Posted on 10/29/2010 8:21:11 AM PDT by Buffalo Bob
CONROE, Texas — Montgomery County jurors sent a message that drunk driving in the county will not be tolerated.
George Harvey, 59, was sentenced to life in prison Wednesday after a jury thought eight convictions for driving while intoxicated was too many to let him back on the streets.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
>>>If he had been in Travis county, he would have gotten probation.<<<
If he had been in Wilco, he would have been offered a plea deal: Death penalty or 48,000 hours of community service, and a pant-load of classes + fine.
Are you talking about Williamson county? If so, I agree with your comment. Last year or so, one DUI suspect got caught crossing into Williamson at the Travis county line by a DPS trooper and begged to be allowed to return to Travis county and be arrested there.
“Whatever you say alcoholic troll...”
########
LOL!
About the level of discourse I expected.
Just wow.
You have a nice day.
Yes sir, Williamson County. Come on vacation, leave on probation.
Well, if a guy had a penchant for wandering the streets and randomly shooting a gun, but had yet to hurt anyone, a judge may decide to lock him up indefinitely before he hurts someone.
I don’t think that would be so bad.
After using the googler on the interweb machine, it appears that cell phone usage impairment is similar to persons driving under the influence at 0.08%.
I can validate that statement having done both quite frequently (although not the latter since finding the solution).
It was very infrequent that I would drive at the minimum level of intoxication however. The impairment of cell phone usage at some point hits a ceiling of some sort, while the addition of alcohol impairs a driver exponentially the more that is taken.
I drive a Cap Metro van pool, and my riders often take notes of cell phone usage by drivers. I can always tell who is using a cell or texting ahead of us. That lane has one vehicle with a long vacant area in front of it with no traffic. Drivers are blowing by in each of the available lanes.
and everyday here, I see young people who’s eyes are looking at their lap or the seat next to them...texting....they constantly have their eyes off the road.
a cell phone user can use a blue ray and even make a call without touching a phone...texting requires keypad work and it is the newest deadly thing to do while driving...
Your words not mine.
So, when I say that you can use any name you want as long as he's locked up for life, I am indeed putting the substance over the symbolism.
Again your words.
You argue that the sentence should be 20 years not life even though he still dies in prison. Then you state that it doesn't matter what you call it. Make up your mind. If the intent is for him to die in prison, and I can call it what I like, what is the problem with the life sentence. It meets your criteria for substance and you don't care what it is called. So why did you initiate an argument against it (see your words above).
I'm saying that we could call it "20 years" instead of "life" to make MichaelP happy - and the substance would still be the same: a dirtbag locked up in prison for life.
Do you even understand the term symbolism over substance? You are arguing about the name or appearance rather than the content. That is symbolism over substance.
Ironically, way back in in 1987 I bought a Mazda 626 which came with an optional, dealer-installed “car-phone”, an enormous device by today’s standard, but with the key feature of a HANDS-FREE, visor-mounted microphone. Thus, ONCE THE CALL WAS DIALED, the distractions and physical limitations,(not physiological impairment like alcohol) were indeed lessened. Thus a superior ergonomic and safety design, than what most people use currently.
So yes, the increasingly prevalent modern technology that will remove the hand-held nature of automotive cell-phone usage, will greatly enhance safety.
At present however, that is not yet the predominant modality through which cell phones are deployed in the automobile.
Just throwing out an idea. I’m not going to play Monday-morning quarterback on this one. Obviously the jury heard enough to convince them that this extreme remedy was necessary for the protection of the citizens.
Some people may not realize that each of his two prior felony DWI convictions each carried a minimum 2 year jail sentence. This guy has done significant jail time already and still won’t change his ways.
That is a canard. This guy didn't kill anyone. If he did then he would have been charged with vehicular homicide.
By your logic then speeders should get life too after multiple offenses, after all they will kill someone eventually if they don't stop
Or if someone shoots someone in the leg then charge them with murder for sure because who knows, if they are not stopped this time then they will aim better next time and so on.
Folks here give out life sentences like real hard cases as though prison is just a walk in the park and all...shucks 2-5 years is just not enough for a serial DWI guy and all...better yet ...just lop off his legs and hands so he can't drive ...that will do it.
your comparing someone that goes 10 mph over the limit on the interstate to someone that is on a lifetime binge and drives is twisted logic, not my logic.
They should tack on 5 years of solitary confinement just for that rug.
2 to 10 years is the required jail sentence in Texas for your third DWI, a felony because it is a third occurrence.
I think at his point after two felony DWI’s and many other DWI’s it was time to step it up since he was a habitual criminal.
The guy was not charged with murder.
No. It was a question to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.