TX Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for 9th DWI

[phill4paul]

I, for one am not defending this man, since he has caused demonstrable harm to somebody and should be held accountable for that.

I fail to see how throwing him in a cage for the rest of his life, at my expense, helps make the person he injured "whole" again.

No, it will not make the injured person whole. Nor will it even allow any form of recompense. Better to have sentenced him to a term in a State facility for alcohol rehabilitation then ten years under Substance Abuse Felony Probation and a mandatory Antabuse prescription with frequent and random testings. If this had been done for his third DUI (as allowed by sentencing guidelines) then perhaps there wouldn't have been numbers 4 through 9.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I shed my libertarianism when it comes to public roads. Driving is the most dangerous thing human beings do on a daily basis. If you don't respect that, then I don't care if you are locked away.

He has clearly demonstrated he drives recklessly when drunk. So simply taking his license away is not enough.

I would go so far as to ban handheld cellphone use. Pay attention to the road you terrible fucking drivers.

You obviously don't understand liberty in the first place, or you would realize the inability of laws and government to solve any of these problems. More laws simply don't help. What makes you think banning cell phones is going to turn out any better than Prohibition in the 1920s? Has anyone read about the prohibition days? It is almost universally agreed that it was a disaster, and we are doing the same thing with drugs and with speeding and so many other things, including alcohol. Laws just don't help. That's not to mention the stolen freedom we have when we keep enacting laws that invade privacy and erode our civil liberties. As a libertarian at all, what are you doing supporting stuff like this? Like I said, if you really understood liberty in the first place, then you would understand that there's no room for exceptions just because you view something as "too important". A lot of republicans say the same thing about drugs, but look where we are with that.

 

[phill4paul]

But this guy didn't "might discharge" his weapon. He discharged it. At what point is enought enough? Not sure that life in prison does much other then admit that "we" can't help him.

No. He did not kill anyone. He was sentenced to life to "prevent" him from killing anyone.

"This is someone who very deliberately has refused to make changes and continued to get drunk and get in a car and before he kills someone we decided to put him away," said Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley.

I've mentioned it before so I should again. ACTUALLY killing someone, Intoxication Manslaughter, will only bring a sentence of 2-20. This man, though an offender, has yet to kill anybody. They sentenced him to life for a PRE-crime.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

sure thing uncle- I've got no doubt Dr Paul is all in with your drunk driver liberation movement. LMAO

Well he is. Seriously, have you ever read any of his books or listened to his speeches on the subject? It should be painfully obvious if you have, that he is on our side.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I can spot trolling a mile away-yeppers.

BTW- are you REALLY such a whack job that you think a failed attempt at murder should be passed off as 'no harm/no foul'?

YES!!!! in your own words you are just that sort of whack job.

"Attempt" implies someone was actually trying to kill someone else. This is not the case with drunk driving unless it can be proven.

 

[jbauer]

No. He did not kill anyone. He was sentenced to life to "prevent" him from killing anyone.

"This is someone who very deliberately has refused to make changes and continued to get drunk and get in a car and before he kills someone we decided to put him away," said Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley.

I've mentioned it before so I should again. ACTUALLY killing someone, Intoxication Manslaughter, will only bring a sentence of 2-20. This man, though an offender, has yet to kill anybody. They sentenced him to life for a PRE-crime.

It is my understanding that he didn't kill someone but did hurt them. You state that the system is screwed up because "had" he killed someone he would have gotten manslaughter. He shouldn't get manslaughter, he should be lined up and mowed over just like he did to someone else. You can use all these liberty this and liberty that ideas but this guy infringed on someone elses liberty. How do you account for that? How do you account for someone who clearly has shown that he has no intention on not driving drunk? Do you put the statistical chances of killed by driver even between drunk driver and sober driver?

 

[jbauer]

Well he is. Seriously, have you ever read any of his books or listened to his speeches on the subject? It should be painfully obvious if you have, that he is on our side.

I've read all his books and listened to most his speeches. He has never said anything I can recall about drunk driving. He has said we should take personal responsibility for our actions. It sounds like this guy hurt someone and refuses to remedy his situation. What do you suggest? Let him continue to drive drunk until he kills someone? He commited a "just" crime. He refused to take responsibility for it. He continued to commit said crime. He hurt someone. What is left to do? Is life excessive? Probably. Is the life he is in the process of taking worthy of a crime? I say yes. I think it is resonable to assume that it is much more likley that a drunk driver will kill someone then a sober driver.

 

[phill4paul]

It is my understanding that he didn't kill someone but did hurt them. You state that the system is screwed up because "had" he killed someone he would have gotten manslaughter. He shouldn't get manslaughter, he should be lined up and mowed over just like he did to someone else. You can use all these liberty this and liberty that ideas but this guy infringed on someone elses liberty. How do you account for that? How do you account for someone who clearly has shown that he has no intention on not driving drunk? Do you put the statistical chances of killed by driver even between drunk driver and sober driver?

