Users who Dugg This
Carly Wilson
3025 Followers
Carly Wilson
3025 Followers
Peter Parker
1288 Followers
Peter Parker
1288 Followers
The Hollywood Reporter
3531 Followers
The Hollywood Reporter
3531 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17115 Followers
mitcheypooAug 15, 2010
I clicked the link expecting to find the word "Texas." I was not disappointed.
mlvassalloAug 16, 2010
You know, being the second most populated state you had pretty good odds...
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
0.08 is to low a level to be convicted because the only reason why 0.08 is the law is so cities can make huge profits fro drunk drivers.
With that being said real drunk drivers are not punished enough. If someone is driving with a level of 0.16 or more that person should site in prison for a year, the second time 5 years and the third time for life. At the very least home arrest for life.
When our corrupted govt' really cares about the citizens and not profit the drunk driving laws can actually be used as a real deterrent. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
themusicstudioAug 16, 2010
I disagree on a year. Kids are stupid, hell people are stupid. If you haven't hurt anybody yet just give them a big ass fine so they know they simply can't afford to do it again.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bratterscainAug 16, 2010
echomary, downvotes? I spot me a Redditor.
falcon642Aug 16, 2010
If we only had 49 other states with the balls to do the same. It sickens me how many people think that DUI is a laughing matter, at best a DUI is attempted murder.
dauntless1Aug 16, 2010
@echomary
Anecdotal. Does your driving record mean EVERYONE drives like you? Then the law applies to everyone.
fuzybunyAug 16, 2010
I agree with you 100% it always makes me sick to see someone get a slap on the wrist when caught drinking and driving. Getting behind the wheel of a 23K+ car barreling at high speeds and/or driving erratically should warrant more then a night in a drunk tank
thesonofdarwinAug 16, 2010
Echo, were you trying to make the case that you are one of those people "better at driving drunk?" Better at not getting caught, perhaps, but running lights and signs does not a good driver make.
jjesusfreak01Aug 16, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
atomic1fireAug 16, 2010
What we don't know is if the court tried to give him detox a few times, and failed at it.
Some might argue that some people are better at drunk driving,
But it's like arguing that some people are better at not getting STD's.
Drinking is a self destructive behavior (also can lead to deaths related to drunk driving, abuse, etc) and this is the type of punishment that hopefully might serve as a deterrent to current and future drunk drivers.
Alcohol impairs judgement, and generally makes people look like idiots.
record200Aug 16, 2010
>and before he kills someone, we decided to put him away,’ said Williamson County district attorney John Bradley.
Wow, just, wow.
I suggest that the attorney get castrated before he rapes someone.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
themusicstudioAug 16, 2010
@record200
Exactly, ty for realzing that. He does need punishment but life for what statistically is probably below a 1% chance he'll seriously injure anybody, and the fact it's not premeditated makes it just a no-no.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
record200Aug 16, 2010
@TheMusicStudio
the nanny state must be rich to imprison every one
thufirrhawatAug 16, 2010
Lets be realistic, a DUI is not attempted murder.
No more car + SCRAM bracelet = problem solved in a more constructive manner fitting to the crime and at much less cost to the tax payers.
digitalistAug 16, 2010
Yea, that'll work great, since we all saw how well scram anklets prevent drinking, (see Lindsay Lohans case). And we all see how well this clown minds the courts, (see 8 previous cases), but yea, your right, that would totally fix the problem.
Shut it, idiot.
themusicstudioAug 16, 2010
Oh yea, for everyone bitching about drunk driving, being on the cell phone is arguably worse so maybe you all need to take up new causes. Or maybe not because I bet a large percentage of you have made phone calls while driving. How come no one is calling for Beyonce to go to jail for a year, she got caught texting while driving which is WORSE than drinking? What about someone with 9 speeding tickets? I'm sure people with 3 or more have got to be 10x more likely to kill someone than those without. Hmmm I think I know, because you're all a bunch of f**king idiots who only listen to stupid news reports who have nothing to do but talk about sap stories dealing with drunk drivers and help politicians push their stupid political agendas because being tough on drunk driving is easy brownie points from people unable to step back and look at the big picture. I mean seriously you people act like everyone who gets a DUI has a BAC of 30%, or if you're tipsy and get in a car, first thing you do is run over the first person you see. Think about all the medications, anti-depressants and whatnot that cut down your reaction speed just as much as drinking does and no one bitches about them because it's untestable. s**t why don't we just put people in jail for any car accident? I'm sure 90% of the time someone was being negligent in some way. That chick with the huge t**s is walking down the sidewalk *crash*. Well you should've been paying attention, go to jail now because you're going to kill someone eventually. Hey I'm a female driver *crash* oh well you go to jail now too because it's been proven females have slower reaction speeds than men and will probably kill someone eventually. Hey I'm going 5 MPH over the speed limit *crash* oh well people who go over the speed limit are going to kill someone eventually, you go to jail now should've been obeying the law. Don't you retards see it's just not fair to target only drunk drivers when it can be anything. NHTSA says alcohol is related in 40% of traffic deaths, sounds awful right? Wait a second though, they define alcohol related as having a BAC of .01 or higher..that's less than a beer. Also, they can define it as alcohol related even if they just "suspect" you've been drinking. Knowing that, 60% of that of "alcohol related" traffic deaths don't even have BAC readings. Even if that doesn't affect your opinion, what about the accuracy of field sobriety tests, surely our armed officers can be trusted not to have any prejudices or anything riiight? Well..:
"Although most law enforcement agencies continue to use a variety of these FSTs, increasingly a 3-test battery of standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) is being adopted. These tests are recommended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) after studies indicated other FSTs were relatively unreliable. The NHTSA-approved battery of tests consists of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg-stand. In some states, such as Ohio, only the standardized tests will be admitted into evidence, provided they were administered and objectively scored "in substantial compliance" with NHTSA standards (ORC 4511.19(D)(4)(b)).[19]
FSTs are more effective at determining the level of impairment than they are at estimating the driver's blood alcohol concentration (BAC). However, studies question whether the tests increase the officer's ability to judge either. In 1991, Dr. Spurgeon Cole of Clemson University conducted a study on the accuracy of FSTs. His staff videotaped individuals performing six common field sobriety tests, then showed the tapes to 14 police officers and asked them to decide whether the suspects had "had too much to drink and drive". The blood-alcohol concentration of each of the 21 DUI subjects was .00, unknown to the officers. The result: the officers gave their opinion that 46% of these innocent people were too drunk to be able to drive. This study showed the possible inaccuracy of FSTs.[20]"
Also...:
"One of the most controversial aspects of a DUI stop by a police officer involve the Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs). FSTs are heavily subjective to the opinion of the arresting officer. Many sober people are unable to perform the tests properly with a false positive rate of 23% and some are even arrested for failing the tests.[14][15][16] The walk-and-turn test is only 68% accurate, and the one-leg stand test is only 65% accurate in healthy individuals, when determining if a person is under the influence. People with medical conditions, injuries, 65 years or older, and 50 pounds or greater overweight cannot be accurately judged by these tests.
Combine all the above with politician's political agendas, and it's easy to see that alcohol being a MAIN factor in 40% of traffic deaths is BULLs**t. Correlation is not causation, if I drink a beer and go driving I am virtually 100% as capable as I was before that beer, yet they'd rule it alcohol related if there were an accident. What PROBABLY is true is that people who DRINK ALCOHOL are also more prone to TAKE RISKS IN GENERAL. How will we define risks? Changing lanes frequently is one, speeding, not slowing down at yellow lights, making U turns when you're not supposed to, anyone in the left lane on the highway, basically what any non-annoying driver acts like. At NIGHT people are
NUMBER ONE: More likely to be out and driving.
NUMBER TWO: More likely to get in an accident in general because it's night.
NUMBER THREE: 10000000 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN DRINKING
(and I believe more likely to be younger but that's more arguable)
Go here -> http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Crashes/CrashesTime.aspx
Now Friday night you see 1044 fatalities from 9pm-12pm and another 1100 from 12am-3am. Basically what'd you expect, most deaths occur at night on weekends, allegedly because people are drinking right? Hmmmmm maybe to the untrained idiot, but look at Tuesday from 3-6pm, that's 750 deaths. NO f**kING BODY is drinking from 3-6pm on Tuesday, THEY'RE GETTING HOME FROM WORK, IT'S THE BIGGEST EPIDEMIC EVER. Or maybe, just maybe the more people driving on the roads the more likely you'll get into an accident. So now you might say more people drive on the road during rush hour than at night, and I wouldn't doubt it and will concede the point because I can't find stats at the moment. But guess what?! People driving from 3-6pm get the benefit of SUNLIGHT. Could you call it a wash between lack of sunlight and more cars? Tough call without stats, but I think combining lack of sunlight with the arguable, but I believe logical view that teen drivers in general suck and are more likely to drive at night at the very least would cancel it out.
