I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Not in MY State.
Revocation is automatic upon conviction of a felon

In Florida DUI manslaughter results in DL revocation of 5 years to life.

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
There is a mandatory minimum sentence of 4 years on DUI manslaughter in Florida, so the man in the case we have been discussing in this thread might expect

and a 21 month mandatory min on the leaving the scene charge, that gets him to 6 years. 6-30, my guess is that that offer him 13 years and he takes it because of the threat of 30.

He will be 57 when he gets out. Maybe he will have a few decent years left.

WHAT?? How coud he have "decent years"??
How r u defining it?
Living as a street begger?

If he were a begger when he went IN,
then OK, I can see that, but not if he had been used to a decent life.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Not in MY State.
Revocation is automatic upon conviction of a felon

hawkeye10 wrote:

In Florida DUI manslaughter results in DL revocation of 5 years to life.

The point is loss of his PROFESSIONAL licensure.
His driver's license is a relatively trivial matter.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

The point is loss of his PROFESSIONAL licensure.

I See.

It would seem that trying to argue that the state has not become gratuitously vindictive is a hopeless position to defend.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Not in MY State.
Revocation is automatic upon conviction of a felony.
I suspect that it is similar in many other jurisdictions,

Quite honestly, I don't think I'd want to use a lawyer who was a convicted felon.

Quote:

The point is loss of his PROFESSIONAL licensure.
His driver's license is a relatively trivial matter.

For most people, I don't think permanent loss of a driver's license is such a trivial matter. Outside of cities, it's not all that easy to get around by public transportation. And, most people are more affected by loss of a driver's license than by loss of a professional license, since most people do not hold a professional license.

The penalties for professional misconduct, including loss of licenses, are set by state licensing boards, and by the ethical standards of the professions, so these matters are distinct from the punishments imposed in criminal courts. There are a lot of unpleasant consequences of a felony conviction, which is why it makes sense to avoid serious violations of the law. And drunk driving is something an individual can prevent simply by not driving when impaired.

When the loss of a human life is involved, due to drunk driving, I think that's a considerably more significant loss than the loss of a license, any license.

Realistically, when someone gets arrested for a DUI accident, this is unlikely to be the first time that the person has been behind the wheel drunk--it may be the first time they have been in an accident while DUI, or the first time they were arrested for DUI, but, in most instances, it is not the first time they have driven while legally drunk. And the penalties keep getting stiffer and stiffer precisely to make people think twice before getting behind the wheel drunk, so these laws will have a deterrent effect. Punishing people after the fact of having killed someone while DUI is necessary only because that deterrent effect has failed in that particular case, and the imposition of a harsh sentence is intended not only to punish, but to send a message that hopefully will reinforce the deterrent effect of the laws.

And, if this thread has any value at all, I hope it will be to remind the people reading it just how dire the consequences of driving while impaired can be, and hopefully it will motivate such readers to help themselves, and their friends and loved ones, to avoid becoming involved in the sort of tragic situation that the man we have been discussing now finds himself in. He could have prevented all of this--and that's the important message.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Realistically, when someone gets arrested for a DUI accident, this is unlikely to be the first time that the person has been behind the wheel drunk

it is however likely to be the first time that person has been in trouble with the law. I have a problem with letting one event ruin a persons entire life, we all make mistakes, we almost all do things that we know are stupid that we know could hurt others.....compassion for the human condition should direct us to keep this "one strike and your out" stuff to a minimum. Lifetime punishments for one bad act are rarely just.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I had a problem with blaming someone and punishing someone for a death with no showing needed that the driver blood alcohol level had anything to do with it or not.

I remember reading about a case of a man who was stopped at a traffic light and hit in the rear by a DUI driver who die as a result.

Because the stop driver tested over the limit he was charge with DUI manslaughter of the driver who ran into his stop car.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

I had a problem with blaming someone and punishing someone for a death with no showing needed that the driver blood alcohol level had anything to do with it or not.

true that....if I am on the jury I am going to factor in that a homeless guy was roaming a busy street at 230 am and will take note of his load on the bike, the number of wagons that he we pulling, and the lighting of his rig. If this bicyclist was also a menace to society as he likely was then Thom gets a discount on the punishment for his bad act, justice demands it.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I love the idea that if someone have too must to drink and instead of driving is sleeping it off in his or her car can and had been charge with DUI under the theory that the driver had control of the car and could had driven it!!!!!!!

It is another example of taking a good idea and law and not using common sense in applying it.

Just as charging a girl and her boyfriend for sharing pictures under the child porn laws.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Lifetime punishments for one bad act are rarely just.

This man will not be going to jail for life, stop being so melodramatic. Anyone convicted of any sort of felony will have life-long repercussions from that conviction.

If the "one bad act" resulted in the death of another human being, the punishment must reflect the serious consequences of that "one bad act".

Quote:

if I am on the jury I am going to factor in that a homeless guy was roaming a busy street at 230 am and will take note of his load on the bike, the number of wagons that he we pulling, and the lighting of his rig. If this bicyclist was also a menace to society as he likely was then Thom gets a discount on the punishment for his bad act, justice demands it.

