Someone explain to me what exactly would be wrong with pulling this asswipe out of the car, shoving a .45 in his mouth and pulling the trigger.

I honestly believe I could do just that and then lay down to take a nap and sleep just fine!

R

i have been on both sides of this issue in october i was almost killed by a jackass who was drunk...his excuse was "i didnt remember anything after i left the bar" does it make it ok? hell no...this guy first slashed someones tires...got into a fight, punched his ex wife, backed into someones car leaving the bar hit my car head on not even a half mile down the road and fled the scene...for some reason unbeknownst to me all of this never made the local paper which puts stories of the amish on the front page regularly. on the other hand i was charged with driving under the influence a couple weeks ago after wrecking my gfs car...it was a single car accident noone was injured and icy roads were a factor...my breathalyzer returned a .080 the legal limit here in ohio...any of you who have ever drank and taken a breathalyzer know it doesnt take much to get you there...i should have known better then to drive after what had happened to me...but honestly i did not feel impaired i passed the field sobriety tests and what not...now for this fucktard he should have never gotten his license back to begin with i know after having a couple close calls i dont think i want to ever drink again let alone try and drive afterwards...what an idiot.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the assertion that the rest of the states will follow suit. It is a perversion. Despite your citing exceptions, intent - true intent rather than the ambiguously implied[ version - is the primary element of a murder charge. The vast majority of state law reflects this, and it is the reason manslaughter exists.

Law still IS my defense, and, in this case, I am quite confident that it will continue to be.

But, if your pissed off defense attorney friend is still available to you, would you mind asking them if any of these murder convictions have been appealed as high as to be seen the California Supreme Court? I'd be curious. Because convictions of this nature could be overturned under the scrutiny applied by the SC.

By this logic, any number of manslaughter situations could qualify for murder charges.

Yup.

And Athena, you were the one using law as your defense...I was just merely pointing out that slowly, that will no longer be available to you. By using the guidelines already in place for charging someone for murder, we are not actually skewing the law to fit the crime...we are just finally charging the crime correctly according to law. As I am sure you would admit, just because something has been done for a long period of time, doesn't make it right.

I am pleased to see lawmakers finally correcting this by charging drunk drivers who kill, with the correct charge. I am glad to see that people are sick of the coddling these idiots have received in court. Idiots, unlike someone who changes a radio station or looks at a deer on the side of the road, knowingly get in vehicles already impaired.

Athena - I ? you. You are always so informed and stick to your guns. Articulate and, I’m sure, beautiful - Probably sweet as hell to boot. The kind of girl other women want to hate but can’t?? Not matter what stance you take - I love reading your posts. I wanna be your new BFF. We could sit back, drink wine and laugh at all the cougars hitting on your man. HA!

You're a doll, April. But, in the interest of full disclosure:

While I haven't been beat with the ugly stick, I would hesitate to qualify myself as "beautiful"; "sweet" might be an exaggeration, too, as I have been described as "polite, but not friendly"; plenty of women hate me. :P

But, hey, feel free to swing by any time. I'll even furnish the wine (Washington wine is the most underrated wine in the country, perhaps the world)! I recommend early summer. We can sit on the end of the dock dipping our toes in the lake while we sip away and discuss the circus that is humanity. ;)

Athena is wrong…death as a result from drunk driving DOES fit the legal definition of murder...Conclusion? Time for Athena to put her end of this debate in the ground. It is DEAD.

Look what I found! I had forgotten all about this.

Morbid, tell your pissed off defense attorney that I applaud his or her effort. As I'm sure you and he (or she) are aware, however, using a single state's precedents in a discussion of legal theory only proves that in State X, DUI-related vehicular homicide can qualify as murder.

In some jurisdictions in California, spanking qualifies as child abuse. You'll have to excuse me for not accepting Califoria law as THE legal standard. It was in California that I interned for the defense attorney - and it was Californian courts that turned me off to the prospect of a legal career. ;)

However, I am aware that California is not the only state that has managed to turn vehicular homicide into murder. I believe Vermont has similar convictions on the books. Still, "the way it is shoe-horned into it," makes all the difference. It is a dangerous perversion of law that dilutes the significance of a murder charge. I like <a href="thttp://www.duiblog.com/2008/10/09/how-to-convict-a-drunk-driver-of-murder/" rel="nofollow">this to explain, for those of you who are unclear of the dubious logic behind California's precedent:

Let’s eavesdrop on a veteran prosecutor in California explaining the ropes to an ambitious young prosecutor:

Q. I wish I could get this drunk driver for murder, not just vehicular manslaughter.
A. You’re the prosecutor: You can charge him with anything you want.

