Saturday, December 25, 2010

Justice Stuff

I think the 11 years Josiah Miller got for killing that Crescent City girl is a travesty. I realize they didn't have much in the way of physical evidence so felt their best bet would be to plea bargain to involuntary manslaughter, but I don't know that I could have gone that route had I been making the decision.

Circumstantial evidence alone makes this look like 1st degree murder. I think I would have just gone for broke and charged for murder. We can't blame Gallegos for this one.

Here's a life ruined. What seems to be a normal, squared away gal, ruins her life by driving drunk and killing two people. I don't feel any safer with her having to spend 3 years in prison.

I'm not sure why I feel sorry for the girl above but am outraged that the 18 year old girl that was texting while driving and ran over two people in a crosswalk, killing one, wasn't even cited for cell phone use.

Remember Gwendolyn Walker Smith? She's the serial squatter that uses the legal system to rip off landlords for tens of thousands of dollars in rent and damages. One landlord in Sebastopol lost her home because of Sleazebag Smith. Looks like she got caught doing the same thing in Oregon and authorities have filed charges against her.

Let's hope the charges stick and she ends up doing some jail time.

13 Comments:

At 8:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I feel safer every time a drunk driver is taken off the road. It's not an accident. It's a deliberate choice to drive in a reckless manner. Cars are killing machines and they require adults to operate them.

I'll meet you half way. In lieu of jail time, revoke the drunk driver's license for life on condition of a hefty jail term if she drives again.

 
At 9:07 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I disagree. There'd be no purpose in punishing her for life. There's no evidence she drove regularly after drinking. Something like that could happen to anybody, assuming they drink.

That's not to say there aren't a number of serial drunk drivers that do need to be dealt with harshly. I think it was yesterday or the day before the Press- Democrat had a story about a guy that had his third or fourth DUI arrest in four weeks. Another about some guy who had something like 19 DUIs. Another had something like over 40!

I don't think the gal in the story is anywhere near being in that league.

Now, the girl who was texting and hit those two people did make a conscious decision to text and drive. She was sober, and knew she shouldn't be driving distracted.

 
At 10:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know why the plea bargain with Miller. With the stories all the newspapers wrote it seems like they had enough evidence for a conviction. Do they need an eye witness to prosecute now?

I hope Oregon takes this person to court. Hopefully she won't be allowed to move back in and just start over with them. She will just do it again as she knows the routine and likely picks the places she rents so she can claim violations of code and improper housing and somehow gets away with it. I don't know why it took the two women in Sonoma County so long to get rid of her in eviction proceedings though.

 
At 12:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone who drives drunk is wantonly reckless with human life.

The purpose of punishing her for life would be to save the lives of other people she might kill when she drives drunk again.

A moving vehicle is a killing machine. No do-overs. If you can't operate it responsibly, you lose the privilege. That's how I'd handle the situation.

This isn't rocket science. Someone who drives drunk is stupid through-and-through.

 
At 12:44 PM, Blogger Fred said...

The purpose of punishing her for life would be to save the lives of other people she might kill when she drives drunk again.

I'll try to be nice, but that's assinine. Just because a person blows it once, doesn't mean they're going to do it again.

I feel safe in saying the vast majority of people arrested for drunk driving don't do it again.

 
At 1:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's nothing asinine about it. Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you abuse a privilege, it can be taken away. When you abuse a privilege and risk KILLING PEOPLE, you deserve to lose that privilege at a minimum. A minimum.

I choose life over reckless selfishness.

 
At 1:12 PM, Blogger Fred said...

B.S. You're talking about ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people for one mistake they made. As they keep reducing the amount of blood alcohol necessary for conviction, there will likely end up millions more with their lives ruined, and you won't be any safer as a result.

 
At 1:13 PM, Blogger Fred said...

And I can't help but wonder if 1:08 is one of the between 30 to 50 percent of drivers that drives around talking on his cell phone most of the time?

 
At 8:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have no trouble taking a privilege away from someone guilty of attempted manslaughter.

Oh, woe! A person might have to take a bus or walk or ride a bike. Well, when you play dice with human life, tough! You made the choice to endanger human life. It was your choice. If such a law was passed, you'd know the consequences of your stupidity and deserve the, (Oh, woe!) horrible punishment of losing that privilege.

I can't believe you're an apologist for this Fred. Have you no shame?

 
At 8:28 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Have you no shame? I'm not apologizing for anyone or anything. I'm simply saying that punishing a person for life for one mistake is way over the top.

By your way of thinking, a 19 year old goes to a college party, gets a little tipsy and gets stopped by police a block from his house shouldn't ever be able to drive again- thus ruining his life.

That bullshit, and I think you're insane!

 
At 9:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There should be no do-overs in attempted manslaughter cases, which is what drunk driving is. Don't be an apologist for attempted murder.

 
At 10:31 AM, Blogger Fred said...

As far as I'm concerned, you're an extremist nut- case. Please go way, although it's good to be reminded every now and then people like you exist.

 
At 12:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the Judge gave a fair, perhaps lenient, sentence to the DUI driver. She received half the maximum sentence. She killed two and maimed three others. Based on the article, she knew that drinking and driving was dangerous, yet chose to take the risk.

Law Enforcement and the media have been relentless in warning of the perils of drinking and driving.

The purpose of the sentence isn't merely to discourage her from drinking, driving and killing more people; these sentences are (hopefully) a deterrent to others who might make a similar bad choice. You may FEEL safe as to DUI recidivism; however, you and other readers might wish to read this study: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/Alcohol-ImpairedDriving.html#repeat

Regarding the cell phone imbecile, you may be premature in your wrath. The article indicates the investigation is ongoing. I agree she should have been charged for the cell phone offense (that could still occur), but I suspect there is a manslaughter charge in her near future.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home