So while it's a bit of a stretch with my "cancelling out" of subjective items, I'm going on with saying AT MOST, with the information above, alcohol does not even DOUBLE the chance you'll kill someone. You know what that means? If you know someone who died in a car crash because of a "drunk driver" they were more than likely going to die even if he was sober.
Why did I put so much work into this? Because too many people are f**king retards and just think it's fun and games to throw out life long prison sentences over bulls**t. Who think people should serve a year in jail for getting a DUI which as I showed above are already suspect. Do you know how hard it is to see people walking in the street at night? Especially black?! I'm speaking from experience, driving at night is f**king far more dangerous than whatever 4 beers would do to me, but you assh**es can't see that s**t and would just look at the BAC and want to throw me away forever. Go f**k yourselves you dumbasses.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
themusicstudioAug 16, 2010
Again, I'm not saying drunk driving doesn't impair you. I'm saying not nearly to the extent portrayed. If you're blowing like a .4 or some s**t and kill someone then yes some prison time is in order plus a big ass fine/counseling. If you have a BAC of .1 and kill someone...I honestly don't think alcohol should be brought into the punishment too much besides a big fine on top of whatever else they were going to give you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
themusicstudioAug 16, 2010
Sorry for the third comment in a row spam, but above I say teen drivers are more likely to drive at night. I know someone will read that and go no they're not, but I obviously meant there's a higher ratio of "younger (18-25~)" to old people on the roads at night compared in the day time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thufirrhawatAug 16, 2010
@digitalist yeah... and was she caught drinking again?
libertarianslolAug 16, 2010
could have been florida too
akairennAug 16, 2010
Given how... 'interesting' Texas often is, I am shocked to find out this was in Texas.
Dude keeps drinking and driving. Nine times. Nine. That's the number that comes after eight and before ten. *Nine* goddamned times. Where your average person might reevaluate their life choices after the first conviction - definitely by, say, the fifth, this guy went for broke, clearly.
To be honest, I am absolutely in awe at Texas' leniency in this matter.
slvrbullet87Aug 16, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
crocodile7Aug 16, 2010
It's LIFE in PMTA prison, for being repeatedly reckless, with no intent to hurt anyone and no actual harm done. Lenient?
He is obviously an uncontrollable assh**e, but that does not qualify him to be locked up in the slammer for life. Should be prevented from driving, for sure.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
A third DWI is a felony in Texas. Every DWI after the third is also a felony. I think that anyone convicted of six felonies should spend the rest of their lives in prison. I guess you think that we should just let him keep doing it until he kills someone.
"Last month the man, Bobby Stovall drove his pick up across several lanes of oncoming traffic before hitting another car and injuring the driver. "
http://newsbythesecond.com/after-9th-dwi-texas-man-sentenced-to-life-in-prison/4161/
brucealmightyAug 16, 2010
FTA: "Taylor said Stovall should have been given a spell in rehab rather than "ending his life."
Well, just look at it as a very long spell in a very low-rent rehab program. Besides I didn't see anything about "without possibility of parole" in the sentence. He's already had more lives than a cat considering how many times he came close to killing someone. It's not likely anyone will miss him for however long he ends up in jail.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
Texas has a program called Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Program or SAFP. It is an incarceration treatment program which lasts no less than six months. I would bet that he has been to SAFP a number of times. Every DWI after the second is a felony in the state of Texas.
themusicstudioAug 16, 2010
Hm, well if no one else will blatantly say it I will.
Racists.
I'm not advocating drunk driving but honestly some of you exaggerate it. When the f**k did it become ok to punish people for LIFE, BEFORE they commit a crime to anyone else. People take prescription pills all the time go and drive and I'm sure commit accidents because of it. Also, fyi, there are people out there with 20+ DUIs.
Now I know what everyone wants to think, "Drunk driving is bad regardless of color, he deserves this if it were a white person I'd say the same". Yea well guess what it was a black guy. I'm not saying anyone is racist (I said racists earlier more for a reaction type thing) but I am saying people observing, particularly black, will see this, see there are white people with 2x the amount of DUIs still walking the streets, and make a fair connection. It's honestly irresponsible of a judge, in Texas specifically, to throw the book FIRST at a black guy. At the very least do 2 or 3 white people beforehand. I mean really, what the hell is a black person supposed to think when they see this?
"Oh well he did the crime he should do the time! I believe this process is very fair and unbiased and anyone regardless of color would've been treated the same. It's just a coincidence that it was a black person first, with there being 10% of them in Texas, they will every now and then be the first subjugated to progressive judicial rulings."
Look, you can't think like that publicly and not be labeled an Uncle Tom. Even f**king white people would call you an Uncle Tom. Perception is unfortunately everything, and sometimes you need to be smarter about it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jakewAug 16, 2010
I don't know why people are digging you down. You're so right.
I mean.. f**k the fact that he's had 9 DUIs.. it's because he's black that he's getting punished so harshly! The crime system fails again.
/holy_f**k_youre_dumb
metalteeth9Aug 16, 2010
"When the f**k did it become ok to punish people for LIFE, BEFORE they commit a crime to anyone else."
While I agree, it possible that his race was a factor in the ruling, I just want to point out this sentence. 99% of the time, I agree. Harsh punishments for victimless crimes are stupid. But the big difference here is, while the 9 times he DUI'd (and those are only the times he was caught) were victimless, unlike drug crimes like pot, there is a chance that he may destroy someone else's life. It is clear that he is not responsible enough to life in modern society, if he is so willing to put his, and others, lives in danger so readily. He deserves the sentence.
atomic1fireAug 16, 2010
my aunt was injured in a car crash because of a drunk driver (a white guy fyi), who was a repeat offender,
Some people should just get a harsh punishment, because a slap on the wrist is obviously not enough.
themusicstudioAug 16, 2010
@JakeW
I already predicted your response in my OP and you offer nothing.
@Metalteeth9
I'm glad at least you give me a good counterview rather than 3rd grade mocking. I completely agree people shouldn't drive drunk and should be punished for it. My bias was showing when I made that statement, but it just irks me the first person they do this on happens to be black. I'm almost positive you can pull up people who have gotten 1 or 2 DUIs, then an involuntary manslaughter because they were drunk again and are walking free. All I'm saying is there should be consistent punishments, especially when dealing with something that can easily create more racial tension.
@Atomic
Did this repeat offender get a life sentence? I'm sorry she was injured and drunk driving is stupid but you just can't give someone life in prison when you have people getting drunk who actually do kill people and never spend a day in jail.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
"Last month the man, Bobby Stovall drove his pick up across several lanes of oncoming traffic before hitting another car and injuring the driver. "
http://newsbythesecond.com/after-9th-dwi-texas-man ...
you were saying?
digitalistAug 16, 2010
I love my state - common sense rules the majority!
thufirrhawatAug 16, 2010
Bahahahahahaha!
Common sense? How is that "Terror Baby" thing working out for you guys?
roguegeniusAug 16, 2010
Texas does suck.
stutimandalAug 15, 2010
Dailyfail.co.uk
iwriteyourmusicAug 16, 2010
What are you trying to accomplish by "punning" the source?
skeloothAug 16, 2010
It's not a pun, it's the truth. Dailymail has some of the absolute worst content. It's rubbish. Most of us are convinced they game the system to get their crap front paged.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-man-life-sentence-ninth-dwi/story?id=11395058
so you do a simple search and can get other sources.... wow.. look at this! the story isnt rubbish
oatlordAug 16, 2010
....and like that doesn't happen for other sites? I've seen three alternet articles pass through the front page today alone. While it's possible, I highly doubt people are digging them for their excellent and hard hitting journalism skills.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
paranor01Aug 15, 2010
About time stuff like this started.
marii0726Aug 16, 2010
No way. I agree with the guy in the article, "he is an alcoholic and this isn't the kind of situation where he's acting with malice to hurt people". He's not deliberately trying to hurt people, he's just acting like a complete idiot. You'd think that by at least the second time getting caught drunk driving, you'd rethink doing it.
This guy deserves to get his driving license suspended indefinitely and having to go to some serious alcohol rehab. Not life in jail, that's way too harsh.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
marii0726Aug 16, 2010
Unless of course, he's drunk driving because he thinks it's fun to feel so disoriented and he wants to see how long he can go without killing someone... But seriously, it's not worth a life sentence for drunk driving. If you want satisfaction from killing people while driving, go play some GTA or something.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Yeah, let's make it illegal for him to drive a vehicle. Since he abided by the law against driving drunk so well I'm sure that'll be a smashing success.
ckhhrryissAug 15, 2010
Fool me nine times and I must be a f**king moron..
glassagateAug 16, 2010
Nine times? WTF!?
trdrstvAug 16, 2010
I KNOW! I thought alcoholics were given 12 chances....
kelsvowelsAug 16, 2010
what am I, an American Indian?
philbertAug 16, 2010
An American living in India?
tobeyAug 16, 2010
You've just been Crossed my man.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
David Cross reference. Nice.