Q. But how would I prove the mental state for murder, malice?
A. As you know, malice usually means there’s an intent to kill. But the law says you can imply malice.

Q. OK, but imply it from what?
A. “It is implied when…the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart”. [Calif. Penal Code sec. 188]

Q. Yeah, but what the heck is “an abandoned and malignant heart”?
A. Our Supreme Court says it’s when someone “does an act with a high probability that it will result in death and does it with a base antisocial motive and a wanton disregard for human life”. [People v. Washington, 62 Cal.2d 777 (1965)]

Q. I don’t know if that’s any easier to prove. “High probability” a DUI will result in death? Anyway, the guy was just drunk: How can I prove “base antisocial motive” and “wanton disregard for human life” from that?
A. Simple: Don’t prove it, just imply that, too — from the defendant’s knowing that DUI is dangerous. [People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (Cal.1981)]

Q. You mean all I’ve got to do is prove he knew drunk driving is dangerous, and I’ve got malice?
A. Yep. We call it a “Watson murder”.

Q. That’s a long way from “high probability it will result in death”.
A. Yeah, that sort of got swept under the rug.

Q. But how do I prove he knew it was dangerous?
A. Like everything else, imply he knew it. Show he’s got a prior DUI conviction [People v. McCarnes, 224 Cal.Rptr. 846 (Cal.App. 1986)] or he’s been to Alcoholics Anonymous [People v. Brogna, 248 Cal.Rptr. 761 (Cal.App.1988)].

Q. But what if the guy isn’t an alcoholic and has never been convicted before?
A. Just find someone who once told him drunk driving was dangerous.

Q. What if we can’t find someone who –
A. Has he ever attended a driver education class? They usually tell them that DUI is dangerous. [People v. Murray, 275 Cal.Rptr. 498 (Cal.App. 1990)].

Q. But doesn’t everybody know DUI is dangerous?
A. Of course.

Q. Then doesn’t everybody have malice if they drive under the influence?
A. Now you’re getting it.

Q. Well, if proving murder in a DUI case is that easy, why not go for the death penalty?
A. They already tried it in a North Carolina case, but the jury went for life without parole instead. We’re working on it…

Should I be charged with murder? Or should I be charged with manslaughter because even though I shot into a crowd of kids, I never meant to harm anyone? Of course not. If proved I did not intend to actually hit anyone, I should still be charged with 2nd-degree murder because of implied malice. Just as a drunk driver should if he kills someone.

See the bolded portion above. Statistically, drunk driving does not have a "high probability", not like shooting into a crowd would. So, in *most* states, you're talking apples and oranges. But, you insist on using Bizarro Land's laws as an example.

By this logic, any number of manslaughter situations could qualify for murder charges.

Californian law is just that, Californian. Because most of us live in states where drunk-driving fatalities DON'T qualify for a murder charge, I can piss and moan about the injustice that is DUI-as-murder is all I like. And, if you look at the big picture, i.e. states that charge drunk-driving killers with murder vs. states that don't, I could be considered to be more correct from a legal theory position, as DUI-as-murder charges are the exception.

Once upon a time, we as a society decided that people who intend to kill others are worse than those who didn't intend to but do. It's the entire reason for the seperate charges of manslauughter and murder. If you and the exceptionally liberal Californian SC want to blur that line, know that it is a slippery slope that undermines the entire purpose of differentiating between manslaughter and murder. In the meantime, I'm quite confident that most states will NOT follow suit, and will instead do the reasonable thing, which is to increase sentencing guidelines for vehicular homicide.

all future references to Morbid shall be: Morbid, Esquire

Memorizing the definition to "3. Reckless indifference". (I learn so much on this site.)

Purely out of (morbid) curiosity: You added the little 8-year-old boy to your example because after accidentally killing the 6-year old girl even the most confident shot should not have been able to pretend to himself that what he was doing was not dangerous. If the fictional "you" had ceased his target practice after the girl was killed would it also have been reckless indifference?

WTF are you kidding me 7 yrs after killing 2 ppl. whats wrong with these law makers? Hell if i was caught stealing food to feed my kids because i was out of work,i would probly have to serve 10 fuking yrs for that. Well like one of yall said,if a fuking drunk driver ever kills one of my family members,he are she dont have to worrie about a judge,because i will put a fuking bullet right between your eyes.

