Traffic fatalities
What’s wrong with this pitcher when a tow truck driver causes an accident and killing a forty year old man, forty-three year old woman and a four year boy leaving their two year old with a broken leg. Cynthia Charlebois will only be charged with misdemeanors and a minor traffic infraction. So you can kill people and only be charged with misdemeanors and a minor traffic infraction?
This letter has not been edited.
OR...you can not kill anyone, and get life in prison. Ask Lisl Auman.
Posted by RickyLee on August 28, 2007 02:16 PMThe facts of what caused this accident have not been pubicized. Could be a simple accident. Might be something more. I wish we knew the truth so we could have an informed opinion.
Where is the pitcher? Is it of beer? Or are we talking baseball?
Oh, wait, maybe a PICTURE?
Ok, back to the complaint in this letter. It was a traffic ACCIDENT. She wasn't drunk, she wasn't high, and from the police report, she wasn't on the phone even.
What happened was a tragedy, and putting this person in jail doesn't bring those people back. She still faces up to 7.5 years in jail. Are we really out for blood that much when a terrible accident happens, with no malice, intent, or outer influence? Maybe Mr. Martinez just hates women drivers? Or maybe Mr. Martinez is on the payroll of some personal injury law firm? (not really, but what is the point of this letter?)
Posted by Dan2 on August 28, 2007 02:29 PMI'm going to disagree with you once again Dan2 (batting 1000 today I guess).
My problem is with the hardline attitude of law makers regarding driving fatalities. They bemoan the bloody tragedy of an auto accident fatality only when alcohol is "involved."
But when a sober person kills someone it's considered an unfortunate accident and no charges are filed.
Considering the death is no less tragic when it was caused by a sober person, why the disparities in punishment?
As I've argued before, sober drivers cause appx 66% of all traffic fatalities nationwide. A full 2:1 ratio over "alcohol involved" fatalities (level of intoxication isn't mentioned).
I don't advocate people should drink and drive but the overzealousness of current lawmakers is out of control. In their effort to appear tough on DUI, they imply that DUI is the main cause of fatalities so they need to be hardliners when it comes to enforcement. This is nothing more than for appearance and votes and has zero to do with making people safer on the roads.
I'd rather see reality come into play. Punish the people who get "drunk" (not .08) and drive as well as the people who fail to control their vehicle and hurt or kill someone.
Failure to control your vehicle isn't an accident.
Posted by KW on August 28, 2007 03:12 PMDan2 is right, they are not coming back and vengeance won't help the situation at all.
Sometimes accidents happen.
KW,
I understand what you are saying, but it wasn't a previous choice to drink and then drive, nor was this person distracted (at least in the police report) with "other things" (food, cell phone, etc). It really was an accident. A tragic accident, and she faces accountability. But there was not a conscience choice to do something and then have those consequences. At least not in regard to anything I have been able to research. She wasn't "playing with a loaded weapon" (involuntary manslaughter), she was driving a car. And since the laws were written obviously with this kind of consequence as misdemeanors, then that is what they are. Usually, a felony involves some intent. No intent, no felony.
I agree with you on the over-zealousness of lawmakers at the punishment phase of drunk driving. This whole issue could be solved if, just like with seat belts, airbags, and car seats, we required standard equipment in motor vehicles to have a breath analyzer as part of the ignition. That would stop drunk driving BEFORE it happens, not after the fact. Until that occurs, I will look at DUI laws as nothing but another revenue source, instead of truly being concerned for citizen safety.
Posted by Dan2 on August 28, 2007 03:39 PMDan2 said:
"But there was not a conscience choice to do something and then have those consequences. "
Why should it matter if it was a "conscience choice"?
I don't know the details of the accident so I won't comment specifically on that. But, I will say KW has a good point.
Yes, driving while intoxicated is very serious and should be punished. But, what about driving while stupid?
Speaking of driving while stupid, will women please put down the damn cell phone. What is going on with women and the need to talk constantly? It's bad enough that they can't walk from point A to point B without one arm supporting a phone on their ear; But, that arm doesn't drop once they get in their car. Just shut up and drive.
Posted by John II on August 29, 2007 09:11 AMAgreed, make cell phone use against the law while driving. I was almost killed on I25 by a gal with her phone glued to her left ear. That effectively blocked her view in the left side rear-view mirror. She changed lanes and if I hadn't swerved into the median on my motorcycle, she would have knocked me into the median and I probably would have been killed or seriously injured at 70mph. Penalties should be severe for use of cell phones while driving.
Posted by Jay on August 29, 2007 01:11 PMJohn II, FYI...according to this AT&T study, men use up more cell phone minutes per month than women do:
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/24322.php
You do realize that persistent reliance on stereotypes is a shortcut to real thinking...don't you?
Posted by mytwosense on August 29, 2007 03:38 PMHey Leroy-
What's wrong with this PICTURE when illegals drive without licenses,or insurance, many times in a stolen vehicle, hit someone, abandon the car and are never seen again?
Tell me.
Posted by c on August 29, 2007 04:03 PMCell phone are a distraction, as is arguing, changing music selections, eating food, applying make-up, being sleepy, singing in the car, etc, etc, etc. We already have laws for inattentive driving. Let's not add on more and more and more laws...
Posted by Dan2 on August 29, 2007 04:10 PMJohn II says, "Yes, driving while intoxicated is very serious and should be punished. But, what about driving while stupid?"
What does that mean, John II? In a court of law, unless there is justifiable evidence to prove that this woman drove maliciously, intentionally distracted, inebriated, or reckless, she cannot be punished. And there are no laws against stupidity.
I agree with Dan2 100% in this matter. If the D.A. can prove a law was broken or that this woman committed reckless and illegal behavior while driving that led to this tragedy, then she should be punished accordingly. If she was attentive and law-abiding when this accident occurred, she shouldn't be punished just because some of you out there think someone's "gotta pay!"
Posted by Dan on August 30, 2007 04:53 PMPeople don't need to be locked up for accidents Leroy.
Posted by on August 31, 2007 01:22 PM