So, the man on the bike shouldn't have been on the street, but the man driving drunk had a right to be there? Rolling Eyes

Quote:

If this bicyclist was also a menace to society as he likely was

Of course, all bicyclists are "a menace to society". Question

All homeless people are "a menace to society". Question

But drunk drivers Drunk

are not a menace to society. Question

When brains were handed out, you were obviously at the end of the line given your lack of logic.

Why are you ignoring the very serious crimes of DUI manslaughter and leaving the scene without trying to aid or assist the victim in any way? If it were your wife or one of your children he killed, I doubt you'd try to find excuses for his actions or try to find ways to make his punishment more lenient.

1 Reply

@firefly,

DAVID wrote:

Not in MY State.
Revocation is automatic upon conviction of a felony.
I suspect that it is similar in many other jurisdictions,

firefly wrote:

Quite honestly, I don't think I'd want to use a lawyer who was a convicted felon.

That is naked prejudice,
with u not knowing what he allegedly did.
(It is politically unhealthy to have such blind faith in government.)
It might be something of which u approve
or something of which u were indifferent.

In any case, your disinclination
shoud not disable ME from availing myself
of his professional services, if I wanna.

DAVID wrote:

The point is loss of his PROFESSIONAL licensure.
His driver's license is a relatively trivial matter.

firefly wrote:

For most people, I don't think permanent loss of a driver's license is such a trivial matter.

I am arguing the position that loss of professional licensure
is much more severe than that.

firefly wrote:

Outside of cities, it's not all that easy to get around by public transportation. And, most people are more affected by loss of a driver's license than by loss of a professional license, since most people do not hold a professional license.

We have in mind the elite of society: medical doctors, surgeons, lawyers, engineers.
My friend, Donald, has a real estate broker's license.
He 'd be disabled in his 60s if he coud not support his family with it,
including 12 year old daughter.

firefly wrote:

The penalties for professional misconduct, including loss of licenses, are set by state licensing boards, and by the ethical standards of the professions, so these matters are distinct from the punishments imposed in criminal courts.

U keep saying that tho it is not true,
at least not in NY, which is NOT a little State.
Loss of professional licensure is automatic upon felony conviction.
I 'm pretty sure that a lot of other States have it the same way.
U r an excellent researcher (better than I ever was). Check it.

firefly wrote:

There are a lot of unpleasant consequences of a felony conviction, which is why it makes sense to avoid serious violations of the law. And drunk driving is something an individual can prevent simply by not driving when impaired.

By that reasoning,
u can burn him at the stake.
Johnny Carson 1ce did a bit, of reading the penalties for drunk driving
in alien jurisdictions. He started with death by firing squad somewhere.

firefly wrote:

When the loss of a human life is involved, due to drunk driving,
I think that's a considerably more significant loss than the loss of a license, any license.

That can be a more sadistic form of capital punishment
for someone like a surgeon who has earned his living with it maybe
for years n decades.
I knew an attorney whose attempts to get a gun license failed.
He refused to carry a gun anyway; he valued his law license ABOVE his life.
He chose to risk his LIFE, not his license.
Arguing that it is better to be tried by 12 men
than carried by 6 did not avail.

firefly wrote:

Realistically, when someone gets arrested for a DUI accident, this is unlikely to be the first time that the person has been behind the wheel drunk--it may be the first time they have been in an accident while DUI, or the first time they were arrested for DUI, but, in most instances,
it is not the first time they have driven while legally drunk.

How about the unlucky ones who r not within "most"??
I remember, e.g., the old show L.I. Law wherein 2 lawyers
(husband n wife) had a glass of wine at a social meeting.
Thay decided to duck out. He got pulled over n arrested for DUI.
Its only fiction, but it shows how human nature is such as to forget
an incidental like drinking a glass of wine a little while b4 leaving.
There is a time n a place for everything, including vengeance.
(I cheered when we fried the Rosenbergs in 1953), but this is not it.

firefly wrote:

And the penalties keep getting stiffer and stiffer precisely to make people think twice
before getting behind the wheel drunk, so these laws will have a deterrent effect.

DO thay??
How well have thay worked??
Did thay make Thom "think twice" as u put it?? or even think 1ce?
How about decedent?? Did thay work on him? What was HIS b.a.c. level?

firefly wrote:

Punishing people after the fact of having killed someone while DUI is necessary only because that deterrent effect has failed in that particular case, and the imposition of a harsh sentence is intended not only to punish, but to send a message that hopefully will reinforce the deterrent effect of the laws.

How well did that deterrent effect work on the nite in question??

Is that as effective as probability of detection ?

firefly wrote:

And, if this thread has any value at all, I hope it will be to remind the people reading it just how dire the consequences of driving while impaired can be, and hopefully it will motivate such readers to help themselves, and their friends and loved ones, to avoid becoming involved in the sort of tragic situation that the man we have been discussing now finds himself in. He could have prevented all of this--and that's the important message.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

On a simple DUI you will not lose your professional license.

