Woman Arrested 3 Times in 3 Days for Drunk Driving

[AnneMarble]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnckS4BXiiI8G-FXMHJeneXDXZegD975TCV80

In Wisconsin, a 60-year-old woman visiting from Washington state was arrested three times in three days. The first arrest came when an officer saw her trying to drive out of a ditch while wearing only one shoe. Her blood alcohol level was 0.21. How was she still breathing, let alone driving? :eek:

There was another arrested followed by 12 hours in jail. Then she got out, and guess what? Another arrest! Finally she got sentenced to a grand total of 30 days, plus a $3,000 fine. Oh big whoop. Yeah, that'll teach her not to drive drunk. :rolleyes:

I wonder how many times she's been arrested before? I wonder when the laws will be changed so that they make sense?

There's more information here, including a photo:
http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=10078417&nav=menu683_3

[Bartholomew]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnckS4BXiiI8G-FXMHJeneXDXZegD975TCV80

In Wisconsin, a 60-year-old woman visiting from Washington state was arrested three times in three days. The first arrest came when an officer saw her trying to drive out of a ditch while wearing only one shoe. Her blood alcohol level was 0.21. How was she still breathing, let alone driving? :eek:

There was another arrested followed by 12 hours in jail. Then she got out, and guess what? Another arrest! Finally she got sentenced to a grand total of 30 days, plus a $3,000 fine. Oh big whoop. Yeah, that'll teach her not to drive drunk. :rolleyes:

I wonder how many times she's been arrested before? I wonder when the laws will be changed so that they make sense?

There's more information here, including a photo:
http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=10078417&nav=menu683_3


$3,000 is pretty hefty where I'm from. And a month in jail isn't exactly pleasant. *I'D* learn from that particular experience, and I'll dare to suggest that other people would too.

What do you think would have been an appropriate punishment? She's probably a hangover away from losing her DL, if she hasn't already -- assuming she even had one.

[Cyia]

$3,000 is pretty hefty where I'm from. And a month in jail isn't exactly pleasant. *I'D* learn from that particular experience, and I'll dare to suggest that other people would too.


A compulsive drunk won't though.

[AnneMarble]

$3,000 is pretty hefty where I'm from. And a month in jail isn't exactly pleasant. *I'D* learn from that particular experience, and I'll dare to suggest that other people would too.
But I wouldn't be surprised if we learn later that she's been there this before. If so, I'm sure she's already paid a fine here, a fine there. And yes, $3,000 is a lot of money. But maybe if she had been fined $3,000 and jailed the first time, she wouldn't have been able to do it twice again. Heck, some people have pointed out that she should have been hospitalized because her blood alcohol was so high.

What do you think would have been an appropriate punishment? She's probably a hangover away from losing her DL, if she hasn't already -- assuming she even had one.
Some places have stricter laws with far longer sentences for repeat offenders. Also, they don't just take away your license -- they take away your car. (Yes, even if other family members use it, so I don't think that's the best solution, either.)

[TerzaRima]

I am still finishing up the box of wine in my car from yesterday

This would make a great first line of a short story. She apparently said this to the arresting officer.

As far as learning from her experiences, many people of this age who have been drinking at this level for many years have boofooed their frontal lobes and are not in a great position, neurologically speaking, to learn about anything.

[Cassiopeia]

What I want to know is why she still has a license. From my point of view, you drink and drive you should get your license revoked. Simple as that. No excuse, no second chances. Zip, Zilch, Nada!

[icerose]

What I want to know is why she still has a license. From my point of view, you drink and drive you should get your license revoked. Simple as that. No excuse, no second chances. Zip, Zilch, Nada!

I agree with you there. I've lost too many people to drunk drivers to have any sympathy.

[mlhernandez]

But revoking a license won't keep dangerous drunks off the road. If they're big enough asshats to drive after a drink, they're big enough jerks to drive without licenses. When I worked as a medic, I'd see this time and again. DH still sees it when he responds to collisions with drunk drivers involved. No license, uninsured, and a driving record three feet long.

These people are just pathetic, selfish jackasses who'll keep dragging their drunk asses into vehicles until they plow into a car carrying someone's loved one(s).

[whistlelock]

I can speak from some experience here- my father is an alcoholic.

I say he's an alcoholic because he goes to AA meetings, if he didn't he'd just be a drunk.

Anyway- to my point, as long as that woman does not seek treatment, she will continue to drink and drive. Regardless of whether or not she has a license.

She is an addict, and addicts have no regard for you, me, social contracts or anything else that isn't their next trip.

[Cassiopeia]

But revoking a license won't keep dangerous drunks off the road. If they're big enough asshats to drive after a drink, they're big enough jerks to drive without licenses. When I worked as a medic, I'd see this time and again. DH still sees it when he responds to collisions with drunk drivers involved. No license, uninsured, and a driving record three feet long.

