13-month-old Kaylee Alvarez
Hug your children today. Praise God that there's one less killer on the streets—for a while, at least.
P.S. "MOTORIST"?!?!?
That’s why we need zero tolerance for drunk drivers!
And Freepers who defend them should get the ZOT!
“The defense had argued Dinkins, who had a .20 blood alcohol content at the time of the accident, couldn’t be guilty of murder because he was too drunk to know what he was doing. The legal blood alcohol limit is .08.”
Has to be about the most stupid line of “reasoning” ever proffered by a scumbag defense attorney.
He was sober as he drank and made each decision to have another drink. What he did after he decided to get that drunk (drive) is his responsibility.
The line of reasoning is like saying, “Sure my client purchased a handgun illegally. Sure he loaded it, he hid it on his person, he walked into a bank, he robbed a teller with it. But it wasn’t his fault and it wasn’t his intent that he shot and killed a security guard who tried to stop him. That wasn’t part of his plan.”
The defense attorney argued that he “couldn’t be guilty of murder because he was too drunk to know what he was doing” because of his 0.20% BAC?? That is a disgusting and reprehensible defense!
Sorry you had to endure that trial. That must have been very emotional and disturbing, to say the least.
Sad news from my old hometown.
There are no winners here. And I don’t buy the argument that being drunk absolves one of responsibility for the lives of others. If you’re too stupid not to understand that responsibility, you rightly should face the consequences.
So many Freepers here hate the police and the court system, but you would guess from their postings it all comes from being on the defendant side of the proceedings. As an objective third party, would you have been comfortable casting that vote?
I'm always curious to hear first hand accounts.
FWIW, the crime was premeditated in that the driver drank far into excess, then slid behind the wheel of his weapon. That is my opinion, and is not based in any specific state’s laws.
The gruesomeness of the outcome should not be a factor in the verdict, IMO. The fact that the outcome ended lives is what matters - because the perp didn’t specifically set out to cause such gruesome injuries (i.e.: he did not set out to torture). They were the byproduct of his driving.
Finally, I hope you can forget the images you have endured, and soon. While such pictures may inspire against drinking and driving, they can also tear down one’s soul.
13-month-old Kaylee Alvarez
Jail is too good for him.
IMHO...
There is no law that can be written to prevent this from occasionally happening. We must not fall for the siren song of passing some restrictive law in the name of “saving lives”. Accidents do happen and people die. People do all sorts of crazy things that endanger others, and sometimes the danger results in injury or death.
We have laws that define crimes and punishments and in this case a crime was commited and there has been a conviction.
That’s the process of justice, and it deters crime. Without justice we have chaos.
The convicted will now face the consequences of his action of driving while drunk; jail time, living with this the rest of his life, etc.
If we calculate the number of “drinking days”, i.e., the number of days per year a person has one or more drinks and add that up for every citizen, it’s probably north of 100 billion, as we have 300 million citizens and there are 365 days in a year. So, by and large, people are responsible in their drinking habits. Having DUI laws, or, preemptively punishing and removing someone from the road who has a certain blood alchohol level because of the higher risk they present is a stretch of common law because it is punishing what the law says they are doing which is a high risk. On the other hand, if a person is drunk enough, the risk is so high (when you know they have little chance of making it home in one piece) that it’s very difficult to argue against such a law, as injury appears imminent. The good news for those cases is that those drivers are often driving at night and weaving, and law enforcement knows fairly well exactly where to set up to catch them. And they do catch many of them preemptively.
Though not perfect at avoiding such a tragedy, the way laws are now probably strikes a decent balance between allowing us freedom and self-responsibility while preventing as much tragedy as possible. Our criminal justice system in this case seems to have worked well, and the fact that there are real consequences to our behavior has been reaffirmed one more time.
If this really is the best your lawyer can come up with...plead out. You are boned.
Thank you for serving on the jury. FReepers, serve if you can. Look up “jury nullification” before you go. You have tremendous power as a juror. Serve.
He will not live long in any prison.
Death due to drunk driing is now likely to yield 2nd degree murder in California.
A couple of recent cases in Orange County went that way, including one with a sentence of 51 years in prison.
“Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas said his office has won 49 convictions for drunk driving homicides since 2008.”
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2010/dec/23/man-gets-50-years-fatal-dui-crash/
Long Beach isn’t far from OC and this career thug criminal can expect a ery long sentence.
A few years ago I was called to jury duty for a drunk driving case. I ended up being the alternate. Right after the jury was seated, there was a plea bargain and so there was no need for the jury at all. It was frustrating, but still worthwhile.
Thank you for your service. It’s people like yourself who keep the wheels of justice turning.
I guess they had to come up with some "defense" for their client but wow... just wow.
At an early young age, I saw the carnage drunk drivers can cause in a family. I hope this scum never sees the light of day again.
Thanks for serving on jury duty. It's often looked down upon but I always make it a point to go when called. Sitting on a criminal jury is an amazing and eye-opening experience.
Your response of ‘hug your children’ is very positive after what you went thru sitting on that jury. Most people don’t realize how traumatic sitting on a jury can be. You may need to ‘talk it out,’ with a clergyman or someone else who can help you deal with the emotional aftermath.
They ought to slam the defense attorney into the same cell with this creep for making such an argument.
Eye for an eye.
Why is this pos still breathing?