Dui News You Can Use

[RatPackLar]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MI

SACRAMENTO, CA - Just hours after beginning its deliberations, a Sacramento County jury Thursday found Roberto Vellanoweth guilty on all four counts in the fatal DUI crash that killed four people.

Vellanoweth is accused of driving drunk and causing a crash that killed four people last year.

The eight-man, four-woman jury was given the case at about noon Thursday and reported to Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette that they had a verdict just under three hours later.

Vellanoweth was charged with four counts of gross vehicular manslaughter and two counts of felony drunk driving. He faces up to 18 years in state prison.

Sentencing was scheduled for August 12. Immediately after the verdict was read, Vellanoweth's $250,000 bail was revoked and court officials took him into custody.

During his trial, Vellanoweth's attorney said his client had been slipped a liquor-laden drink and didn't know it and that was partly why his blood alcohol reading after the fatal crash was .16 percent. A Sacramento County prosecutor disputed that claim during his closing argument Wednesday when he filled with different-sized glasses to show the jury how huge that one drink would have had to be for Vellanoweth to have a .16 blood alcohol reading.

Vellanoweth did admit he had also drunk three ******is during the lunch he had several hours before his car struck another head-on in the Land Park area of Sacramento. That crash killed Brizchelle Rice, 21, and Brittanya Nash, 17, Rice's 19-month-old son, Kamall Osby, and a family friend, Shanice Carter, 18.

News10/KXTV

This guy was loaded up, and killed people, DUI.

Did he mean to do that, no, did he, yea, and now this guy is gonna go to prison for a very long time.

Food for thought DUI dancers, and why they slap you up like they do.

The risk is never worth the reward on DUI.

[Indiana Filer]

[quote=RatPackLar;1978898]

This guy was loaded up, and killed people, DUI.

Did he mean to do that, no, did he, yea, and now this guy is gonna go to prison for a very long time.
QUOTE]


I've got to disagree. By intentionally driving drunk, he meant to hurt someone. Unfortunately it was 4 innocent people who died and not this drunk.

[BigMistakeFl]

And this is why penalties can not be reduced to simple fines. It has to suck so badly for us that we never repeat it again.

[RatPackLar]

Will that stop DUI, no, it will keep going on.

Heck, they are popping law enforcement, prorsecutors, judges, for DUI all the time.

If anybody should know the potential for death and destruction from DUI, it should be these people, who work in the system, and see it all every day, yet they do not.

They just had one, and this guy is a DA

LAS VEGAS - The prosecutor of a rural Nevada county was issued a drunk-driving summons after crashing two cars twice in six hours on the same California highway, authorities said.

The California Highway Patrol and the Inyo County Sheriff's Office said Nye County District Attorney Robert Beckett was not seriously hurt. Both vehicles were badly damaged.

Inyo County sheriff's spokeswoman Carma Roper says Beckett was not cited after the first crash Sunday afternoon in a Ford Expedition owned by Nye County. California patrol Officer Taj Johnson says Beckett failed a blood-alcohol breath test. He was issued a summons for driving while intoxicated after the second crash Sunday evening.

The 49-year-old Beckett hasn't responded to messages seeking comment.

TWO CRASHES IN 6 HOURS, you know this guy was loaded up on the first one, and the cops let him go, so he goes out and does it a again, and has a another crash.

This guy is running for a judge postion in the next election, and he does crap like that.

If anybody should have known better it was this guy, I bet he prosecuted lots of DUI cases, and then get gets one. Those cops should have nailed him the first time, and did not, that smells bad to me.

I mean we, the general public are told, you drink, your drive, your lose, and get pounded. They let this guy go after an accident, never bothered to BAC test him, so he goes back out and gets another one 6 hours later.

Depending on his BAC, they could back track his BAC, to what is was 6 hours earlier.

I am sure the guy refused the hard chemical tests, as he knows how the system works, and will probably get off.

DUI causing accident in CA, can be charged as a Felony, I wonder if they will charge him with that, as other posters here of late, have been charged with.

This guy, with two accidents in 6 hours could have killed lots of people.