Again, drunk drivers who kill people can be charged with murder. In fact, they ARE charged with murder in some cases. Legally, to charge someone with murder you have to prove one or more of 4 things:

all future references to Morbid shall be: Morbid, Esquire

Should I be charged with murder? Or should I be charged with manslaughter because even though I shot into a crowd of kids, I never meant to harm anyone? Of course not. If proved I did not intend to actually hit anyone, I should still be charged with 2nd-degree murder because of implied malice. Just as a drunk driver should if he kills someone.

Absolutely Morbid. You are 100 percent right, way to illustrate your point too. This fucker is sick. To think if they had punished this guy properly the first time around, that second person would still be alive today. And just like him, the court seems to not have learned their fucking lesson!

If a child accidentally shoots themselves with a loaded gun belonging to a parent, should the parent be charged with murder?

If the gun was laying out, absolutely.

Let's put it this way. Let's say I am a great shot, and I decide to hit a target 50 yards out that happens to be inside a school playground. The playground is chock full of kids playing, yet I am 100 percent confident that I could hit that target without endangering anyone. In fact, the more kids around, the better I will aim. I have no desire to hurt any of them, I love kids. I just KNOW I wont hit any of them because I am a good shot and I have done this before with no issues.

I line up my sites and squeeze the trigger. Unfortunately, I was a little off my game and I ACCIDENTALLY blew the brains out of a 6-year-old girl playing hopsctoch. Shit. I try shooting again, but I am so shaken up from the first miss, that an 8-year-old boy running for cover just had his heart blown out his back. Goddamnit!

Now, there was never any intent to hit this kids. None at all. In fact, I am crying as I try to stuff the girls brains back in her head while also putting my fist in the hole I left in the other kid in hopes of stopping the bleeding.

Should I be charged with murder? Or should I be charged with manslaughter because even though I shot into a crowd of kids, I never meant to harm anyone? Of course not. If proved I did not intend to actually hit anyone, I should still be charged with 2nd-degree murder because of implied malice. Just as a drunk driver should if he kills someone.

Intent is a pretty specific concept with clear legal ramifications. It means that, when you engage in a particular behavior, you are doing so with the specific purpose of killing another human being. This is opposed to acting recklessly while recognizing the activity *could* cause harm to others, which is the definition of manslaughter, the appropriate classification for vehicular homicide.

There definitely needs to be a clear distinction between absolute intent to kill and reckless endangerment with resultant death.

Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an “abandoned and malignant heart”).

Now this seems to blur the line between murder and manslaughter.

If a child accidentally shoots themselves with a loaded gun belonging to a parent, should the parent be charged with murder?

This is why there needs to be a very clear distinction. The legal ramifications go beyond just drunk driving cases.

As Athena already mentioned, to have a murder, one has to have an intent to take a life.

Again, drunk drivers who kill people can be charged with murder. In fact, they ARE charged with murder in some cases. Legally, to charge someone with murder you have to prove one or more of 4 things:

1. Intent to kill
2. Intent to inflict serious bodily harm short of death
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart")
4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

Using California as an example (as a pissed of defense lawyer did all the research for me)

Prosecutors will charge a drunk driver who kills by implying malice on the part of the driver as "the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart”. [Calif. Penal Code sec. 188]

The Supreme Court states that “an abandoned and malignant heart” means "someone does an act with a high probability that it will result in death and does it with a base antisocial motive and a wanton disregard for human life”. [People v. Washington, 62 Cal.2d 777 (1965)]

All prosecutors have to do is prove that a drunk drive knew it was danerous. Doing so and they have got a Watson Murder. A “Watson" Murder is named after the case People vs. Watson, which prosecuted a multiple DUI offender with second degree murder, based on the premise of "implied malice." "Implied malice" second-degree murder can be characterized like this: "I know what I am doing is very dangerous to human life, but I don't care, I'm going to do it anyway." Prosecutors can prove prove “wanton disregard for human life” by showing the defendant’s knew that DUI is dangerous. [People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (Cal.1981)]

They can achieve this by:

1. Show he’s got a prior DUI conviction [People v. McCarnes, 224 Cal.Rptr. 846 (Cal.App. 1986)]
2. Show he’s been to Alcoholics Anonymous [People v. Brogna, 248 Cal.Rptr. 761 (Cal.App.1988)]
3. Show he took Drivers Ed (lol!) because they tell drivers that DUI is dangerous. [People v. Murray, 275 Cal.Rptr. 498 (Cal.App. 1990)]

Again, drunk drivers can and are charged with murder for killing people. In some states, the law DOES see their actions as a form of murder. So as articulate and beautiful as she is, Athena is wrong...death as a result from drunk driving DOES fit the legal definition of murder. You might not like how it is shoe-horned into it, but I LOVE it. Throw in cell phone users and texters as well for all I care...they are no different.