These people are just pathetic, selfish jackasses who'll keep dragging their drunk asses into vehicles until they plow into a car carrying someone's loved one(s). Well, I say lock them up then. In this state you can't buy booze without a license. And while that won't get rid of the problem entirely it will make an impact.

[Snowstorm]

To impose a real punishment (and I don't consider 30 days in jail and a $3,000 fine real punishment for a third offense in three days), perhaps the state is waiting until she kills someone.

* Pure sarcasm. *

[Don]

What's the big deal? It's not like she was smoking pot, carrying concealed without a permit, flying a Gadsden flag and sporting a Ron Paul bumper sticker while trolling for Johns. Then we'd have a real criminal on our hands. :rolleyes:

ETA: For those who missed the joke, I was making light of the continual waste of law enforcement efforts on ridiculous 'crimes' while drunk drivers and other real criminals get a pass.

[icerose]

But revoking a license won't keep dangerous drunks off the road. If they're big enough asshats to drive after a drink, they're big enough jerks to drive without licenses. When I worked as a medic, I'd see this time and again. DH still sees it when he responds to collisions with drunk drivers involved. No license, uninsured, and a driving record three feet long.

These people are just pathetic, selfish jackasses who'll keep dragging their drunk asses into vehicles until they plow into a car carrying someone's loved one(s).

Just because someone will continue to do something anyway, is no excuse for law enforcement to let them continue to drive. Their vehicle should be impounded, if it belongs to someone else it should be released under high fines, if it is theirs they never get it back, if there are leins against it, it goes to whoever has the leins.

The driverslicense should be immediately taken away for good, and any future driving/driving while drunk should have steep steep fines and long jail sentences.

Just because someone will do it anyway is no reason to not have the punishment.

That's like saying "Well that child molester will offend again, so why bother even carting him off to jail in the first place?"

[Albedo]

see Cube, car crushed into.

[Priene]

Well, I say lock them up then. In this state you can't buy booze without a license. And while that won't get rid of the problem entirely it will make an impact.

You want to make it illegal for non-drivers to buy alcohol? I presume you realise some people choose not to learn to drive?

[SHBueche]

I heard on the radio the other day, that some cars now have not only tests to pass before you turn your car on, but intermittent tests, as you drive. I'll find a URL and post.

[SHBueche]

Sorry couldn't find anything about breathalyzer tests, WHILE you are driving, but there are plenty of articles on the web about breathalyzer tests in general, DWI's, etc.

[Jean Marie]

What's the big deal? It's not like she was smoking pot, carrying concealed without a permit, flying a Gadsden flag and sporting a Ron Paul bumper sticker while trolling for Johns. Then we'd have a real criminal on our hands. :rolleyes:

ETA: For those who missed the joke, I was making light of the continual waste of law enforcement efforts on ridiculous 'crimes' while drunk drivers and other real criminals get a pass.
:roll: I didn't miss it.

Sadly, drunk driving isn't taken seriously enough. Driving under the influence of any substance that causes an accident, meds, pot, alcohol should be enough to lose your license and car for an indefinite period of time before someone loses their life. Period.

Why anyone would have a problem w/ that, is beyond me.

[robeiae]

What's the big deal? It's not like she was smoking pot, carrying concealed without a permit, flying a Gadsden flag and sporting a Ron Paul bumper sticker while trolling for Johns. Then we'd have a real criminal on our hands. :rolleyes:

ETA: For those who missed the joke, I was making light of the continual waste of law enforcement efforts on ridiculous 'crimes' while drunk drivers and other real criminals get a pass.
Stop crossing the threads, Don. It could be bad.

[Don]

Yeah, we could get the warped mixed up with the woofed and I'd end up a dog.

[Jean Marie]

http://gizmodo.com/5138287/car-breathalyzer-mistakes-ice-cream-for-alcohol-doesnt-let-man-drive-home

You may want to hand your keys over after a pint of Ben and Jerry's, because in Australia, a man's car breathalyzer refused to start his engine after he ate an Ice Cream Bar.

and, now for the serious one :D couldn't resist.

http://www.motorists.org/blog/mandatory-in-car-breathalyzers-coming/

If you’re not a convicted drunk driver, should you still be required to have an in-car breathalyzer fitted (at your expense, ‘natch) to your next new vehicle?

Apparently, some automakers — including GM and Toyota — think so. They and a few others are working together under the auspices of something called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, which is a $10 million federal “research program” that is trying to develop just such technology for mass introduction a few years from now.

[Jean Marie]

Stop crossing the threads, Don. It could be sad.
righto.

Yeah, we could get the warped mixed up with the woofed and I'd end up a dog.
ARF!

[Don]

DADSS - the daddy state strikes again. :roll:

Considering that I kept my current car (a sports car already equipped at my own expense with a four-point safety harness) three years longer than originally intended to protest the mandatory seat belt law, I imagine you can guess what I think of this idea. :D

[Zoombie]

Sheet.