Food for thought!

[JIMinCA]

Well... this guy shouldn't have been driving. No doubt. However, we as a society are niave to believe that dui is such a scurge. At .16 BAC, this guy was probably better able to drive his car than someone who hadn't slept in 20 hours or someone who is 79 years old. However, you put the same sleepy guy or old guy in that same crash with the same results, he would NOT be going to jail.

Don't get me wrong... I am not advocating DUI. However, I think it is pretty disingenuous to say that DUI is such a terrible threat to society when drivers can be far more impaired by sleep depravation, old age or even a pet in the car. To take such a strong stance on one and not all is not a cry for public safety, but rather seeking a scapegoat to ease our public conscience.

[paguy88]

This is easy to figure out...

Its friday night... today...

I live in a major city with several party spots..

its summer... and going to be a great night...

PLENTY of people are going to be drinking and driving... and these same people have done this for years and MOST will never get caught.

They haver become harmful drinkers....

so what can we do?

I want zero tolerance... NO excuses then...

no I had x amoubt of beers earlier. ect.....

Sad story... but it is a reality rare on this level but a reality.

[BigMistakeFl]

I'd take my chances on the highway with the 79 year old completely sober guy over you with a .16 BAC any day.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by BigMistakeFl

I'd take my chances on the highway with the 79 year old completely sober guy over you with a .16 BAC any day.

That is a statement that is made out of emotion rather than reason. The fact is that a young, healthy guy with a BAC of .16 could demonstrate far better driving skills than many/most elderly drivers. But, the stupid thing is that we don't compare ability to drive to a fixed standard. We compare ability to drive to each individual's ability to drive. For example, if we could assign a number from 1 - 10 describing a person's ability to drive, a healthy young guy should rate about an 8. At .16 BAC, he may rate a 6. So, he has been impaired from his peak, but the 79 year old guy may be a 5 on a good day. So, why is the .16 guy a mennace to society but the old guy is cute and retaining his independence?

If we are going to jail people for driving impaired from their maximum potential, then we should jail people for other reasons that detract from driving ability such as:

• Old age
• Sleep depravation
• Fighting with spouse (i.e. emotional duress)
• distraction with pets/children in car
• extreme need to urinate
• etc...

While this may sound ridiculous, it is realistic and these types of drivers pose the same risk to society as the dui driver. So, why such harsh penalties for one and not all?

[Zigner]

Jim -
You've really stepped over the line on this subject. Advising people on how to get out of their tickets is one thing. Advocating the position that driving drunk is less negligent than driving old is absolutely asinine. I used to "respect" you, even though I disagree with you. Now I don't even respect you. (I know you don't care)

[BigMistakeFl]

I do think there are other forms of impairment, would like to see talking on the phone and driving illegal.

Sorry, but equating drunk driving with doing the "pee-pee dance" is more absurd than the statement about drunk driving and the 79 year old sober driver.

[kjizzle]

Originally Posted by BigMistakeFl

I do think there are other forms of impairment, would like to see talking on the phone and driving illegal.

Sorry, but equating drunk driving with doing the "pee-pee dance" is more absurd than the statement about drunk driving and the 79 year old sober driver.

I agree!
I wonder how many accidents there are each day because someone is so busy on their phone they kill someone or injure someone. I detest cell phones and driving and also believe it should be illegal, I know there are many accidents because of it and it is ridiculous that someone would take their lives and the lives of others for a phone call! If the call is so important pull off the road and take it and do not put everyone around you in danger because you think the call is worth your life it isn't worth anyone elses.
The idea that elderly drivers are as dangerous as a DUI driver is just ridiculous and it is just plain ignorant to assume that just because they are old they can not drive properly!
There are many reasons for accidents but when a driver that is drinking gets behind the wheel they are asking for it and asking to injure themselves and others or even kill them but in other accidents they are simply that, accidents that could not be avoided.

[RatPackLar]

Old age
Sleep depravation
Fighting with spouse (i.e. emotional duress)
distraction with pets/children in car
extreme need to urinate
etc...