Obviously people haven't seen his latest stand up.
jammezAug 16, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A
leekmiblesAug 15, 2010
At first I thought it was a typo until I kept reading it over and over again. That's when I realized Brits do just say "drink driving"
adhomineeAug 16, 2010
Wow.. I can kind of understand "drink driving"
But why do they say "drink-drivers" ... does the word drunk not exist in British English?
justmattAug 16, 2010
Maybe I missed what ur trying to say. But why would you say "drink driving" and then say "drunk-drivers". Seems like you would say them both the same way no? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
manbeefAug 16, 2010
@JustMatt North Americans say 'drunk driving' and 'drunk drivers'. This article is saying 'drink driving' and 'drink drivers'.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
It's because you don't have to be 'drunk' to be over the BAC limit...
mitcheypooAug 16, 2010
They also refer to a 'swimsuit' as a 'swimming costume.'
pinkgreenblueAug 16, 2010
I don't even know if this is true or not. Either way you get dugg up!
mitcheypooAug 16, 2010
http://www.google.com/search?q=swimming+costume
smacksawAug 16, 2010
I want to be a swimmer for Halloween.
eddiepotatoAug 16, 2010
I'm still trying to figure out if "sport" is plural, or if they actually consider all sports one, single sport...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
We have a saying in Australia: "Don't Drink Drive - it's a laundry detergent"
jacksonyayaAug 16, 2010
On American T-Shirts it's "Don't Drink & Drive - You might hit a bump and spill your drink."
johnfluxAug 16, 2010
As a brit, I couldn't work out what the problem was. I had to read the other comments to realise that Americans don't say 'drink driving'.
"Drink driving" is what "drink drivers" do. And drink drivers are people who drink then drive. :-)
loopychewAug 16, 2010
On the same token, "drunk driving" is what people who drive while they're drunk do.
Having lived on the continent for a while, I'm surprised I didn't know that UKers referred to it as "drink driving."
However, now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
ziffelAug 16, 2010
Drinking isn't the problem. You can drink and drive (in the U.S.). You just can't be drunk while driving. (blood alcohol level over legal limit)
loopychewAug 16, 2010
Pretty sure there're laws against "open containers," too, in regards to alcohol.
kittie09Aug 16, 2010
@LoopyChew
Dugg you up for the G.I. Joe reference.
mbtriaAug 15, 2010
Some murders who kill with malice and forethought don't get life. Something needs to be done with people like this, but I am not sure that a life sentence is the answer. Maybe something like the daily directly observed administration of antabuse. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper.
I don't know what that answer is, but the rapidly escalating number of people in jail is proof that there is something wrong with our sentencing structure. Why does the US have 5 times the average rate of imprisonment? Why do we have the highest rate of imprisonment in the world? The costs of these policies are prohibitive, and better methods need to be found.
gustomuchoAug 16, 2010
We should put a alcohol test on him just like on cars. If he is drunk when he has to blow in the thing, he gets tazed and cops can arrest him.
ajajadudeAug 16, 2010
Or he can have a friend do it for him. I know someone who has one of those things in her car and she manages to get around it pretty easily.
ineedanewsn1992Aug 16, 2010
Those people aren't friends then.
alexbarnes94Aug 16, 2010
That's something I've never understood - I'm sure it happens of course, but why on Earth would your sober friend VOLUNTARILY AND WILLINGLY help you drive them drunk??? If you were the passenger, and you're clearly in a more capable mental state for driving, why would you ever assist someone in driving dangerously while you're a passenger?
Hopefully people are smarter than that, and the "blow-start ignition" could become a viable option for convicts of drunken driving offenses.
gustomuchoAug 16, 2010
I would like to know someone who will willingly follow this guy 24 hours a day so he can blow in the straw.
Or put a device in him so it takes some blood every hour or so and it analyze for alcohol, I am pretty sure there are other ways to stop him from drinking than putting him in jail for life.
Some people should not be allowed to drink. I can't understand why people would want to stay alive if they know they are going to live in a cell for the rest of their life. I know I would rather die than being a captive for all my life.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
"Or he can have a friend do it for him. I know someone who has one of those things in her car and she manages to get around it pretty easily."
Must be a backwards county then. Most companies have cameras on the unit which take a photo on every blow. If you get caught doing something like that a judge would rape you.
On a second note I never understood whey the f**k people do that. If you have a sober person in the damn car then let them drive.
dusanmalAug 16, 2010
"Why does the US have 5 times the average rate of imprisonment?" - because other countries find it easier to sweep it under rug and deny crime and criminals.
"The costs of these policies are prohibitive, and better methods need to be found." - yes, first provide those locked up with bare minimums. Why do they have Cable TV on our dime? Why they have sport facilities while poor communities don't? ... Make standard solitary rooms and reduce need for jail staffing and reduce crime in jails. Costs drop like nothing. Criminals have one more factor to care not to be placed there, not comfy and social anymore.
"Some murders who kill with malice and forethought don't get life." - they should but liberal minded think those can be "reformed". Problem is not holding 9 time DUI offender in but not holding murderers in.
"Maybe something like the daily directly observed administration of antabuse. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper." - nothing but jail guarantees that he won't find a way to get high (legal marijuana?..) and find a car to drive in such state. Nothing. As for cheaper, ask potential victims families.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mrsteveman1Aug 16, 2010
Yep, being "tough" on crime solves everything, if it weren't for those damn "liberals".
mitcheypooAug 16, 2010
Hi, dusanmal. You seem confused and scared by the world. Let me help.
>>"because other countries find it easier to sweep it under rug and deny crime and criminals."
What first world countries do this? Please provide relevant links.
>>"Why do they have Cable TV on our dime?"
Entertained caged humans are less likely to be riotous caged humans. It makes economic sense to give them cable TV.
>>"Why they have sport facilities while poor communities don't?"
What sport facilities? You mean like, fenced in asphalt and weights?
>>"Make standard solitary rooms and reduce need for jail staffing and reduce crime in jails. Costs drop like nothing. Criminals have one more factor to care not to be placed there, not comfy and social anymore."
Few things... Calling jail 'comfy and social' is inane. Putting people who get jailed over a baggie of weed into solitary confinement will produce more criminals (I mean here, try this: Go adopt a puppy from the pound and then put it into a 2x2 box for several years. Then, when you take it out of the box, see how much it loves you and acts like a 'normal' dog. -- I also feel a need to note that I'm not actually suggesting you do this. Just to make it clear, since you seem lacking brain power).
>>"Problem is not holding 9 time DUI offender in but not holding murderers in."
I love how you're all like 'JAIL COSTS TOO MUCH!' And then you defend a life sentence for a drunk driver. LOL! I mean, listen to you! Walking contradiction.
Alcoholics aren't alcoholics because they *want* to be. It's not the same thing as defrauding your place of work or counterfeiting US currency. Had the glorious state of Texas ordered this man to undergo (quality) rehab the first or second time he was arrested on DUI, they probably would've ended up with a functional and healthy member of society... one who PAYS taxes. Now they've got a guy who's stuck in a box, costing tax payers heaps money, unable to contribute to society in any way. GENIUS BRO!
>>"nothing but jail guarantees that he won't find a way to get high (legal marijuana?..) and find a car to drive in such state. Nothing. As for cheaper, ask potential victims families."
1. Ahhh, the "what if" argument. Well sir, there's really nothing stopping you from buying a arsenal of guns and shooting up a school. What if you did that? We should ensure you don't ever get the chance by jailing you immediately, in a small box, for life. It's the only sensible conclusion! 2. If the man is successfully rehabilitated, he won't want to get drunk/high, right?
And the sad thing is, I bet money you think you're a Christian. Am I right?
bartledooAug 16, 2010
Jail should be reserved for those who are too dangerous to be in normal society (e.g. murderers, rapists, and yes, re-re-re-re-re-re-re-repeat drunk drivers). There must be more fitting punishments for less dangerous criminals (fines? community service?).
I'm betting even (quality) rehab probably wouldn't have helped him (not that it isn't worth trying).
Surely this guy's license was revoked after that many DUI's, right?
Actually, if there were a way to ensure that he never ever drove a car again, that (plus some form of punishment) would probably be a better option than a life sentence.
mitcheypooAug 16, 2010
@BartleDoo: Nine times is at LEAST eight times too many. But again, jailing someone doesn't solve anything. It just puts the problem in a box, usually letting the problem fester and get worse.
In the case of drug (use) and alcoholism, I just cannot understand why we would spend money to jail someone and ruin their future (record = harder to get employment in the future) when we should rehabilitate them and re-harmonize them with society. And to the person who's inevitably going to bring up the 'deterring' nature of jail, go read up on how deterrence theory doesn't actually work. THEN write a comment.
libertyfrogAug 16, 2010
Many county jails provide better living conditions than the criminals living conditions.