Oh, for some examples:

http://www.richmondregister.com/localnews/local...
http://www.poppelawfirm.com/blog/louisville-wom...
http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/news/20...
http://www.wkrg.com/crime/article/drunk_driver_...

And here are some murder convictions:
http://www.sandiegocriminallawyerblog.com/2008/...
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/KYNE+CONVICTED+OF...
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ramirez-emam...
http://wcco.com/crime/dwi.offender.murder.2.728...

Conclusion? Time for Athena to put her end of this debate in the ground. It is DEAD. :P

So it’s OK now to murder people some ways but not other ways?

As Athena already mentioned, to have a murder, one has to have an intent to take a life.

No matter how reprehensible we find their actions, no drunk driver I have ever heard of has gotten behind the wheel firmly intending to kill someone. They think they are still safe to drive. They think they are bullet-proof. They cannot count. They are just going home and they know the way, - hell the car could almost drive this route on its own. "What is the harm?" they think.

That does not mean that they shouldn't be punished far more than they are; but it does mean that we cannot strictly speaking talk of "murder". Unless, of course, we want to redefine "murder"?

So it's OK now to murder people some ways but not other ways?

Our system is fucked up. I have to wonder if the judge was on something when he handed down this sentence? I am disgusted!

He was just following sentencing guidelines according to the charges he was convicted under. Not really the fault of the judge. Even had he been just as disgusted as we are, not much he could have done.

Morbid.... I too hate people who drink and drive their cars... my parents were hit by a drunk driver. One person was killed because the drunk hit her car and through it into the oncomming traffic which just happened to be my fucking parents! My mother is permanently disabled. She is in pain every day and night. That drunk driver got less than a year. Fucking bullshit!

THEN I read this story! OMG, how in the hell do they call this justice? I know someone who is in prison LONGER than this ass and he didn't kill anyone, he just happened to like weed and sell it too! He is in for up to 15 years... and this guy gets only just over 7?

Our system is fucked up. I have to wonder if the judge was on something when he handed down this sentence? I am disgusted!

California has charged and convicted drunk drivers who have killed someone with second or third-degree murder. I hope that one day, ALL states follow suit. I have NO sympathy for a drunk driver and what happens to them as a result of them killing someone.

THANK YOU for this. My tirades against drunk drives have led people to believe I personally know someone who has been injured or died in this manner. Fortunately, I do not. I find the logic rather odd: do I have to know a molested child to be against child molestation?

DWI/DUI are the perfect mix of negligence, laziness, and PREVENTABLE crime.

Side note: sometimes I think that if I really want to get rid of someone, I should just run them over. Apparently, being in your car is a magic shield that prevents one from getting a long term in prison.

Athena - I ? you. You are always so informed and stick to your guns. Articulate and, I'm sure, beautiful - Probably sweet as hell to boot. The kind of girl other women ant to hate but can't?? Not matter what stance you take - I love reading your posts. I wanna be your new BFF. We could sit back, drink wine and laugh at all the cougars hitting on your man. HA!

On your point of the victim shooting one of the perps first — Here in Indy a couple of years ago, at my daughters apt. complex, 2 guys kicked in a woman’s door. She shot first, asked questions later. The first asshat through the door died from the gunshot wound — the second was charged with murder - even though he didn’t pull the trigger. I believe he was convicted ( with that and other crimes as well)

Oh, absolutely. It happens all the time. Take street racers, for example. Here in Washington, two kids were street racing and one got into an accident and died. Even though the other racer didn't cause the accident, he got charged with vehicular homicide, simply because he was engaged in the illegal activity with the other kid when he died.

If we're going to be consistent and want to consider DUI to be murder, if a drunk driver and a drunk passenger get into an accident and the driver dies, the passenger should be charged with his murder.

Drunk driving is an emotional topic for many. Still, we need to truly consider the consequences about pursuing it so fervently that we are willing to distort legal definitions to do so. It will effect far more than just the perpetrator. These structures and definitions exist like they do for a reason.

"If I were ever to survive a wreck with someone in which any of my family were killed and if I knew you were drunk…I would choke the life out of them. The news reports would detail my killing the person, and the fact that they had never seen someone smile that widely in their entire life."