When do we get cars that can tell your drunkedness level and say, "No, you can't drive till your sober."

[Jean Marie]

Breathalyzer is dumb. If you don't know when you shouldn't drive, then you're way beyond being responsible. But then that's the point.

[Jean Marie]

Zoom, that would be the breathalyer.

[Don]

If no one but the drunks got killed, I'd throw all the drunk-driving laws out the window. Government does entirely too good a job of protecting the stupid already, and we're becoming a nation of children. Think of it as evolution in action.

However, given that driving drunk is the equivalent of negligent assault with a deadly weapon, I don't understand why even a first conviction shouldn't garner some serious jail time. Driving drunk is equivalent to shooting a gun through a crowded room, and anyone would go to jail for that in a heartbeat. What's the sentence for that? Let's make them equivalent.

[Jean Marie]

I couldn't agree more, Don. First offense, you're gone.

A car is a deadly weapon. A 10 ton one. More damage than a gun can do.

[mlhernandez]

Just because someone will continue to do something anyway, is no excuse for law enforcement to let them continue to drive. Their vehicle should be impounded, if it belongs to someone else it should be released under high fines, if it is theirs they never get it back, if there are leins against it, it goes to whoever has the leins.

The driverslicense should be immediately taken away for good, and any future driving/driving while drunk should have steep steep fines and long jail sentences.

Just because someone will do it anyway is no reason to not have the punishment.

That's like saying "Well that child molester will offend again, so why bother even carting him off to jail in the first place?"

Er...I'm not sure how you took my post to mean I think repeat offenders should be patted on the head and sent tra-la-la along their merry way. My point is that, in reality, it's almost impossible to keep drunk drivers off the roads. There's always going to be a friend or a family member who will allow them to borrow a vehicle. You'd have to have cops working traffic at every intersection to catch every single drunk in a car. And even then impounding the vehicle will be an after the fact occurence.

Even with breathalyzers mounted in vehicles, drunks can get around them. Hell, I remember a head-on collision with a drunk driver and a family of three on the way back from a T-ball game where the drunk driver had a breathalyzer mounted in his vehicle. How did he drive then? Oh, simple really. He had a friend blow into the machine. Nice, right?

Look, the only way to stop drunk driving is to educate drivers and aggressively treat alcoholism. All the fines and impounds in the world aren't going to stop a manipulative drunk from finagling his/her way into a driver's seat.

[cethklein]

What I want to know is why she still has a license. From my point of view, you drink and drive you should get your license revoked. Simple as that. No excuse, no second chances. Zip, Zilch, Nada!

Agreed. It's not like anyone forces people to drink and drive. if they ere even semi-harsh on drunk drivers, they could cut the DUI fatality rate in half.

[Snowstorm]

Amen, cethklein. No one gets drunk by accident. My bet is drunk drivers know ahead of time they'll be toasted, and are too lazy/stupid/selfish to care and do anything to prevent it.

[Zoombie]

"My right to swing my fist ends at your nose."

Every single congressperson and senator should have that tattooed on their arm, eyelids, forehead, and buttocks.

[benbradley]

In some countries she couldn't get three DUI's in three YEARS, because she'd be in prison for those years.
If no one but the drunks got killed, I'd throw all the drunk-driving laws out the window. Government does entirely too good a job of protecting the stupid already, and we're becoming a nation of children. Think of it as evolution in action.

However, given that driving drunk is the equivalent of negligent assault with a deadly weapon, I don't understand why even a first conviction shouldn't garner some serious jail time.
It does get prison time in many other countries. By comparison MADD in the USA has done very little to increase DUI penalties since its inception, and over the decades has changed to become a temperance organization.
Even with breathalyzers mounted in vehicles, drunks can get around them.
Not if they're locked up. They wouldn't drive, because they're not going anywhere for a while.
Look, the only way to stop drunk driving is to educate drivers and aggressively treat alcoholism.
Ain't touchin' that...well, maybe later.
Agreed. It's not like anyone forces people to drink and drive. if they ere even semi-harsh on drunk drivers, they could cut the DUI fatality rate in half.
I don't have figures, but I have no doubt DUI fatality rates in many other countries are MUCH less than half the USA rate, and not just the countries whose punishments include flogging.

[icerose]

Look, the only way to stop drunk driving is to educate drivers and aggressively treat alcoholism. All the fines and impounds in the world aren't going to stop a manipulative drunk from finagling his/her way into a driver's seat.

Our laws are way too leinient on drivers under the influence is what I'm saying. I know it won't stop the absolute determined, but there are many others who would learn from it. Even if it wasn't a lifetime ban, heck just 3 years on a first time offense would be a better start than what we have now.

And you want to stop friends and family from lending out their cars, they get to pay the steep fine to get their car back, what are the odds they'll ever lend it out again? Low.

Person driving drunk while having a breathalizer in it, they lose their car and license. It won't stop people from doing stupid things, but many laws don't either, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.