In my county there is actually a problem of people getting arrested on purpose. One man interviewed said he got more relaxation time in jail than living at his moms house.
atomic1fireAug 16, 2010
@mitchypoo
I disagree, you might argue that alcoholism is a disease,
But it's usually a self inflicted one.
Someone starts partying, and ends up with weekly trips to the bar, where they get plastered to enjoy themselves.
Partier's usually drive off as soon as the cops come,
Likely while drunk.
and this can start during high school or collage, and go on to adulthood.
megajoe67Aug 16, 2010
We have so many people locked up because thats how
private prison operators make money. And they will lobby
congress for tougher laws on minor crimes so they can build
more prisons, so they can make more money, so they can
build more ...
4ndr01dAug 16, 2010
land of the FREE
who ever told you that was your ENEMY
atomic1fireAug 16, 2010
Yeah cause the poor old drunk drivers have the right to be free to kill or seriously injure someone!111!!!!
/s
boogieordieAug 16, 2010
"Why does the US have 5 times the average rate of imprisonment?"
The private prison industry
strfxAug 16, 2010
A lot of people go to jail as a result of the failed war against drugs. Then, most jails are absolute s**t-holes, which ensures that people get out probably as a worse person than they were going in. Of course, it is still widely popular in the US to call for harsh punishments to appease the mob, certainly more so than in Europe.
All that aside, countries other than the US, including countries with much lower incarceration rates, keep criminals in prison if there is reason to believe that they would pose too much of a threat to the general public if they were releases. After reading the article, I believe that this is a valid concern with this particular individual, and I don't have a problem locking him up.
But, geesh, here in Texas? Most people drive so slow that even if they were drunk they could hardly cause any damage!
monkeyknucklerAug 16, 2010
Maybe 5 times more idiots than other countries?
Just a guess.
mrsteveman1Aug 16, 2010
Yea, idiots like doctors, lawyers, college graduates, small business owners, mothers, teachers and other productive members of society, because they decided to buy drugs one day. Brilliant.
The voters and politicians are the idiots, not the people we put in jail.
4ndr01dAug 16, 2010
maybe put him in a city where you dont need a CAR
mattm0914Aug 16, 2010
It's very simple, we have taken it upon ourselves to arrest and incarcerate people for victimless crimes. Drugs, gambling, and prostitution are three very good examples. All three activities can be dangerous and destructive for those involved (much like alcohol), but are much less so when done in a legal atmosphere. Half of the problem is that we are arresting people for things that shouldn't be illegal to begin with, the rest comes from the crime that is associated with these unnecessarily illegal activities. Prohibition empowers criminals and allows them to grow their enterprises, thus creating more crime and more criminals to fill our prisons. We worry way too much about keeping people from doing things that aren't necessarily dangerous to society, when done responsibly.
The bottom line is, we're putting way too much effort into incarcerating people who are really not a threat. We need to focus on people who are actually harming others.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
"Last month the man, Bobby Stovall drove his pick up across several lanes of oncoming traffic before hitting another car and injuring the driver. At the time of the incident which occurred in Round Rock, Texas Stovall was found to have a blood alcohol level of .32, four times the legal limit."
You were saying about victim-less crimes? We don't let people do mindbogglingly dangerous s**t until they hurt someone. We can stop them before that.
http://newsbythesecond.com/after-9th-dwi-texas-man-sentenced-to-life-in-prison/4161/
mattm0914Aug 17, 2010
I think you might have missed my point. Rather than going after people who endanger the lives of others, we focus on preventing people from using drugs, gambling, or engaging in prostitution. Police will go to great lengths to catch someone who is clearly hurting no one but themselves, up to and including undercover operations, stings, surveillance, and so on, but seem to drop the ball when it comes to preventing drunk driving. Is it really that hard for them to set up in bar parking lots and watch for drunk people to get into their cars? Is it an issue of them not being able to violate privacy and constitutional rights? They sure don't seem to care about that when they're stopping cars and inventing reasons to search them for drugs. Our priorities are so screwed up in this country, we're willing to kick down someone's door, shoot their dog, drag them and their families out of bed, and basically violate them in every way possible.. all because they are using drugs in their own homes, yet we can't have our police sit in a public place and watch for people that could actually hurt someone.
I think it's completely necessary to stop people like the man in the article, but we seem to be more concerned about people being immoral instead of focusing on the ones that are actually dangerous. The only reason we are even reading about this is because of the unprecedented severity of his punishment, it should be the other way around, we should be shocked to hear that a 9 time DUI offender DIDN'T get thrown in prison. We spend billions and billions a year to prevent drug use, much of which is no more harmful to society than alcohol is when used responsibly (i.e. not while driving, not while at work, not while caring for children), not to mention the money we spend locking up drug dealers.. yet we seem to take actual dangerous crimes, like DUI, less seriously.
smacksawAug 16, 2010
If it was Singapore, he'd have been caned.
And it works, too.
We have it all backwards. We corporally punish our kids who don't have the brain development to know any better, but when there's an adult who deserves an ass whoopin', they never get it.
citrxjAug 16, 2010
Part of the reason just may be our culture, at least here compared to other 1st world countries. The US is built on a nation of rights, and that can swing both ways. Yes we have a right to good education and individual initiative, which means that we will have a powerful middle class. It also creates the mindset to the right to do whatever we want, which leads people to be idiots. I have a right to do what I want with my body, to have a car and drive it how I want, to impose myself in my 'territory'. If you look at other countries, the government is less likely to give a crap about your rights if you're being an idiot.
That and the fact that the American population is built out of people who either was kicked out of somewhere else or came here on their own initiative, with the whole "I do what I want and I deserve it" mindset.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
They don't court order antibuse anymore. Not in my county anyway.
wuggyboobeaufufAug 16, 2010
Good.
nshapkarAug 16, 2010
He is going to appeal and it will be overturned. I have no respect for drunk drivers but life sentence is ridiculous.
stubearAug 16, 2010
This was his NINTH offense. Let me repeat that because it's important...N-I-N-T-H. If he was unable to get help before this point, he's not going to.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
And what percentage of the time was he in jail, I wonder, from his first offense to this one? The problem is that they didn't jail him sooner. Waiting until his ninth offense and then throwing him away for life is ridiculous.
diggduggjoeAug 16, 2010
I agree, but I can see how they are fed up with him.
I feel they are jailing him for crimes he may commit in the future and that is not the way jail should work.
Instead of life in prison, some serious rehab should be done. This person is not a Jeffrey Dahmer or hardened criminal, he needs help.
koldmilkAug 16, 2010
I guess we should wait till he runs a red light and kills someone...
crocodile7Aug 16, 2010
Involuntary manslaughter normally does NOT warrant a life sentence, even with extenuating circumstances.
jamaphAug 16, 2010
A 5 year sentence would have sufficed. Life? wtf.
dargoesdiggingAug 17, 2010
Would you feel the same if it was your family he ploughed into for his 10th offence?
jamaphAug 17, 2010
It's not our job to go over the what-ifs.
The fact is, the state put a man in prison for the rest of his life.
If you watch one episode of locked-up you can see how dangerous the prison system can be.
If you know anything about alcoholism of substance abuse you know it's a disease.
Why are we treating sick people with a incarceration that only teaches them a life of crime and isolation, burther rifting their depression, and tearing their life apart.
There people need treatment. They need therapy. They need support groups.
Prison should be reserved for the big three;
Murder
Rape
Theft
NOT substance abuse
agmlauncherAug 16, 2010
No, it is not ridiculous. It isn't hard to be a responsible person. Repeat: NOT HARD to be a responsible person. If you can't handle that, I don't give a s**t if all you're doing is stealing candy bars; you don't belong in society.
dargoesdiggingAug 17, 2010
Don't know why you're getting dugg down. Digg ++
daytonaz33Aug 16, 2010
Then you can be the one to explain to someones children why Mommy or Daddy won't be coming home ever again because they were killed by someone who was convicted 9 times prior for the same offense. Except now that someone is dead "it's for reals" and NOW we can put him behind bars.
The man is playing Russian Roulette with the gun pointed at others.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
So we have to wait for him to kill someone before we solve the problem?
crapolatimeAug 16, 2010
Up in British Columbia, it's a $3800 fine and 3 month suspension, for being over the 'legal' alcohol limit.