If you had read my responses to this thread then you would know my positions to your questions. But, why not give it another go....

Yes. He was intoxicated and he injured another party. There are sentencing guidelines for these violations. None of which prescribe a life sentence including the harshest. A better judgement would have been incarceration in a rehabilitation center w/ an additional sentence of Antabuse and 10 years probation w/ random and frequent testing. Then, possibly, he could have given some restitution to the person he injured. As it is the victim will probably never see any form of restitution.

You say he should be lined up and mowed down for merely causing an accident in which no one was killed. So that is how we are doing it now? Killing people for causing injuries. Well, with a handle like Jack Bauer go figure.

Do I put the statistical chances of being killed at even between a drunk driver and a sober one? No. Statistically speaking a sober driver is the one that will do me in. Even by the NHTSA standards which are severely skewed towards prohibitionism.

 

[jbauer]

If you had read my responses to this thread then you would know my positions to your questions. But, why not give it another go....

Yes. He was intoxicated and he injured another party. There are sentencing guidelines for these violations. None of which prescribe a life sentence including the harshest. A better judgement would have been incarceration in a rehabilitation center w/ an additional sentence of Antabuse and 10 years probation w/ random and frequent testing. Then, possibly, he could have given some restitution to the person he injured. As it is the victim will probably never see any form of restitution.
You say he should be lined up and mowed down for merely causing an accident in which no one was killed. So that is how we are doing it now? Killing people for causing injuries. Well, with a handle like Jack Bauer go figure.
Do I put the statistical chances of being killed at even between a drunk driver and a sober one? No. Statistically speaking a sober driver is the one that will do me in. Even by the NHTSA standards which are severely skewed towards prohibitionism.

Thank you for your response. I have skimed the 600 responses but haven't put together a spreadsheet with who has which stance. Liberitarians want just laws and just concequences. We have neither. We have to many laws and to light of concequences. If you truley want to take away laws then you need to make the concequence of the laws we still have equall to the crime. I can't think of a better way to make the punishment equall then to put him through the same thing.

If you think there is any statistical anaylisis that says you're less likley to be killed by a drunk driver then a sober driver you're guilty of not looking at the information objectivly. The only way you could come to such a conclution is to increase the quantity of sober drivers realitive to the quantity of drunk drivers thus causing the total deaths by sobber drivers to increase not the rate at which they cause a death.

Sorry for my mispellings, I'm playing phone center roulette.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I've read all his books and listened to most his speeches. He has never said anything I can recall about drunk driving. He has said we should take personal responsibility for our actions. It sounds like this guy hurt someone and refuses to remedy his situation. What do you suggest? Let him continue to drive drunk until he kills someone? He commited a "just" crime. He refused to take responsibility for it. He continued to commit said crime. He hurt someone. What is left to do? Is life excessive? Probably. Is the life he is in the process of taking worthy of a crime? I say yes. I think it is resonable to assume that it is much more likley that a drunk driver will kill someone then a sober driver.

I'm not arguing about the guy in the op. Yeah, he hurt someone. I don't think a life sentence was necessary. My comment in that post, however, was generally in regard to drunk driving laws and whether or not they should exist/be enforced.

 

[Tpoints]

No, it will not make the injured person whole. Nor will it even allow any form of recompense. Better to have sentenced him to a term in a State facility for alcohol rehabilitation then ten years under Substance Abuse Felony Probation and a mandatory Antabuse prescription with frequent and random testings. If this had been done for his third DUI (as allowed by sentencing guidelines) then perhaps there wouldn't have been numbers 4 through 9.

since when was the liberty movement about making victims whole? that's God's job.

 

[Tpoints]

With freedom comes responsibility. Apparently, this lunatic never got the memo. Forget lifetime imprisonment. There should be an isolated island where they drop these headcases off.

Like Gitmo? Or some billionaire resort?

 

[phill4paul]

If you think there is any statistical anaylisis that says you're less likley to be killed by a drunk driver then a sober driver you're guilty of not looking at the information objectivly. The only way you could come to such a conclution is to increase the quantity of sober drivers realitive to the quantity of drunk drivers thus causing the total deaths by sobber drivers to increase not the rate at which they cause a death.

Well, see there is the rub. I could say that if I never drive between 8pm and 9am and that I live in a dry county that statistically I would have a much greater chance of being killed at the hands of a sober driver.
The FACT still remains that it is the sober drivers which cause the MAJORITY of fatal accidents.

 

[jbauer]

I'm not arguing about the guy in the op. Yeah, he hurt someone. I don't think a life sentence was necessary. My comment in that post, however, was generally in regard to drunk driving laws and whether or not they should exist/be enforced.

