri and Sat night after closing then see how you feel.

Having seen all this with my own eyes over and over again I am one of those who think you should get ONE chance. You get caught ONE time you should do time. You put every other driver and pedestrian in danger when you drink and drive. There is ZERO excuse for it.

[Bargsbeer]

That being said I think drunk driving laws should be abolished,It's not even about safety it's about generating revenue for local municipalities.

That is why the laws are so loose and the habitual drinkers get 20 30 or more dui's and keep driving. Back years ago when I was towing in MD right outside DC I could teach a new guy in a week how to tell if the person who wrecked was drunk. First clue face print in windshield second clue no major injury to that driver ( not always the case with the car or cars they hit ) third clue when you go to hook up to there car you get light headed from the alcohol fumes in the car and more often then not a large amount of beer bottles or cans or a close to empty 5th of something.

I have sat at many wrecks waiting for life flight to take the innocent person the drunk hit watching the drunk one in a daze. Then the life flight would take the injured away and I would hook up and take the wrecks left behind.


Anybody who think drunk driving is not a problem go out near a city and ride along in a tow truck on Thursday Fri and Sat night after closing then see how you feel.

Having seen all this with my own eyes over and over again I am one of those who think you should get ONE chance. You get caught ONE time you should do time. You put every other driver and pedestrian in danger when you drink and drive. There is ZERO excuse for it.

I can appreciate your first hand experience on the issue. Where I'm coming from, I don't want the Government AKA Big Brother telling me what I can do in my car. As ridiculous as it sounds I'm going to side with Freedom.

[jlwilliams]

Irregardless of how I feel about drunk driving, I don't think the police should be throwing people in prison for years of solitary confinement without due process. Drunk drivers endanger everybody on the road. What they did to this guy endangers every man, woman and child in this country. The guy has a constitutional right to a presumption of innocence. They never proved that he drove drunk so as far as we know he didn't do it. That is what's importand here. Not what he did (they never proved he did anything therefor he did nothing) what they did to him is the issue. It seems likely that they will get away with it.

[Libertarian_Geek]

Irregardless of how I feel about drunk driving, I don't think the police should be throwing people in prison for years of solitary confinement without due process. Drunk drivers endanger everybody on the road. What they did to this guy endangers every man, woman and child in this country. The guy has a constitutional right to a presumption of innocence. They never proved that he drove drunk so as far as we know he didn't do it. That is what's importand here. Not what he did (they never proved he did anything therefor he did nothing) what they did to him is the issue. It seems likely that they will get away with it.

Well said. I agree with everything after (and including) "regardless".

[DoctorSolo]

Why the hell didn't he get his due process? That's extremely disturbing. He might not be a model citizen, and he most likely committed a dangerous crime. But again? Due process? Bill of rights? You know? That piece of paper that congress has been wiping it's ass with for 50 years? I hate to read something like this and say "we're fucked." But, are we fucked? We are kind of fucked, aren't we?

[rogerme]

I can appreciate your first hand experience on the issue. Where I'm coming from, I don't want the Government AKA Big Brother telling me what I can do in my car. As ridiculous as it sounds I'm going to side with Freedom.

Your right lets just undo all the laws having anything to do with cars and roads.

[Bargsbeer]

I can appreciate your first hand experience on the issue. Where I'm coming from, I don't want the Government AKA Big Brother telling me what I can do in my car. As ridiculous as it sounds I'm going to side with Freedom.

Your right lets just undo all the laws having anything to do with cars and roads.

That's not what I said. I simply don't want the Government telling me what I can do in my car. Isn't Government big enough?
how much more authority do they need?

[DoctorSolo]

That is why the laws are so loose and the habitual drinkers get 20 30 or more dui's and keep driving. Back years ago when I was towing in MD right outside DC I could teach a new guy in a week how to tell if the person who wrecked was drunk. First clue face print in windshield second clue no major injury to that driver ( not always the case with the car or cars they hit ) third clue when you go to hook up to there car you get light headed from the alcohol fumes in the car and more often then not a large amount of beer bottles or cans or a close to empty 5th of something.

I have sat at many wrecks waiting for life flight to take the innocent person the drunk hit watching the drunk one in a daze. Then the life flight would take the injured away and I would hook up and take the wrecks left behind.


Anybody who think drunk driving is not a problem go out near a city and ride along in a tow truck on Thursday Fri and Sat night after closing then see how you feel.

Having seen all this with my own eyes over and over again I am one of those who think you should get ONE chance. You get caught ONE time you should do time. You put every other driver and pedestrian in danger when you drink and drive. There is ZERO excuse for it.

And yet, having "owned a towing company" you profited off of all of it. Way to bite the drunken hand that fed you

I point that out, not because of the blatant tone of fascism and hypocrisy(again, given you profited off the situation) in your posts in this thread, but because I really wonder what state doesn't have mandatory jail time for DUI/DWI offenders?? A bunch of people where you live get 20 or 30 DUI's and nothing happens? Really? Here in Colo, if your BAC is double the legal limit on your first DUI, you go to jail for at least 30 days. If you get another one, it's 90 days and probably an interlock. More after that, you go back to jail, and the fines and penalties rise very sharply. At this point you can rest assured, you are virtually unemployable by anyone but fast food chains and work release. Your ability to drive legally goes away very quickly, and very permanently here if you get busted. The heat is on, as they say every single holiday weekend. How much stricter can we be?

[jlwilliams]

Here in the commie state of CT, they do have some stiff drunk driving penalties. I worked with a guy for a while who had spent (IIRC) 3 months in jail for his second offense. The jail was the automatic penalty for a second offense. His wife did a year when she drove drunk with a kid in the car. He was a diecent enough guy but he openly acknowledged thet both he and his wife had a problem. They were both in programs to work on that. I'm all for the stiff penalties particularly with the kid in the car, no reason for that. That's all well and good because when you get caught driving under the influence in CT you can expect YOUR DAY IN COURT before your time in jail.

(clarification: I don't call CT a commie state because of the drunk driving laws. I call it that because it's run by communists)

[Bowen1911]

DUI legislation is a result of insurance company lobbying.

This x a fucking million.

I got a DUI because I slept in my car when I knew I shouldn't drive. I had my keys in the front seat with me (not in the ignition) which is apparently the same as driving (who the F--k would have thought) and a cop walking through the parking lot decided to wake me up. I took it to court and lost. I was arrested on "intent to drive drunk" and now have to pay more for insurance. If I would have driven drunk that night, odds are I wouldn't have to file an SR22 right now. I had to spend 2 days in jail and pay $1000 to the city because I was responsible.


It's been over a year since it happened, and I still am pissed to no extent at how shitty the justice system is. Drink, don't drive, go to jail.

[Blaubart]

I had my keys in the front seat with me ... I was arrested on "intent to drive drunk"...

I do think driving drunk should be illegal, but I've heard of s--t like this before and I can't believe they can get away with prosecuting people for it.

"Intent" to drive drunk is bullshit. Why? Because they're basically charging a person with two levels of intent. Since by simply driving under the influence you aren't actually harming anyone, but possibly putting other people at risk, DUI is already something of a crime of intent. Add to that the additional level of intent to drive under the influence, and it could be translated as intent to drive with the intent to do harm to others.

As long as you're parked, I think you should even be allowed to have the engine running. Especially here in MT where it gets cold at night, even in July.

[Bowen1911]

"Intent" to drive drunk is bullshit.

Running out of beer at a party is "Intent" by their definitions