Like jails are so expensive, when you can just fine people instead.
akula89Aug 16, 2010
it's a logical solution, combined with alcohol addiction treatment. if they are fined, there goes the beer money!
cfuseAug 16, 2010
In America, prisons are a for profit industry. The fact they are expensive is in quite a few people's interests.
stubearAug 16, 2010
He was unemployed. How exactly were they going to fine him? Not to mention this was his NINTH offense.
libertyfrogAug 16, 2010
That is pretty similar to a lot of States' penalties for DUI.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
What the f**k has "shooting lights with a shotgun" got to do with this? In Texas I guess you can be locked up for having an STD if the judge declares your genitals are now a weapon.
kashewAug 16, 2010
Is a rapist with AIDS a murderer? That's the million dollar question.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
If he was aware he had AIDS, then yes. I'm fairly certain that precedent was already set.
richie311249Aug 16, 2010
I highly doubt any reasonable judge would hand out a life sentence for shooting street lights out.
timmyftwAug 16, 2010
If you were caught and convicted for it 9 times you would.
kashewAug 16, 2010
It's also like if he had hit some people with stray shot too. He was in a couple accidents.
thufirrhawatAug 16, 2010
Couple or 1?
dirtyfriesAug 16, 2010
Normally I'm not a fan of life sentences, or even long ones, for comparatively low offenses...but sometimes you just have to make it impossible for the person to continue committing the crime.
Especially one that can be so damaging to others, not just the person's self.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
except this is completely unconstitutional.... goes against the 8th amendment.....
this is 100% cruel and unusual punishment
pardisAug 16, 2010
so let him get a 10th, 11th, 12th, etc... DUI?
dirtyfriesAug 16, 2010
I dunno though, is it?
Don't get me wrong, I see your point. But is it cruel and unusual at this point? It sounds like it's becoming more and more justifiable as he clearly doesn't get it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gusterbearAug 16, 2010
Guess he should have thought about that before he continued DUI.
smacksawAug 16, 2010
The quote from the article says:
‘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.
Minority Report thoughtcrime is here.
cameleopardAug 16, 2010
@Pardis
It is unconscionable to punish someone for a crime they haven't yet committed. The law should never be about striking preemptively because it necessarily means we're punishing someone for something they haven't done.
atomic1fireAug 16, 2010
@cameloepard
This person is just another serious risk on our roads,
If someone commits a felony, they don't have the right to carry a gun, get certain licenses, vote, etc.
AFAIK in some states if the DUI is a repeated offense, it's a felony.
This guy obviously didn't quit the first eight times, and just because they haven't done anything really bad yet, doesn't make a person any less dangerous,
one sign of a serial killer is harming, maiming, or killing small animals, would you let a potential serial killer out just because they haven't done anything yet?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
i like how people will s**t all over the constitution if it fits their viewpoint.....
it is unconstitutional PERIOD! you cannot punish someone for a crime they did not commit...
the life sentence is a punishment for a possible future accident involving a death.... if you are that worried about it, give him 5 years behind bars and then either put an ankle bracelet on him or inject a gps tracker....
atarioAug 16, 2010
Funny you should say that...the article says they put him away because he /might eventually/ get someone killed. In other words, it hasn't happened in all this time. But we're going to treat him as though he had anyway.
Welcome to /Minority Report/, only with guessing.
mondaynitesAug 16, 2010
What the hell? Just take away his license and make him a suspended driver. He can take the damn bus to rehab. Why lock him up forever?
shadicAug 16, 2010
Yeah, because he follows driving laws.
marthagailAug 16, 2010
I really doubt taking his license away would stop him from driving.
dauntless1Aug 16, 2010
I like the option where your license IS your car key. There are a few companies kicking the idea around, especially with the advent of better chips in these cards and the ability to store multiple account numbers and such on one card. Essentially an all-in-one card that allows access to your accounts, car, home ect. People say it would be too easy to take, but so is your wallet, which also has all this stuff. Meh. With a little more refinement on the ideas, I'll be aboard.
azuvectorAug 16, 2010
@Dauntless1:
I dunno, I dislike the idea. In an emergency you should be able to get in a car and go, f**k the license. If his license is a key too, it's no real difference from just taking his keys away and/or impounding his car.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
He'd just end up driving anyway. I've heard all too often stories of people getting arrested for a DUI while also having a suspended license from (go figure) a previous DUI.
timedoutAug 16, 2010
Just because you don't have a license doesn't mean you won't drive a car.
finalstrikerAug 16, 2010
They already took away his license 9 offenses ago.
pompousjohnAug 16, 2010
I think a lifetime ban from drinking, driving or both would be more appropriate.
vengefultacosAug 16, 2010
And how would you enforce that, unless he's locked away? Not having a license isn't a barrier to people... many of the multi-DUI people are popped for not having a license or driving with a suspended license. How, unless you lock him away, could you prevent hi from drinking? I guess you could give him some sort of bracelet that tracks him and if he goes anywhere near a bar or a liquor store, you bust im... but then he'll just get his buddies to buy his booze for him.
zombiesocietyAug 16, 2010
If only there was a way to detect alcohol in one's bloodstream!
(I'm not saying that's a good idea. I'm saying that isn't a good argument against it.)
mattm0914Aug 16, 2010
They could drug test him frequently (like 2-3 times a week or more) to see if he's been drinking, like they do with some drug offenders, and throw him in prison if he fails. He'd probably still screw it up, but you never know. Though, I'd rather see him locked up, he obviously doesn't care about the lives he's putting at risk.
thufirrhawatAug 16, 2010
There are bracelets already in use that detect alcohol in the bloodstream. Thus alerting the police instantly if he drinks.
Your point is moot.
tsothaAug 16, 2010
I'm pretty sure his license was permanently taken away long ago. He's been at this for twenty years and caused a couple accidents.
samurai77Aug 16, 2010
Um they already did, 8 times before.
timmyftwAug 16, 2010
They didn't take his license 8 times. He has been permanently banned from driving prior to the last few convictions.
pompousjohnAug 16, 2010
I know it would be difficult or impossible to enforce, but life in prison? Really? There must be an alternative.
ziffelAug 16, 2010
The alternative is to let him kill someone.
pompousjohnAug 16, 2010
Here's the thing, drunk driving is essentially a traffic violation. Like running a red light or going the wrong way on the freeway, it's dangerous and could potentially harm someone, yet many people do it every single day without a mishap.
Life imprisonment is something we should reserve for murderers who have already killed someone. Not just people who are negligent and endanger others. Otherwise we have to level the field and go around locking up everyone who could potentially harm someone through negligence.
pompousjohnAug 16, 2010
Oh, and very likely in the is particular case it is entirely possible the judge did the right thing. I just hate to see a precedent set where you can get life for what essentially amounts to a traffic violation. I would feel better about the general trend if there was a court order banning him from driving a car and he got life for repeated contempt of court.
thufirrhawatAug 16, 2010
No car and a bracelet that detects alcohol in the blood...problem solved.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
An alternative was tried 8 times.
davidtangx10Aug 16, 2010
What an achievement! He can now apply to be in the Guiness World Book of Records!
archcoderAug 16, 2010
I'm cool with this.
richie311249Aug 16, 2010
I'm sick to my stomach. Why do we love jailing people in this country? Take away this guys right to drive, not his entire f**king freedom.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
How? By taking away his licence? Do you think he follows the law?
finalstrikerAug 16, 2010
They did and that did not seem to stop him.
trainofthought6Aug 16, 2010
I'd be shocked to hear that after 8 DUI offenses, he was still allowed t have his license. Clearly, he has no regard to driving laws anyway.
arschgaudiAug 16, 2010
I'm laughing so hard I'm sick to my stomach. You actually think that after deliberately breaking the law by drinking and driving he'll suddenly think twice about driving without a license?
Holy f**king Toledo, I don't know whose dumber.....wait, yes I do.
zombiesocietyAug 16, 2010
Who's*
arschgaudiAug 16, 2010
Don't get all possessive on me now.
stubearAug 16, 2010
He was a NINE time repeat offender. If he wasn't going to stop and get help after his fifth or sixth, what makes you think he's going to stop and get help now? There's a point where we need to say, you had your chances and you f**ked up, too bad. I think NINE DUIs is a fair place to start.
zombiesocietyAug 16, 2010
At what point do you force someone to get help? He's clearly not well enough to do it himself, but how did they just decide he wasn't worth saving? Yeah, he's a criminal, OK. He's also blatantly really f**king sick. Is it really "deliberately" breaking the law when you can't think properly?
cameleopardAug 16, 2010
You idiots. You take away his license, give him reasonable jail time for his continued breaking of the law, and wait until he finally does injure or kill someone to jail him appropriately for murder. It sucks that someone would have to get hurt to put this assh**e away for an extensive period, but that's how it works. We generally don't and absolutely should not be in the business of jailing people on the suspicion of crimes they may commit in the future. Can you not see how insanely stupid and antithetical to the ideals of this country such actions are? Can you not see how this mentality could be applied in virtually every walk of life to people like you and me?
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
You know, Camel, I see your point. However, you totally lost me with "It sucks that someone would have to get hurt to put this assh**e away for an extensive period, but that's how it works." I highly doubt you'd feel that way if the number drawn was your mother's or your son's. I'm not exactly comfortable with treating him like a murderer, but I don't want to be a fool and wait until he becomes one. You're content to condemning a family with a lifetime of pain from losing a family member because you're defending the rights of someone who continually violates the rights of others. That, my dear, is idiotic.
