[2001ragtop]

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/melrose-pla...171455897.html

This story is pretty amazing. Because they are saying the actress must serve what appears to be close to 7 years jail time before any chance of parole. (I agree with the punishment but I rarely read about that happening to drunk drivers).

She is 40, with 2 kids. She was drinking heavily. She left a party. On the way home, she rear-ends someone. (when she rear-ended the first person, no one was killed. At this point she could have turned off the car, and waited for the cops. This would have resulted in some fines, and a DUI, but probably no kind of jail time at all.)

However, the first person she hit, told the drunk woman to turn off her car. Instead, the actress drove away. So the person who got hit followed her. The actress ended up driving very fast trying to escape, and wrecked going 50mph into someone else (and the second accident resulted with one death, and one serious injury).

The most Amazing part of this story is that she is age 40 with 2 kids, and still sees nothing wrong at all about getting drunk to the point of being 3-times the legal limit, then going to drive around. (She actually left a party having to do with her job, which means she did have a job that she likely needed for an income.)

The second amazing thing is that the person she hit first, actually got back in her car and chased her down. Normally, most people don’t do that. They just write down a plate and call the cops. (The members of Camaro5 would ABSOLUTELY chase someone down if they got rear ended. maybe she hit a camaro..?)

The person who chased her down to me was very brave and also fascinating. Perhaps she should not have done anything and just called the police. The person who chased her probably "hates people who drink drunk", and she did desperately want to make sure the driver did not escape.

“chasing her down” likely did lead to the 2nd fatal crash, and the defendant tried to “put the blame” on the person chasing her, but that didn’t work.

If you are going to drink heavily to the point of passing out at least stay home or sleep in your car.

[family man]

Lock her up and throw the key away.

[Sir Nuke]

and why didn't the lady who was "chasing" her call 911 and report her in the first place.....

[Mr. iNCREDIBLE]

11 years ago my first wife was killed by a DUI, and while I don't condone it, I have to agree with the fact that the person chasing her didn't help the situation and she should be partly at fault for the second accident..

I have the same feelings about police that pursue DUI's, they usually cause the situation to be much worse that it had to be.. Panic sets in and the Drunk Driver tries to get away..



7 years is a good chunk of time and will change this woman's life and the lives of her kids drastically. Though IMO it is not enough time to vindicate the death she caused.

[purkel]

its hard to read the news these days. life seems cheap, corruption is everywhere and you never know when tragedy might find you.

i probably would have followed the drunk driver too... although I'd keep quite a bit of distance and call 911 while i was following her. 911 would probably tell me to stop chasing her.

i think she deserves her jail verdict.

[Scalded Dog]

Originally Posted by Mr. iNCREDIBLE

11 years ago my first wife was killed by a DUI, and while I don't condone it, I have to agree with the fact that the person chasing her didn't help the situation and she should be partly at fault for the second accident..

I have the same feelings about police that pursue DUI's, they usually cause the situation to be much worse that it had to be.. Panic sets in and the Drunk Driver tries to get away..



7 years is a good chunk of time and will change this woman's life and the lives of her kids drastically. Though IMO it is not enough time to vindicate the death she caused.

Cops MUST pursue offenders... it doesn't make THAT much difference on a one to one basis, but if the general (lawbreaking) public were to learn that to avoid being caught, all they need to do is gas it and go, pretty soon NOBODY would stop for a lawman. And only the very few, very honest, very cooperative would ever be caught and prosecuted... leaving those who flee unpunished. It's a "big picture" issue... (and this opinion is coming from a guy who has attempted evading a few times--- sometimes successfully, but not always--- and been to jail for it. Those youthful years were pretty wild... but even then, I would NOT have fled IF I thought there were severe, harsh penalties for doing so. Back in the day, the penalties were not harsh, compared to today's stiff penalties, which I support entirely).

[Mr. iNCREDIBLE]

Originally Posted by Scalded Dog

Cops MUST pursue offenders... it doesn't make THAT much difference on a one to one basis, but if the general (lawbreaking) public were to learn that to avoid being caught, all they need to do is gas it and go, pretty soon NOBODY would stop for a lawman. And only the very few, very honest, very cooperative would ever be caught and prosecuted... leaving those who flee unpunished. It's a "big picture" issue... (and this opinion is coming from a guy who has attempted evading a few times--- sometimes successfully, but not always--- and been to jail for it. Those youthful years were pretty wild... but even then, I would NOT have fled IF I thought there were severe, harsh penalties for doing so. Back in the day, the penalties were not harsh, compared to today's stiff penalties, which I support entirely).

I understand police must pursue, I just don't completely agree with it in all circumstances, you can't outrun a radio, or a helicopter for the most part, when dealing with someone who will panic and run, which is most people who are very drunk, other tactics should be employed before lighting them up to ensure they can't gun it and go..

and how often is it really 1 on 1? there is always an innocent bystander around, be it a pedestrian or another vehicle.

[Scalded Dog]

Originally Posted by Mr. iNCREDIBLE

I understand police must pursue, I just don't completely agree with it in all circumstances, you can't outrun a radio, or a helicopter for the most part, when dealing with someone who will panic and run, which is most people who are very drunk, other tactics should be employed before lighting them up to ensure they can't gun it and go..

and how often is it really 1 on 1? there is always an innocent bystander around, be it a pedestrian or another vehicle.

I agree that there are circumstances in which it would have been better to have terminated a pursuit... but with almost no exceptions, the knowledge of whether is would have been better to terminate the pursuit can only be known after the fact. At the time the red lights go on, there's no way to know if the driver is intoxicated, texting, sleepy, or has a kidnapped kid in the trunk. Only AFTER a pursuit has ended can anybody say with certainty that it was better or worse to pursue, only because hindsight is 20/20. Bottom line is that the criminals--- the drunks, the outlaws, the bad guys--- ARE indeed responsible for accidents that occur during pursuits. The cops pursue when somebody has done something wrong (or appears to have), and pursuits only happen when the pursued makes ANOTHER bad decision to run.