Quote:

I am arguing the position that loss of professional licensure
is much more severe than that.

When that DUI involves the death of another person, the situation is considerably altered because it becomes a more serious crime. People who value their licenses should not drink and drive--being concerned about loss of a license, after killing someone in a DUI, is like trying to lock the barn door after the horse is stolen. Prevent the crime, then you don't have the problem.

Quote:

We have in mind the elite of society: medical doctors, surgeons, lawyers, engineers.

I do not share your belief that the elite are entitled to different treatment. Drunk driving is reckless and irresponsible behavior, and, when engaged in by the "elite", they have to pay the piper, just like everyone else. The non-professional person who can't get employment because of a felony conviction suffers just as much.

Your issue is with the state licensing boards, and with the professional ethics committees, that's who establishes these rules regarding license revocation. Take your concerns up with them.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

I do not share your belief that the elite are entitled to different treatment. Drunk driving is reckless and irresponsible behavior, and, when engaged in by the "elite", they have to pay the piper, just like everyone else. The non-professional person who can't get employment because of a felony conviction suffers just as much.

Call me when the Wall Street and Washington elite are similarly sanctioned for their last few decades of reckless and irresponsible behavior....you are certainly selective in applying your standard, which makes it unjust and unjustified.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Why are you ignoring the very serious crimes of DUI manslaughter and leaving the scene without trying to aid or assist the victim in any way

seriousness is in the eye of the beholder, neither you nor the state gets to decide for me how serious I think a bad act is, but please point to where I have indicated that Thom should not be charged with a crime.

Quote:

If it were your wife or one of your children he killed, I doubt you'd try to find excuses for his actions or try to find ways to make his punishment more lenient.

If a person is reckless with efforts to preserve their life and that recklessness plays a part in their life ending then all other people who where involved in the ending of that life should get a lessor penalty then they would have gotten otherwise. There are no special rules for my wife and kids either. If the dead guy was known to drive recklessly at night, if he did not have the proper lights, if he was on something, or if his bike was so loaded down as to be difficult to control then Thom should get a discount off of the mandatory minimum under the theory that the dead guy probably contributed to his own death, so Thom is less responsible for it.

Logic is a bitch when it conflicts with your politics isn't it Firefly.....

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

If the dead guy was known to drive recklessly at night, if he did not have the proper lights, if he was on something, or if his bike was so loaded down as to be difficult to control then Thom should get a discount off of the mandatory minimum under the theory that the dead guy probably contributed to his own death, so Thom is less responsible for it.

that's contributory negligence. That generally applies in civil suits, not as often in criminal cases. It varies by jurisdiction. It can run from 1 - 51% before it makes a difference.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

I just talked to my friend Jonathan who is good friends with Thom. According to Thom’s attorney it doesn’t matter if the guy on the bike was drunk himself, Thom left the scene and for doing that he could be facing a double sentence. He said his attorney will be working on a plea deal to get him the least amount of prison time.

I’ll follow this closely as Jonathan is a good friend of mine and he's been very upset about this.

1 Reply

@jcboy,

jcboy wrote:

I just talked to my friend Jonathan who is good friends with Thom. According to Thom’s attorney it doesn’t matter if the guy on the bike was drunk himself, Thom left the scene and for doing that he could be facing a double sentence. He said his attorney will be working on a plea deal to get him the least amount of prison time.

I’ll follow this closely as Jonathan is a good friend of mine and he's been very upset about this.

It does not, but it should.......increasingly our "Justice" system refuses to look at the totality of the events, it is rigged to allow that state max freedom to beat on the citizens.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

it is rigged to allow that state max freedom to beat on the citizens.

And the way to prevent that from happening is not to violate the law.

The man we are discussing in this thread lived 5 blocks from the bar, according to jcboy. All he had to do was take a cab for those 5 blocks. It certainly would have been a lot less costly than his current legal fees and the prospect of losing his freedom for the next several years.

If people are going to be drinking, they have to arrange alternate transportation in advance and not get behind the wheel of a car after they have downed a few drinks. Impaired drivers are a menace--to other drivers, to pedestrians, to bikers, and to themselves. The system isn't "rigged"--those who choose to drink and drive play the odds, and, sometimes, they will lose...bigtime.

I hope everyone here will drive safely and responsibly in the New Year. Happy New Year to All.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

it is rigged to allow that state max freedom to beat on the citizens.

Ya have to do something to keep those for profit jails running.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

The man we are discussing in this thread lived 5 blocks from the bar, according to jcboy. All he had to do was take a cab for those 5 blocks. It certainly would have been a lot less costly than his current legal fees and the prospect of losing his freedom for the next several years.

Are you under the impression that pointing out that there is a way to avoid the wrath of power proves that the power is being wielded justly? Is that what you tell those who are being bullied...."just do as you are told and everything will be fine"?

Of course not, this is more Firefly BS spread around in your attempt to avoid the obvious point.

2 Replies

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know