Can you imagine how it would feel to lose a loved one to this man? The entire country knows what flippant disrespect he has for not only the law, but for the lives of himself and those around him. I would be resentful of the law enforcement, and feel like they failed the community. This man has had more chances than anyone deserves, and I can't be too critical of this judge for the sentence. It's harsh, yes, but what else are they supposed to do to keep their community safe? This isn't a thought-crime, this is a proven case where he will continue to break the law and endanger others. It's not so simple.
cameleopardAug 16, 2010
Appealing to emotions in a what-if scenario ought to be raising the red flags; this is merely a rationalization to punish someone on the POTENTIAL of a violent crime being committed. You can imagine any scenario you want, it doesn't mean he did or positively will commit any of them and that's the entire point - you should never be punished for a crime you may or may not commit in the future. This IS thought-crime. Do you honestly believe he was sentenced to life in prison because of nonviolent DUI offenses? Of course not, he's locked away for the rest of his entire life on the speculation of future misdeeds. To be punished for a crime you must first commit it or else we're setting up gulags!
I find your support of something so egregiously unjust appalling, frankly. I'm afraid you might target me next, on what basis it's hard to say. But a clear pattern of support for the fascistic excesses of governmental power exists. I'm afraid the only solution is for me to try and get you locked away for life on the possibility that you will try to take my own freedoms away in the future. Surely you agree? Think of my loved ones, who would be deprived of my support and love after you viciously imprisoned me because of something I may one day do.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
He has already hurt someone.
"Last month the man, Bobby Stovall drove his pick up across several lanes of oncoming traffic before hitting another car and injuring the driver. At the time of the incident which occurred in Round Rock, Texas Stovall was found to have a blood alcohol level of .32, four times the legal limit."
http://newsbythesecond.com/after-9th-dwi-texas-man-sentenced-to-life-in-prison/4161/
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
This is exactly who should be locked up, not people busted for pot. This person was a danger to society.
A suspended license means nothing to these people, they still get behind the wheel.
arschgaudiAug 16, 2010
What if he was driving under the influence of pot?
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
What if he was drunk with love?
dauntless1Aug 16, 2010
If a substance measurably impairs an operators ability to operate 2000 pounds of metal death, then yes I think you should get busted for driving under it's influence, I don't give a f**k what it was you were using.
mattm0914Aug 16, 2010
Then he should be charged with DUI, not possession.
caramba421Aug 16, 2010
Driving under the influence of pot has not been shown to cause a person to drive more dangerously. While reaction times are slowed, people tend to account for it, and drive more carefully. The UK Department of Transportation did a study on this with the final verdict being "inconclusive." When people quote accident statistics where "marijuana may have been a factor," the stats are skewed because the vast majority of those accidents also involve alcohol.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
4ndr01dAug 16, 2010
maybe he forgot to get it renewed
again why is he living in a town WHERE HE NEEDS TO DRIVE
move some where with public transport
atarioAug 16, 2010
I disagree. This is exactly who should be put through alcoholism treatment.
tekdemonAug 16, 2010
I think he should be locked up but life sentence?!? I mean jeez. Even for a repeat offender why not lock him up like 5 years, and then 10 if he repeats, etc. This is a pretty big jump to lock him up forever and ever.
gordsandalwoodAug 16, 2010
Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield
ahhh, Texas
libertarianslolAug 16, 2010
if we outlaw drunk driving then only the outlaws will drunk drive
richie311249Aug 16, 2010
I'm done with Digg.
iph0neAug 16, 2010
That's handy, because digg doesn't even know who you are.
eddiepotatoAug 16, 2010
How can we make things right?
marx2kAug 16, 2010
Goodbye richie311249, I hardly knew yie.
timmyftwAug 16, 2010
Because we all agree that this jackass deserves this sentence? I wish all you idiots were this easy to get rid of.
ziffelAug 16, 2010
FYI: You can quit forums/sites/etc without announcing it.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
Good riddance.
7king7kingAug 16, 2010
is it a new rule? 3 strikes, you are out.
New rule? 9 innings you are in for good.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
In Texas the third DWI and any after are felonies.
ferretmanAug 16, 2010
Good.
Drunk driving is a dick move.
7king7kingAug 16, 2010
maybe for him, not being able to drink is more suffering than staying in the jail for his life.
xixphzAug 16, 2010
You can get booze in prison. Its not very tasty but it does get the job done.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
all you need to make alcohol is sugar and something that will ferment. You don't even need fresh fruit. Canned peaches or raisins will do the trick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruno
zarrel40Aug 16, 2010
Should have put him under house arrest for life. That way we wont have to deal with paying for him.
strfxAug 16, 2010
Just get him a steady supply of hard liquor in prison. He'll do the rest to keep the cost for the rest of us down.
awsmgyAug 16, 2010
A life sentence is excessive, I would say a year for each offense is a little more reasonable.
7king7kingAug 16, 2010
9 times? enough is enough.. he could have killed more than 9 people... it's better to prevent someone's whole life than letting this person drunk drive 30 times.
peterodactylAug 16, 2010
"he could have killed more than 9 people..."
But he didn't.
7king7kingAug 17, 2010
So wait until he drunk drive 15 times more to kill someone?
iph0neAug 16, 2010
How can you be a construction worker when you're unemployed?
mattm0914Aug 16, 2010
He's probably on lay-off due to lack of work. Sometimes construction companies can't keep enough work for some (or all) of their workers, and have to lay them off between jobs. It's not really the same thing as being unemployed, more like an unpaid vacation.
tsothaAug 16, 2010
The bubble was mostly a construction bubble. There must be two or three construction workers for every available job now.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
You can practice a trade and still not have a place to work. If you've been taught construction, you're a construction worker by trade. Though he may not be actively practicing his trade right now, he still has the skills to do the trade.
libertyfrogAug 16, 2010
Construction jobs are contracted. If you are in between contracts then you are unemployed, but your profession is still construction.
iph0neAug 16, 2010
Yeah I don't doubt that he would like to do construction work or that he is qualified to do it. But if he is unemployed he is, by definition, not a construction worker.
gneissisniceAug 16, 2010
Good, they need to do this more often. Stupid shmuck gets caught driving drunk 9 times, he clearly can't control himself and he needs to be put away before he kills someone.
And to the guy in the article who said "He has a disease, he's not being malicious", bulls**t. The number one rule in driving is "Don't drink and drive", and no one's forcing the guy to get hammered before he gets home. If he has a "disease" then it's up to him to try to conquer it. He failed miserably, and I doubt the "He's got a disease" argument will work well when he kills someone because he's too smashed to drive his car.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Aug 16, 2010
It's real simple. If it is a disease, then it's already been ruled that just like people with AIDS having unprotected sex, it's murder. If it's a choice and not a disease, you don't have the right to choose to put anyone else's life in danger, which is PROVABLY what you're doing every time you crawl behind the wheel when drunk. Can't have it both way
mattm0914Aug 16, 2010
“Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only one you can get yelled at for having. Goddamn it Otto, you are an alcoholic. Goddamn it Otto, you have Lupus... one of those two doesn't sound right.” - Mitch Hedberg
smacksawAug 16, 2010
Saying alcoholism is a disease is a disease itself.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Anyone else ever notice Daily Mail runs a lot of stories about things happening in the US that seem like local issues? At least I see a lot of things on Digg where that is the case. Does that seem odd for a paper from the UK?
samurimasterAug 16, 2010
It's England, nothing interesting happens. Texas on the other hand has a judge named Billy Ray Stubblefield, and that's bound to be interesting.
phramusAug 16, 2010
Not odd. They're just pointing out how stupid we are .. probably feeling relief that we escaped.
protogenxlAug 16, 2010
Let's make something clear here this is the !0th time he has been charged with a DUI. This man is a Danger to society ,Life may be harsh but he belongs in jail for at least 10 years with no parole.
chrisluzaderAug 16, 2010
Like this will solve anything.
7king7kingAug 16, 2010
at least it's solved for this person
mattm0914Aug 16, 2010
You do realize that prisoners are not allowed to leave prison, right? It's not like he gets out for weekends and holidays. I'm almost positive this will actually solve everything regarding this individual and his habitual drunk driving.
bartledooAug 16, 2010
Actually, it has. It keeps this guy off of the roads so he doesn't kill anybody.
chrisluzaderAug 16, 2010
Well, one person gets put away for life. This will stop this one person (which is great), but will it make a dent in DUIs?
mattm0914Aug 16, 2010
This one guy was contributing to the total amount of DUIs being committed. So, yes, it will make a dent in DUIs. It may be a small dent, but it means a lot to the people living in the communities he was endangering. Putting him away for good might have saved one life, maybe a handful of lives... isn't that worth it? It's a bit extreme, but I really doubt he'll serve the whole sentence. Maybe he'll spend a year or two in jail, dry up, get released, and finally straighten up.
chrisluzaderAug 16, 2010
You're right. Thanks for putting some optimism in my day :)
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
What are you talking about? The problem is that he is a danger to the community. The problem is solved.
metasenseAug 16, 2010
You can get life for shooting out lights in Texas?!