[Mr. iNCREDIBLE]

Originally Posted by Scalded Dog

I agree that there are circumstances in which it would have been better to have terminated a pursuit... but with almost no exceptions, the knowledge of whether is would have been better to terminate the pursuit can only be known after the fact. At the time the red lights go on, there's no way to know if the driver is intoxicated, texting, sleepy, or has a kidnapped kid in the trunk. Only AFTER a pursuit has ended can anybody say with certainty that it was better or worse to pursue, only because hindsight is 20/20. Bottom line is that the criminals--- the drunks, the outlaws, the bad guys--- ARE indeed responsible for accidents that occur during pursuits. The cops pursue when somebody has done something wrong (or appears to have), and pursuits only happen when the pursued makes ANOTHER bad decision to run.

yes, but another citizen pursuing as in this case, was also a bad decision, which led to even another bad decision and the second accident. Officers are trained, common folk aren't.


That woman that pursued should share a little of the responsibility, the drunk is at fault yes, but the article even stated she was driving the speed limit 35 mph until she decided to get away from the pursuer..

I put that in the same category as my belief that an unlicensed driver should ALWAYS be at fault for ANY accident they are involved in, because the truth of the matter is, if that unlicensed driver was not driving, he/she would not have been in that spot at that time and that accident would not have occurred.

---

agree to disagree I guess.. I believe there is sufficient technology today for an officer to disable a vehicle electronically if the suspect decides to run.

unfortunately it would fall under "violation of my rights" to do so.

[upflying]

Originally Posted by Mr. iNCREDIBLE

yes, but another citizen pursuing as in this case, was also a bad decision, which led to even another bad decision and the second accident. Officers are trained, common folk aren't.


That woman that pursued should share a little of the responsibility, the drunk is at fault yes, but the article even stated she was driving the speed limit 35 mph until she decided to get away from the pursuer..

I put that in the same category as my belief that an unlicensed driver should ALWAYS be at fault for ANY accident they are involved in, because the truth of the matter is, if that unlicensed driver was not driving, he/she would not have been in that spot at that time and that accident would not have occurred.

---

agree to disagree I guess.. I believe there is sufficient technology today for an officer to disable a vehicle electronically if the suspect decides to run.

unfortunately it would fall under "violation of my rights" to do so.

The pursuing driver probably is sharing some responsibility of the collision..on the civil side.
Bicyclists are unlicensed drivers but are required to obey all the same driving laws on the road.
OnStar has the ability to disable a stolen vehicle at the request of a LEO. No violation of civil rights in that instance.

[Scalded Dog]

Originally Posted by Mr. iNCREDIBLE

... I believe there is sufficient technology today for an officer to disable a vehicle electronically if the suspect decides to run....

Now THAT'S the million dollar question: How can police disable a fleeing vehicle? Certain anti-theft devices may have "Big Brother" capabilities (such as OnStar), but the industry has searched for a clean- stop technology for years... spike strips are about as good as they've got (I had a buddy who got spiked--- four brand new tires ruined--- because the cop "thought the pursuit was in this area" and spiked him... and the cops did NOT pay for the tire mistake, either... even a lawsuit resulted only in, "Sorry, tough break, kid!"). A PIT manuever is dangerous. Whoever figures out how to provide the EMG pulse of "EMP" bomb lore will make a mint selling the tech to police agencies. Apparently, the delivery device is the biggest obstacle to overcome... an ultra high speed RC car? Or, Spiderman- like nets? How about a goo to shoot at the jackrabbit's windsheild, cutting off his visibilty and abilty to drive (probably one of the "rights violations" mentioned in your previous post!). Even a grappling hook that harnesses a vehicle... whatever. We DO need something better than pursuits that end in deaths to innocents.

[Mr. iNCREDIBLE]

Originally Posted by upflying

The pursuing driver probably is sharing some responsibility of the collision..on the civil side.
Bicyclists are unlicensed drivers but are required to obey all the same driving laws on the road.
OnStar has the ability to disable a stolen vehicle at the request of a LEO. No violation of civil rights in that instance.

yup great technology, but not installed in every vehicle on the road, or can be retrofitted to other vehicles, OnStar FMV does not have this ability.

[SleepWarz]

Originally Posted by Mr. iNCREDIBLE

11 years ago my first wife was killed by a DUI, and while I don't condone it, I have to agree with the fact that the person chasing her didn't help the situation and she should be partly at fault for the second accident..

I have the same feelings about police that pursue DUI's, they usually cause the situation to be much worse that it had to be.. Panic sets in and the Drunk Driver tries to get away..



7 years is a good chunk of time and will change this woman's life and the lives of her kids drastically. Though IMO it is not enough time to vindicate the death she caused.

Then we should treat drunk people at the wheel the same as potential murders....

Shoot first, ask questions later.

Maybe they will run less.

Or maybe a james bond like tow cable

[C586]

Originally Posted by Mr. iNCREDIBLE

I put that in the same category as my belief that an unlicensed driver should ALWAYS be at fault for ANY accident they are involved in, because the truth of the matter is, if that unlicensed driver was not driving, he/she would not have been in that spot at that time and that accident would not have occurred.

So if they where a licensed driver the wreck wouldn't have happened. That's retarded. I had driven with a suspended license before and was unaware of that fact because I mailed a plea in a Podunk town and they never got it and suspended me with notification. So somebody rear ends me and its my fault?? That's ridiculous. I'm a better driver than these stupid teenagers on cell phones all the time. They just need to be more strict in general and more difficult to be able to drive.