I guarantee you'd get a hell of a lot longer than 7 years for that....wtf

If you currently drive drunk as some regular activity please know that I.Hate.You. And I do so with every fiber of my being, you motherfucker. Nothing you say or do will ever justify your actions, and the fact remains that you are just stupid. Selfish and stupid. While I don’t mind selfish people too much, in fact it is a quality I can admire, but I loathe stupid. You KNOWINGLY put EVERY PERSON on the road with you at an elevated risk of death.

Thank you for saying that Morbid. My dad almost killed my brother and I while he was driving drunk once and I will never, ever drive drunk in my entire life. I can't even drive while talking on the cell phone or smoking a fuckin cig. And no music and everyone has to be quiet lol!!! I'm way too cautious but at least 100% of my focus is on the road.

Athena:

We could also just as easily say that any passenger of his that was knowledgeable of his condition be charged with murder if a third party dies. This would be not unlike when two men rob a store and only one shoots the clerk, but they are both charged with the clerk’s murder. Now, if those two men go in to rob a store, and one gets shot and killed by the clerk first, how bad do we normally feel for him? Not bad at all, right? Because he was actively engaged in a crime. “Asking for it,” so to speak. How does this differ from the passenger who knowingly gets into a car with a drunk driver, and ends up dying as a result? If we consider the DUI to be murder or attempted murder, isn’t the passenger an accomplice?

On your point of the victim shooting one of the perps first -- Here in Indy a couple of years ago, at my daughters apt. complex, 2 guys kicked in a woman's door. She shot first, asked questions later. The first asshat through the door died from the gunshot wound -- the second was charged with murder - even though he didn't pull the trigger. I believe he was convicted ( with that and other crimes as well)


April:

Thank you. Can you tell I’m not heartbroken?? My mother left him when I was 1. He beat her - almost killed her and told her that he was going to straighten me out. She was not going to have him laying a hand on me so she split!! She did it while he was locked up for beating her (btw - the cops found drugs on him then also). My step father has been with my mother since I was 3. He is more my Dad the the sperm doner who gave me nothing more than blue eyes and his last name. My stepfather doesn’t rob, rape, beat anyone or do drugs. He is just a nice person. He is the one my son knows as “Pop”. He will NEVER know my father. Thanks for the kind words though.

I can empathize with you here. My sperm donor was the same. Beat my mother all the time, terrorized us kids and cheated on my mom since (literally) the night they were married. I've had my step-dad since I was around 9 (he married my mom when I was 12) and he's been awesome. Sperm donor is deceased now.
Glad you have yours in your life.

I agree that the punishment for vehicular manslaughter needs to be re-visited. It's not nearly harsh enough.

As for breathalyzers, there is a site that is pretty much dedicated to all things "DUI" that addresses that subject, as well as many others. Though a lot of it seems to lean way too far in the offenders direction - some of what they post there is informative.

Link: http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/06/how-breathaly...

April - Regardless of your opinion of your father (my sympathies), he DOES deserve less time. If it was a large quantity for personal use, it was entirely victimless. The fact that he’s looking at ANY jail time, much less 25 to life, is the reason we let pedophile out of prison to re-offend. Ass backward, if you ask me.

I agree with the post mostly - and disagree with the part concerning my father desrving less time. My father is a repeat offender and drugs are the least of his troubles. He has ben in trouble for B&E, robbery, domestic violence... The list is long. He never learns. Stupidity is his real crime. He is not a good person. I've decided he must like it in prison. Shit, he just got a year ago for having 2 pounds of weed and a gun. This time it was a large quantity of crank and tampering with gas meters (guess he didn't want to pay his bill). What will it be next time?? Texas doesn't take much shit when it comes to repeat offenders. BTW - He just had a baby from a girl younger than me!!! She's the one that filled me in on the last couple of years of his life. Dunno how she got my number. Bummer that I have a genetic tie to this man. I'm nothing like him.

Sorry you’re going through that though hun.

Thank you. Can you tell I'm not heartbroken?? My mother left him when I was 1. He beat her - almost killed her and told her that he was going to straighten me out. She was not going to have him laying a hand on me so she split!! She did it while he was locked up for beating her (btw - the cops found drugs on him then also). My step father has been with my mother since I was 3. He is more my Dad the the sperm doner who gave me nothing more than blue eyes and his last name. My stepfather doesn't rob, rape, beat anyone or do drugs. He is just a nice person. He is the one my son knows as "Pop". He will NEVER know my father. Thanks for the kind words though.