Somehow I'm finding this hard to believe.
tsothaAug 16, 2010
If you were firing a gun randomly in your neighborhood and got caught nine times, you most certainly would be in jail for life. You might not get a "life" sentence, but you'd have to live another 350 years to get out.
poesybeaterAug 16, 2010
One the one hand, Texas LOVES guns. On the other hand, Texas LOVES putting people to death.
celarnorAug 16, 2010
What's really weird is that Texas doesn't LOVE putting people to death with guns.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution
nexuspAug 16, 2010
Reminds me of Minority Report. Convict him before he commits a more serious crime. 5 - 10 would have dried him out a bit.
samurai77Aug 16, 2010
You can make sangria in the toilet, of course its shank or be shanked.
--Scruffy
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
"Last month the man, Bobby Stovall drove his pick up across several lanes of oncoming traffic before hitting another car and injuring the driver. At the time of the incident which occurred in Round Rock, Texas Stovall was found to have a blood alcohol level of .32, four times the legal limit."
On behalf of the injured party: "f**k you"
http://newsbythesecond.com/after-9th-dwi-texas-man-sentenced-to-life-in-prison/4161/
gtragnarokAug 16, 2010
Wonder what his fellow prisoners will say.
"How'd you guys get life?"
"Murder"
"Murder"
"Murder"
"Drunk driving"
...
americangunnerAug 16, 2010
more like
"murder"
"murder"
"downloading movies"
"murder"
"drunk driving"
gotbannedagainAug 16, 2010
more like
"murder"
"murder"
"downloading movies"
"murder"
"selling pot"
"drunk driving"
phramusAug 16, 2010
And they all moved away from me ...
crytekemployee3Aug 16, 2010
I hope they serve him water until he dies
gilbesAug 16, 2010
So the justification for the sentance was that he MIGHT kill someone.
Many many people have not gotten life sentances for ACTUALLY killing someone.
There is innoncent until proven guilty. And now we have guitly of crimes one might commit, when doing something without intent to commit the potential crime.
The US criminal industrial complex isn't f**ked up at all.
tsothaAug 16, 2010
No, the justification for the sentence probably went something like this:
1) You got popped for drunk driving. That's annoying, because we took your license away and sent you to rehab so this wouldn't happen again, but here you are.
2) You were in an accident while drunk. Did you not understand you're not supposed to drive even when you're sober? Now you go to jail, and when you're on probation you're not allowed to drink.
3) You were in another drunk accident when you still don't have a license. Well, you'll never have one now. I remember your face from the last time I sent you to the big house. Okay, in you go again for longer. When you get out you're in a lot of trouble if you so much as drink some cough syrup.
4) Okay, we caught you again. What is this now, eight? Now you go in even longer. I'm through with you, buddy. If this happens again I guaran-f**king-tee you it'll be the last time.
5) Life.
gilbesAug 16, 2010
Or instead pf making s**t up like it is a fairy tale RTFA:
"and before he kills someone, we decided to put him away,’ said Williamson County district attorney John Bradley"
His sentance was based on what they assume might happen if he does it again, not based on what he actually has done.
Maybe someone who gets caught talking on their cell phone 9 times (studies show its as bad as drunk driving) in their life should get life in prison too.
Have you talked on your cell phone 9 times or more while driving. Admit it, you f**king MURDERER!
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnfluxAug 16, 2010
gilbes, you'd have to be caught and arrested 9 times for talking on the cell phone while driving, to make it an analogy.
tsothaAug 16, 2010
I did read the article. His record isn't there, and I can't find details with a quick search.
The fact that the prosecutor asked for a harsh sentence is irrelevant. Prosecutors always ask for the moon. What's important is the fact that the judge actually handed down the sentence.
And also, something the Mail article doesn't note, with good behavior he will probably be out on parole in 5 years. That makes me think the judge gave him a life sentence to make sure he's on parole for life and not to put him in jail for life.
sageerrantAug 16, 2010
Right, except that he's been busted for this nine times already.
The fact that he hasn't actually hurt anyone doesn't mean it's okay that he risked it, just like it's not okay to run a red light or fire a gun in a public area as long as you don't hit anyone.
Do that enough times (say, nine), and A) it is extremely reasonable to assume that you'll do it again, and B) you've committed an extremely dangerous crime enough times that it deserves a harsh sentence. He's only managed to avoid killing anyone by being lucky, but you can't say that he hasn't tried.
gilbesAug 16, 2010
By your logic it is extremely reasonable to assume that he us unlikely to injure anyone while drunk driving. He was caught 9 times and has never injured anyone drunk driving. If we want to play the stats game like that.
gusterbearAug 16, 2010
The question is, is this life with or without parole? Because if it is with parole, he could get out but he'd be on a thin thin rope.
damphoudAug 16, 2010
@gilbes
You've committed a gamblers fallacy. Occurrences of the past which bare nothing on the probability are taken into consideration (i.e. last deck in blackjack was poor... this deck must be good). Every time he drives drunk, he bares the same probability of having an accident.
I can understand your point, though. He has been under the influence at least 9 times while drinking, so perhaps you would think that he might be not as bad of a driver while he is drunk relative to other drunk drivers. The only way to come close to this conclusion is if we actually test his drunk driving, and compare his results against others. Perhaps he was pulled over so many times because he is a very bad drunk driver and is spotted easily. I know guys - well, idiots - who drink and drive home from bars almost every weekend, and they are never caught...
Regardless... it seems a life sentence is a bit steep as the it's against speculation. Although, I have no idea what an appropriate sentence would be - obviously the guy has something wrong with his ability to wager risks while drunk. Maybe he needs to learn to not become drunk (or abstain completely) rather than messing his life up further.
ziffelAug 16, 2010
"There is innoncent until proven guilty. And now we have guitly of crimes one might commit, when doing something without intent to commit the potential crime."
Texas recently got that newfangled Minority Report system.
friesandcokeAug 16, 2010
Someone had to get those kids to school on time, god damnit!
zombiesocietyAug 16, 2010
At what point do you force someone to get help? He's clearly not well enough to do it himself, but how did they just decide he wasn't worth saving? Yeah, he's a criminal, OK. He's also blatantly really f**king sick. We all hate drunk drivers, but were his intentions malicious? Is it really "deliberately" breaking the law when you can't think properly?
fuzybunyAug 16, 2010
I don't get how anybody can see this as excessive. This is his 9th offense and I don't know if you all noticed but people do die in accidents caused by drunk driving. He purposely consumed alcohol and then got behind the wheel he should suffer the consequences before some innocent person does.
I also loathe the fact that people call alcoholism a disease. Stop making excuses for these asshats.
peterodactylAug 16, 2010
Sober drivers kill more people than drunk drivers.
xixphzAug 16, 2010
except that drunk driving is preventable.
peterodactylAug 16, 2010
@xixphz: Apparently not.
phramusAug 16, 2010
One of the stupidest comments I've ever seen. Congratulations.
zombiesocietyAug 16, 2010
At what point do you force someone to get help? He's clearly not well enough to do it himself, but how did they just decide he wasn't worth saving? Yeah, he's a criminal, OK. He's also blatantly really f**king sick. Did he REFUSE to make changes? Or was he UNABLE? Were his intentions malicious? Or is it really "deliberately" breaking the law when you can't think properly?
And of course he "could have" killed someone. That doesn't explain why he deserves a harsher punishment than some of those who HAVE killed someone. Some people have deliberately commuted murder and gotten of lighter. Why is nearly killing someone worse than killing someone?
I'm not defending his actions. I'm saying this isn't the solution.
barrettandersonAug 16, 2010
If those who have killed people while under the influence learn their lesson, then I'd rather have them on the road than someone who never learns their lesson.
Maybe there's some program that would have helped him, but comparing him to people who were less lucky than him is not a good argument.
People are let out of prison after a certain amount of time because the court that sentenced him thought they'd learn their lesson by then. If a deliberate murderer learns his lesson after 20 years, I'd rather have them out of jail than someone who continually puts lives at risk, even after jail terms. Maybe it isn't deserved, but the legal system isn't only about punishment. It's also partly about teaching people, as well as protecting everyone else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bintoAug 16, 2010
more non-violent offenders soaking up the US prison system's money uselessly.