Those can all be covered under reckless / careless drving if the driver is at fault.

How how do you test for those

Extreme need to urinate, well I supposed if you wet your pants at the accident, they could hit you with driving with an extreme need to urinate DWAENTU

Sleep depravation - I know, they give you a teddy bear, and make you count sheep and if you fall asleep, they know you were driving while sleep deprived. DWSD.

Might as well thow in driving while stupid DWS, and if they catch you they give you an IQ test and if you fail, they know you are stupid and can charge you. DWS

DUI is never gonna get better, only worse as far as punishment goes, there have been way to many needless accidents, death, etc.

Plus society does not like drunks, they are frowned upon period. Drunks in cars who injure or kill, are hit harder.

it is their dance and if you chose to go it, be prepared to dance the song they play.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Jim -
You've really stepped over the line on this subject. Advising people on how to get out of their tickets is one thing. Advocating the position that driving drunk is less negligent than driving old is absolutely asinine. I used to "respect" you, even though I disagree with you. Now I don't even respect you. (I know you don't care)

You are such a pinhead, I'm amazed that you can tie your shoe. I was very clear that I didn't advocate drunk driving and I never said that driving drunk was less negligent than driving old. I said that one is not necessarily more of a risk to the public than the other. However, we happily tolerate one and we jail the other. I was only pointing out the inconsistencies.

But, you and I do agree on one thing... I really don't care what you think of me (especially knowing what I think of you.)

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by BigMistakeFl

I do think there are other forms of impairment, would like to see talking on the phone and driving illegal.

It is in many states, including CA. However, that is another example of providing a scapegoat for the public. There was a recent study that showed a driver is far more likely to be in an accident because of a pet in the car than talking on the cell phone.

Sorry, but equating drunk driving with doing the "pee-pee dance" is more absurd than the statement about drunk driving and the 79 year old sober driver.

Well... maybe you would you would like to explain that to the 13 people who died when the "old sober driver" mistook the gas for the brake and plowed through a farmer's market. Even a drunk knows when to take his foot off the gas!

If you honestly think that a young healthy driver with a .08BAC is more of a public risk than our farmer's market driver, or he truck driver that has been on the road for 16 hours, then you are nuts.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by kjizzle

I agree!
I wonder how many accidents there are each day because someone is so busy on their phone they kill someone or injure someone. I detest cell phones and driving and also believe it should be illegal, I know there are many accidents because of it and it is ridiculous that someone would take their lives and the lives of others for a phone call! If the call is so important pull off the road and take it and do not put everyone around you in danger because you think the call is worth your life it isn't worth anyone elses.

Maybe you can explain the difference of talking on a cell phone (and even dialing it) and talking to someone in the passnenger seat while fiddling with the radio. Most states already have laws concerning driving while distracted. No cell phone law is necessary, however it is politically popular.

So... who would you rather be on the road with: the cell phone talker or the woman putting on eye-liner, or the guy shaving, or the person reading a map? Why is there only outcry against cell phone users? Once again... it is just a glaring inconsistency in laws that are supposed to be designed for public safety.

BTW... can you direct me to the study that shows cell phone usage significantly increases likelihood of accidents?

The idea that elderly drivers are as dangerous as a DUI driver is just ridiculous and it is just plain ignorant to assume that just because they are old they can not drive properly!

It is just plain ignorant to assume that they can!! Old age brings with it failing eyesight, hearing, dementia, etc. However, unless the old person killed someone, no one would question their ability to drive. Do you really think Mario Andretti with a .08 BAC is more of a risk than an old guy who is half blind and demented?

There are many reasons for accidents but when a driver that is drinking gets behind the wheel they are asking for it and asking to injure themselves and others or even kill them but in other accidents they are simply that, accidents that could not be avoided.

No one is disputing that drunk driving is irresponsible. But, when you haven't slept for 20 hours and you get behind the wheel... how is that any more responsible?

I'm just saying that .08BAC sets a pretty rigorous standard concerning alcohol where there is practically no standard at all for other forms of impairment. Inconsistent.

By the way... all accidents could be avoided.