Morbid, you are my hero.

The only real solution, not that it is fool proof, would be for all vehicles to have breathalyzers before starting but that will never pass.

Actually, the government and major car makers are currently discussing legislation that would mandate that all new cars had some sort of interlock ignition device. The preferred idea at this point is sensors in the steering wheel that detect the presence of alcohol through touch. They'd like the legislation established by 2012, although I'm not sure how likely that is at this point with the economy and all.

There are a couple of problems, though. One, a device like this would be expensive, thus driving the costs of a new car up for millions of drivers who don't drive drunk. We're not talking seat belts or anti-lock brakes or other safety technology that's been mandated - ignition interlock devices are expensive technology. We're talking about potentially adding thousands of dollars to the price of a new car, not to mention added maintenance costs. Two, are you familiar with fales-positives? They're a relatively common problem with ignition interlock systems. Even police-issued breathalyzers often register improper BACs because they haven't been properly or regularly calibrated. Some sources suggest that even spicy food can cause a false-positive. So, there you are, Joe Blow, on your way to the most promising sales call of your career... and your car doesn't start because silly you ate the chiles out of the Chinese food last night.

Are you aware that speeding contributes to as many (if not more) traffic fatalities as alcohol does? Yes, we're not rushing out to install governors on all cars, are we? No, nor are we going to. The reason being, there's only so much we can impose on a populace to curb fatalities. For as long as drinking is legal, and driving is legal, there will always be drunk driving fatalities. It's a sad fact of life.

But Athena, you’re missing part of this. Rankin murdered Brian. Although not stated here, Rankin knowingly drove drunk. Posted back on forth on myspace, Rankin’s friends who were with him that night have even said ‘He and everyone else knew that he was drunk when he entered that car.’ If that isn’t intent, i don’t know what is.

First off, I'd like to say, Becca, that I'm terribly sorry for your losses. I can't even begin to imagine how painful and intensely frustrating this must be for you and your family.

That said, I'm not missing anything. Intent is a pretty specific concept with clear legal ramifications. It means that, when you engage in a particular behavior, you are doing so with the specific purpose of killing another human being. This is opposed to acting recklessly while recognizing the activity *could* cause harm to others, which is the definition of manslaughter, the appropriate classification for vehicular homicide.

By diluting the very clear definition of murder to include other crimes that do not involve intent, we establish a very dangerous precedent for society as a whole.

If we say that, because Rankin drove drunk, he automatically intended for someone to die, thus qualifying the crime for a murder charge, we could just as easily say that everyone who was there and knowledgeable of Rankin's condition intended for someone to die, making them accessories to murder. Or, at the very least, failure to report a felony, which is a felony in and of itself in some jurisdictions, depending on circumstance.

We could also just as easily say that any passenger of his that was knowledgeable of his condition be charged with murder if a third party dies. This would be not unlike when two men rob a store and only one shoots the clerk, but they are both charged with the clerk's murder. Now, if those two men go in to rob a store, and one gets shot and killed by the clerk first, how bad do we normally feel for him? Not bad at all, right? Because he was actively engaged in a crime. "Asking for it," so to speak. How does this differ from the passenger who knowingly gets into a car with a drunk driver, and ends up dying as a result? If we consider the DUI to be murder or attempted murder, isn't the passenger an accomplice?

It is for these reasons that we should not classify DUI as "murder" when it is so clearly not, just to have access to more severe sentencing. It's inaccurate and dangerous. We should be contacting our representatives and lobbying for increased sentencing for the appropriate crime, which is vehicular homicide.

And for all of us haters. My ex-husband was a constant drinker and he would leave the house to buy more and I would call the cops on him. (yeah I never really liked the guy) He had more D.U.I.’s then anyone I know of. He’s in prison now…but that was fun.

Explaining, I suppose, how he became an EX-husband. Sorry you had to live through that.

My heart goes out to all of those in poor Brian's Community. I wouldn't know what to do if I lost someone (even just an acquaintance) in such a manner.
I personally think that the family and friends of Brian should be able to drown the worthless piece of trash in his own vomit!! Pathetic scumbag.

And for all of us haters. My ex-husband was a constant drinker and he would leave the house to buy more and I would call the cops on him. (yeah I never really liked the guy) He had more D.U.I.'s then anyone I know of. He's in prison now...but that was fun.