Fine the s**t out of him and give him community service for 10 years. There's a way to pay for the crime that doesn't siphon tax payers' dollars.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
"Last month the man, Bobby Stovall drove his pick up across several lanes of oncoming traffic before hitting another car and injuring the driver. At the time of the incident which occurred in Round Rock, Texas Stovall was found to have a blood alcohol level of .32, four times the legal limit."
Your concept of non violent is retarded.
http://newsbythesecond.com/after-9th-dwi-texas-man-sentenced-to-life-in-prison/4161/
khastAug 16, 2010
I say the punishment for DUI should be:
Whatever vehicle the driver was driving should be confiscated, regardless of who it belongs to. Let it be a punishment for the driver, and if it isn't his, the owner for allowing the drunk driver to operate his vehicle. (Unless the owner can prove that the driver stole the vehicle of course.)
A minimum of 90 days in jail, unless the driver caused a death, then treat the death as 1st degree murder. (I just don't buy the "not in the right mind" as an excuse, people who unintentionally kill someone while not drunk often get worse sentences than a drunk who kills someone...it is the same f**king thing.)
A minimum of a $10,000 fine for the FIRST offense.
100% of the damage they cause while driving drunk, should be paid for by the driver. (They do $1million worth of damage, they should be liable for it.)
Oh, and just for good measure, I like how Australia marks all people's vehicles who have been convicted of DUI... On the hood of the vehicle, a large "D" is painted, so people know to stay out of his way, and officers can make his life more difficult if he makes any erratic maneuvers on the road. (Sure, they might think the police are picking on them, but they had the choice of drinking and driving.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a preventative measure make it so bars (or other facilities which serve alcohol) have to have designated drivers available (at a cost) who work along side with the police. If a drunk leaves the bar and gets into the drivers' seat of a vehicle, the police should be called immediately, with the license plate number, and direction the driver was headed.
Personally, I feel a point should be made to those who think they can drive "flawless" when drunk, that it is an unacceptable behavior, and their lives will be made a living hell.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
catvllvsAug 16, 2010
"Oh, and just for good measure, I like how Australia marks all people's vehicles who have been convicted of DUI... On the hood of the vehicle, a large "D" is painted,"
Are you sure about that?
khastAug 16, 2010
Well, that is what a friend told me who lives in Australia. I've never been there myself, so I can neither confirm nor deny.
alepennAug 16, 2010
i heard that laura bush killed a guy
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
There's no "D" painted on the vehicles here...
If you loose your license a few times you can be bumped back down to a probationary driver which requires you put "P Plates" on your car... but all new drivers have these anyway.
khastAug 16, 2010
Thanks for the info.
poesybeaterAug 16, 2010
I guess you've never read The Scarlet Letter, huh?
azuvectorAug 16, 2010
I'm against drunk drivers like anyone sane, but there's a better alternative:
1. License gone for life.
2. Vehicle(s) impounded and sold at auction.
3. Banned from getting car insurance ever again. Someone with no plates is easy to spot, if he does get on the road again.
khyberkitsuneAug 16, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
fungowskiAug 16, 2010
there's a registry for motor vehicle offenders?
azuvectorAug 16, 2010
@khberkitsune:
Curious about #3: where you're from, is lack of insurance not enough to have a cop pull you off the road and impound your car?
timmyftwAug 16, 2010
None of those things you mentioned would physically stop someone from getting into a car drunk and starting it up and driving off.
azuvectorAug 16, 2010
@Various naysayers:
If someone's ignoring all that--and there's no mention that this particular guy is in the article--then yeah, by all means, lock them up, barring extenuating circumstances.
Again though, there's no indication steps were taken to prevent this person from driving, aside from the mention of a solitary arrest a year ago, that's presumably for drunk driving, but not explicitly stated as being so.
4ndr01dAug 16, 2010
maybe put him in a city where you dont need to DRIVE a CAR
gilbesAug 16, 2010
Studies show talking on the cell phone while driving is as bad as drunk driving.
If you have talked on your cell phone 9 times or more in a 20 year time span you should be locked up for life. And that includes just about all of you.
Justice for all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnfluxAug 16, 2010
Arrested 9 times.
fungowskiAug 16, 2010
good call. this means he probably did it 900 times.
gilbesAug 16, 2010
"good call. this means he probably actually drove drunk hundreds of times."
Then statistically he would be unlikley to kill anyone since he is so good at it. All this stupid reasoning is a fun slippery slope.
And of course when someone is convicted of doing something we must assume they have done it X number of times, where X is a number pulled out of the ass and they must be punished for X times.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
timmyftwAug 16, 2010
Wake the f**k up. If you were arrested and convicted 9 times of talking on your cell and driving then you too deserve to go to jail for life.
celarnorAug 16, 2010
Speak for yourself. I don't touch the phone in the car, never have. It can ring and beep all it wants. First, there are way too many police officers around here (Rochester's colorful 19th Ward; police CARS travel in pairs around here) that I'd almost be guranteed to be sighted on my daily drive. Second, and more importantly, its incredibly stupid for precisely the reason you've cited: its a dangerous and self-destructive habit.
I don't care who's calling me, nor do I care about the contents of some text message. It can wait.
I'd totally support your proposed measure--though it'd probably be more cost-effective to pass legislation barring them from purchasing cellular service or something.
resistoonAug 16, 2010
Cancer is a disease.....drinking and driving is a choice!
nameivomAug 16, 2010
You seem to forget this is America and everything here a disease that has a nice little pill that will solve all your problems. No work on your part needed! I am of course being sarcastic with this response.
(Sent from iDigg)
digitalistAug 16, 2010
I love my state!!!
digitalistAug 16, 2010
OMG that's awesome...
this even happened in my county!
tgc1Aug 16, 2010
His license should be permanently revoked and he should be made to do mandatory community service. But life sentence for a crime he hasn't committed? That's f**king PRE-CRIME!
timmyftwAug 16, 2010
"But life sentence for a crime he hasn't committed?
He did commit the f**king crime you idiot. He was convicted 9 f**kING TIMES for it! That 9 out of the probable countless times he got wasted, got behind the wheel of a car and drove the same streets as childeren, brothers, mothers, fathers ect. It has gotten to the point that if this guy had his freedom, his first order of business will be to get wasted and then drive. I'm glad this isn't one of those situations where they had to wait for someone to die before sending this waste of air to prison.
cameleopardAug 16, 2010
@Timmyftw
He's been sentenced to life in prison for a nonviolent crime. I don't give a s**t what he did, unless he's actually caused the harm requisite to be locked away for the rest of his life this is unjust. And yeah, it is essentially thought crime, because he wasn't jailed on the basis of prior actions but rather on speculation of what he might do if allowed to continue driving. What kind of f**king douchebag would so blithely take away another man's entire life without just cause? You, apparently.
tgc1Aug 16, 2010
@Timmyftw4 -- He killed someone? When? The premise they are using to lock him up for life is that he MIGHT kill someone. Read the f**king article next time.
platypusrexAug 16, 2010
I though that alcoholism is a disease. At least that is what I was bull s**tted. You cant jail someone for being sick.
fungowskiAug 16, 2010
A fair point. I also wonder why some murderers are "not guilty by reason of insanity" while others are jailed or executed. When you think about it, aren't all murderers insane? Even if you're the cold, calculating doctor who meticulously planned your wife's death, there's still something f**ked up rattling around in your brain. There's some kind of weird disconnect that allows all murderer's to leap that moral gap that the other 99.9% of us would never even conceive of crossing. It's a reflection of insane narcissism.- being so self-involved that you can't put yourself into the victim's shoes or even think of them as an equal entity to you. No matter what else you have going on upstairs, if you kill somebody you're f**ked up.
pagangodAug 16, 2010
I guess the question is what did he do between convictions #1 and #8 to fight that disease?
And at what point do you say "man, I have absolutely no control over my drinking, I should sell my car so that there's no way that I can drink and drive."
Call it what you want, but it doesn't sound like this guy was taking any steps to acknowledge his problem and try to resolve it.
poesybeaterAug 16, 2010
Don't forget, Texas KILLS retarded people. (or elects them president… really a toss of the dice)
mrcocktoastenAug 16, 2010
alcoholism is a disease, but drinking and driving is not
CSA4everAug 16, 2010
Absolutely correct, @Mrc**ktoasten. Alcoholism is a medical/psychological condition that, untreated, results in certain symptoms and follows a predictable path. Yet the alcoholic will not recover unless he takes responsibility for his actions and condition.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
Being an alcoholic is a disease. Drunk driver is being an assh**e. Being a 9 time convicted drunk driver is someone bent on killing.
libertyprimeAug 16, 2010
Man I love our justice system.
windthefrogAug 16, 2010
Why didn't they put him on antabuse permanently? It has to be cheaper then locking him away for life.
I thought that it was required after a certain amount of dUIs.
chilidogsAug 16, 2010
They don't court order antibuse anymore and are you gonna go over to his house everyday and make sure that he takes it and doesn't throw the pill up after you leave?