Different conversation, sorry if we got things tangled. As to drunk driving laws. There is a place and a time to drink. Drinking and driving increases the chances of causing harm to another and thus taking away their liberty. For me its pretty simple. Don't drink and drive. If you want to drop a whole case of Jack Daniells go for it. But don't do an activity that clearly increases the chances of causing another harm.

Like I said in my previous post. I'm ok with taking away drinking and driving. But if you harm someone or kill someone you should expect the same in concequences.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Different conversation, sorry if we got things tangled. As to drunk driving laws. There is a place and a time to drink. Drinking and driving increases the chances of causing harm to another and thus taking away their liberty. For me its pretty simple. Don't drink and drive. If you want to drop a whole case of Jack Daniells go for it. But don't do an activity that clearly increases the chances of causing another harm.

Like I said in my previous post. I'm ok with taking away drinking and driving. But if you harm someone or kill someone you should expect the same in concequences.

I agree that you should not do these things, but I don't think there should be any laws regarding it. Most people who drink and drive actually make it home okay. It increases the chances, certainly, but it's still pre-crime. Chances are, arresting someone who is drinking and driving is punishing someone who never would have hurt anyone had they been allowed to go home. If I'm just over the "legal limit" and I'm going 55 down a rural highway with no one around, am I still guilty of "attempted murder" as some people here would put it? Am I guilty of assault for driving slowly when nobody's around to be assaulted? My position is that we should stop trying to prevent people from hurting others by blanketing a certain conduct as "criminal" and start focusing on catching the real criminals who hurt people. Stop the absurd notion that the law can protect us from danger. All it can do is fulfill our sense of justice by locking up the offender or making them pay restitution.

 

[Tpoints]

I agree that you should not do these things, but I don't think there should be any laws regarding it. Most people who drink and drive actually make it home okay. It increases the chances, certainly, but it's still pre-crime. Chances are, arresting someone who is drinking and driving is punishing someone who never would have hurt anyone had they been allowed to go home. If I'm just over the "legal limit" and I'm going 55 down a rural highway with no one around, am I still guilty of "attempted murder" as some people here would put it? Am I guilty of assault for driving slowly when nobody's around to be assaulted? My position is that we should stop trying to prevent people from hurting others by blanketing a certain conduct as "criminal" and start focusing on catching the real criminals who hurt people. Stop the absurd notion that the law can protect us from danger. All it can do is fulfill our sense of justice by locking up the offender or making them pay restitution.

So if I use you for target practice, it's a pre-crime and unpunishable until I actually hit you? I mean, I can give you lots of reasons and ways your chances of getting hit are lower than you expect.

 

[jbauer]

I agree that you should not do these things, but I don't think there should be any laws regarding it. Most people who drink and drive actually make it home okay. It increases the chances, certainly, but it's still pre-crime. Chances are, arresting someone who is drinking and driving is punishing someone who never would have hurt anyone had they been allowed to go home. If I'm just over the "legal limit" and I'm going 55 down a rural highway with no one around, am I still guilty of "attempted murder" as some people here would put it? Am I guilty of assault for driving slowly when nobody's around to be assaulted? My position is that we should stop trying to prevent people from hurting others by blanketing a certain conduct as "criminal" and start focusing on catching the real criminals who hurt people. Stop the absurd notion that the law can protect us from danger. All it can do is fulfill our sense of justice by locking up the offender or making them pay restitution.

Agree, but you can only have this happen if people take and accept personal responsiblity for their actions. Something humans by and large aren't able to do. I still contend that if you make the punishment fit the crime we would have significantly less problems. I'm perfectly ok with legalizing drinking and driving, but if you drink/drive and hurt or kill then you should get back 10x the crime you did. I think it would solve our problems overnight.

 

[jbauer]

So if I use you for target practice, it's a pre-crime and unpunishable until I actually hit you? I mean, I can give you lots of reasons and ways your chances of getting hit are lower than you expect.

Just as long as you don't miss him and hit me

 

[PaulConventionWV]

So if I use you for target practice, it's a pre-crime and unpunishable until I actually hit you? I mean, I can give you lots of reasons and ways your chances of getting hit are lower than you expect.

Nope. That's assault. If you're trying to hit me, then you're obviously attempting to hurt me. If you're not trying to hurt me, then I can't guarantee that I won't retaliate and kill you in self-defense if I think you are shooting at me. You probablly would get convicted of assault if you were shooting in such a way that I thought you were shooting at me in plain sight.

If you don't get convicted and it happens a second time, then I can almost guarantee you will get convicted that time.

 

[phill4paul]

Nope. That's assault. If you're trying to hit me, then you're obviously attempting to hurt me.

Many here don't understand this.