No, it should not. “Murder” relies heavily upon intent. People guilty of murder are people who entered into a situation with the intent to kill people. That doesn’t apply to drunk drivers. Did you know that every study conducted on the subject has found driving while talking on a phone are as dangerous, if not more so, as drunk drivers? What’s worse is that people who use a cell phone while driving know full well that they are subjecting the drivers around them to risk, and they’re sober. Drunk drivers are at a diminished capacity, which leads them to believe they’re more capable of driving than they actually are.

But the drive knows before they drink that drinking and driving can cause them to murder someone so I feel, in effect, they knowingly put lives at risk with they drink and drive and should be sentenced accordingly.

No, it should not. “Murder” relies heavily upon intent. People guilty of murder are people who entered into a situation with the intent to kill people. That doesn’t apply to drunk drivers.

First, I want to thank everyone who agrees with me about scum-bag-Rankin. Rankin's second offense, the offense that killed my close friend Brian Wilson 7 months ago, was not enough. The pain my friends and Brian's family have gone through compares nothing to what Rankin will endure.

But Athena, you're missing part of this. Rankin murdered Brian. Although not stated here, Rankin knowingly drove drunk. Posted back on forth on myspace, Rankin's friends who were with him that night have even said 'He and everyone else knew that he was drunk when he entered that car.' If that isn't intent, i don't know what is. Did he think that nothing would happen if he drove drunk AGAIN?

Rankin has destroyed the lives of so many people. Brian graduated from high school one week before his death. Our town of 13,000 people was devestated. if you watch the interviews with Brian's parents, the repeat something that Rankin said after his "apology'. He isn't sorry, he's sorry that he is now afraid of his life. Although I refuse to wish death upon someone, I hope Rankin gets raped in jail and rots. He does not deserve to live after this pain he's caused us.

April - Regardless of your opinion of your father (my sympathies), he DOES deserve less time. If it was a large quantity for personal use, it was entirely victimless. The fact that he’s looking at ANY jail time, much less 25 to life, is the reason we let pedophile out of prison to re-offend. Ass backward, if you ask me.

For some drugs that almost guarantee theft and violent behavior to their users this would be acceptable, but for Pot it is B.S.
I know a guy, before I met him he got busted with his car trunk stuffed full of pot and had every intent to sell it and he only did 5 years.

No, it should not. “Murder” relies heavily upon intent. People guilty of murder are people who entered into a situation with the intent to kill people. That doesn’t apply to drunk drivers. Did you know that every study conducted on the subject has found driving while talking on a phone are as dangerous, if not more so, as drunk drivers? What’s worse is that people who use a cell phone while driving know full well that they are subjecting the drivers around them to risk, and they’re sober. Drunk drivers are at a diminished capacity, which leads them to believe they’re more capable of driving than they actually are.

Well you probably have me on a technicality there but I still wish it would be murder. Even if there was no crash, still should be attempted manslaughter with jailtime. I'm just really firm and pissed off in my views of drunk drivers (dueys). Too many people think the reward is greater than the risk. Too many stories hit close to home and too many families lose one of if not almost all of their members on christmas fucking day and every day from these turdbuckets. I actually ended up erasing about half of my earlier post before submitting it because it was wasting space just insulting anyone who drives drunk and Morbid already summed it up nicely with this gem.

Here is another fact. If you currently drive drunk as some regular activity please know that I.Hate.You. And I do so with every fiber of my being, you motherfucker. Nothing you say or do will ever justify your actions, and the fact remains that you are just stupid. Selfish and stupid. You KNOWINGLY put EVERY PERSON on the road with you at an elevated risk of death.

The only real solution, not that it is fool proof, would be for all vehicles to have breathalyzers before starting but that will never pass.

Cell phones,

I am probably the only person in america that works and has a house but does not have a cell phone. No desire, waste of money, I have an old one of my moms that I'll charge up and take when I'm traveling in case of a 911 emergency. But I'm sure you are right about that too, I have seen many near accidents, look at the driver and they are on the cell phone. And it is becoming a traffic violation in some states I hear.
Mydeathspace.com has quite a few enteries on there that say killed in car crash while texting.

April - Regardless of your opinion of your father (my sympathies), he DOES deserve less time. If it was a large quantity for personal use, it was entirely victimless. The fact that he’s looking at ANY jail time, much less 25 to life, is the reason we let pedophile out of prison to re-offend. Ass backward, if you ask me.

Have to agree. Too many people being locked up for pot possession with extremely long sentences - while pedophiles, abusers, and even killers waltz out the door after a few years (if that). It's a travesty of justice. The "War on drugs" needs to be scaled down and a new "War on crimes against children" started. We all know our elected officials just looooove a new war to fight :-)

Seriously, how can we justify someone having pot for personal consumption getting 25 years -- and someone killing TWO people - in the same manner twice - getting 7 years???? Who did your father kill? A few brain cells? Heh -- they're his to kill! lol. Now if he'd been caught SELLING pot to KIDS -- that's a different ballgame. But he wasn't - so the punishment does NOT fit the crime.

Sorry you're going through that though hun.

April - Regardless of your opinion of your father (my sympathies), he DOES deserve less time. If it was a large quantity for personal use, it was entirely victimless. The fact that he's looking at ANY jail time, much less 25 to life, is the reason we let pedophile out of prison to re-offend. Ass backward, if you ask me.

I hope this guy hangs himself in prison.

Grrrr. I had a friend who was killed by a drunk driver. His fiance's tire blew out, so she called him and he went to change it for her. A drunk swerved onto the shoulder of the road, sending him twenty feet through the air. The drunk's passenger turned him in but they gave him bail and whoosh--we've never seen him again, of course. It's been exactly ten years now. To pull this sort of shit TWICE is unforgivable.

A guy like this, if there are no mitigating factors, should be looking at 25 to life.

My father is looking at 25 to life for a drug possession charge (a repeat offense and a large quantity for personal use not intent to sell). No one died and he is looking at 25 to life. Not that I think he deserves less time. My father is a moron and deserves every day that he will spend behind bars and he still will never learn - BUT NO ONE DIED!!!!!! This man killed 2 people and deserves at least 25 to life. 7 years is hardly a slap on the hand.

 Here is another fact. If you currently drive drunk as some regular activity please know that I.Hate.You. And I do so with every fiber of my being, you motherfucker. Nothing you say or do will ever justify your actions, and the fact remains that you are just stupid. Selfish and stupid. While I don’t mind selfish people too much, in fact it is a quality I can admire, but I loathe stupid. You KNOWINGLY put EVERY PERSON on the road with you at an elevated risk of death.

I couldn't agree more. My father is a drunk. Has been my entire life. He's an abusive drunk, which is why he's not a part of my life, and hasn't been since I was 14. But I remember clear as day, my father showing up to pick me up from friend's houses drunk (if he showed at all), I remember going out to dinner and him driving drunk. It's a miracle we survived, because my dad could pack away a 24 pack and half a bottle of vodka in one sitting. I look back now, and at the time, it seemed so normal... and now I can't fathom taking that kind of risk with my kids. It's like when assholes decide to buy a carseat for their babies, but don't use them correctly... I'm super anal about carseats, and have called the cops on people not using them.
My father is known for his stellar decision making skills, though. Rather than getting sober (after being told that the next drink could be the one that kills him-- he has heart problems and has had seizures), he chose to abandon the family that still wanted to care for him, and took off to be homeless. At least, that's what I've heard.
I do have a story that should put a smile in your heart, Morbid. When I was about 5, we lived in Dallas. My dad went out drinking with a friend of his, and got pulled over for DUI. He got mouthy with the cops, who were already pissed at him for driving drunk. They beat the ever living shit out of him... and then left him stranded in the middle of nowhere, with nothing but Texas flatland around him, and a rarely used highway. He got lucky that his friend got worried and found him a few hours later. Didn't stop him from drinking and driving, but I've always enjoyed the visual of him getting beat and left to fend for himself for that.

I agree completely, dui should be charged as mandatory attempted murder, crash or not.

No, it should not. "Murder" relies heavily upon intent. People guilty of murder are people who entered into a situation with the intent to kill people. That doesn't apply to drunk drivers. Did you know that every study conducted on the subject has found driving while talking on a phone are as dangerous, if not more so, as drunk drivers? What's worse is that people who use a cell phone while driving know full well that they are subjecting the drivers around them to risk, and they're sober. Drunk drivers are at a diminished capacity, which leads them to believe they're more capable of driving than they actually are.

Now, while NONE of this lessens the responsibility of a drunk driver for his actions, it does lend itself to why "murder", or any variation thereof, is not an appropriate charge in DUI cases.

The solution is to dramatically increase sentencing for vehicular homicide, levying exceptional sentences for repeat offenders. The average sentence for vehicular homicide is under 4 years, but they are often dealt probation. This is simply not acceptable. For a first offense, vehicular homicide convicts should spend no less than 10 years in jail, and should undergo rigorous treatment WHILE in jail, not as a condition of release. A guy like this, if there are no mitigating factors, should be looking at 25 to life.