This could be you...

[Taxing Matters]

Do a quick search for DUI attorneys and you will be presented with literally hundreds of thousands of hits.
Any one of those attorneys will be more than willing to represent someone for DUI, but none will argue guilt, they all rely on the arresting officer not following the rules to the letter.

In other words, doing their jobs to zealously represent their clients to make sure that the state actually can actually prove their client guilty of the crime. And, of course, the vast majority of those cases end up with plea agreements, meaning the prosecutor and defendant reach agreement on the result.

If cops are not doing their job simply for fear of paper work, on the other hand, that is something to criticize.

 

[ajkroy]

cbg, I'm just south of Manchester, but I commute to MA for work. If I remember from your posts, don't you work in MA, too? At a prestigious institution? Or am I thinking of someone else?

 

[ajkroy]

Answer: because (1) not all who go to a bar drink, or if they do, do not drink enough to become impaired, (2) those that do drink too much may be there with a designated driver who doesn't, and (3) employees, suppliers, and others also need to park there.

The problem with both the DUI and the gun debates on both sides is that people tend to resort to statements, not unlike the one you just made, that are meant to get an emotional response rather than looking at it more logically. I hate drunk driving. Four members of my family were killed and another injured all in a single accident because some idiot drove while seriously intoxicated — like falling down drunk — and should have known better than to drive. The drunk driver of course survived. As this was in the days before DUI was taken seriously, the drunk driver got a slap on the wrist. That isf part of the reason I have over the years supported many bills to crack down on DUI driving. But I don't get behind the more extreme ideas. All regulation should be reasonable and target as narrowly as possible what the real problem is. You don't use a nuke to swat a fly.

I take the same view of guns. I support the 2nd amendment but I also see a place for reasonable regulation. I have no respect for the at least some of the most ardent gun supporters that all regulation affecting gun owners must be opposed. That unfortunately seems to be the prevailing view of the NRA in the last several decades, even though it did not always hold that position. Just like with cars and DUI drivers, some firearm regulation is needed, but it should be reasonable, not overbroad, and target the problem we seek to address.

I just want to say how sorry I am for your loss.

 

[cbg]

cbg, I'm just south of Manchester, but I commute to MA for work. If I remember from your posts, don't you work in MA, too? At a prestigious institution? Or am I thinking of someone else?

Nope, that's me. I live on the South Shore and work for a prestigious university in Cambridge.

Tax, me too - that's terrible. I'm so sorry.

 

[ajkroy]

I also work in education....but at about as far to the other end of the spectrum as one can get. I'm at a technical high school in Lowell. My students are thrilled if they are accepted into UMass Lowell.

 

[stealth2]

Of course, when you get drunk, you sober up by morning. When you're stupid with a gun, the stupid doesn't go away.

(I didn't go past the start of page 1.)

 

[HighwayMan]

The head of the MA RMV is reported to have resigned over this.

Which I found odd.

I didn't read the whole story in detail but apparently Connecticut screwed up by not reporting his last arrest (or was it a conviction) for DUI.

I was on my way home from work a few years ago and found myself behind an intoxicated driver on a two lane state highway. I called 911 but the NYSP didn't have anyone close by. I followed the guy into CT while I was on the phone with the local town PD and they were able to grab the guy after he rear-ended some woman at a stop sign - fortunately it was minor with no injuries. He was arrested after failing the SFSTs miserably. I went to the PD and gave them a written statement.

I followed the case through the CT courts website. After his third court appearance the case was mysteriously sealed. A quick google search revealed that for a first offense if you shell out enough money and stay good for a year the case gets dismissed. They seal it first while waiting for the year to elapse. That really pisses me off.

I really wish the NYSP had a car closer and would have grabbed this guy.

 

[HighwayMan]

Those who are drinking are probably lesser equipped to deal with the distractions.

That's pretty much a given - intoxicated individuals fare poorly when given divided attention tasks to perform. That's one of the things I use upon first contact with a suspected intox driver.

 

[HighwayMan]

In my comment, I said that DUIs are not treated as seriously as some (myself included) would like. And I stand by it.

I tend to agree.

Here in NY I think first time offenders tend to get off lightly if there are no injuries involved. Prosecutors are very quick to plea down a DWI to a DWAI even with a strong case (although at least a DWAI is still an alcohol related offense and counts towards an upgraded charge for subsequent violations).

I'd like to see a mandatory minimum one year license revocation for first time offenders and jail time - even if it's only a week.

 

[stealth2]

NJ tends to be on the tough side, even for a first offense.

 

[Just Blue]

I'd like to see a mandatory minimum one year license revocation for first time offenders and jail time - even if it's only a week.

My BIL and I said the same exact thing. 2 time they do it they should get a 5 year revocation and 1 year in prison. 3rd time lifetime revocation and 10years in prison. Driving on revoked license for offenders should be an automatic 1 in prison.

Also DUI offender should be required to carry the maximum insurance on their policy.

 

[Just Blue]

The head of the MA RMV is reported to have resigned over this.

ajkroy, where in NH are you?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/head-of-massachusetts-registry-of-motor-vehicles-resigns-after-fatal-new-hampshire-crash/ar-AADrtns?ocid=spartandhp

 

[stealth2]

I didn't read the whole story in detail but apparently Connecticut screwed up by not reporting his last arrest (or was it a conviction) for DUI.

But what does that have to do with MA?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

But what does that have to do with MA?

From the news link above.

But MassDOT's statement says that "to the RMV’s knowledge, Connecticut failed to provide sufficient information" through the federal commercial driver's license system following Zhukovskyy's May 11 arrest. Doing so would have automatically applied the charges to his Massachusetts driving record and result in the immediate termination of his commercial driver's license, according to MassDOT.

Instead, MassDOT said the Connecticut DMV on May 29 sent a communication to the Massachusetts RMV through the the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators messaging system – the state-to-state messaging system for registries – regarding Zhukovskyy’s May 11th OUI.

A communication breakdown
According to MassDOT, Connecticut's May 29 online communication did not contain sufficient information to automatically input Zhukovskyy’s OUI into his Massachusetts driving record and, therefore, did not automatically trigger the seven-day notification process for his non-commercial license suspension.

"While the RMV system could not automatically process the communication, it generated a notification requiring manual review," the statement reads. "This review had not been performed by RMV personnel as of June 23, which is why the May 11 chemical test refusal does not appear on Zhukovskyy’s driving record and why his license had not been suspended in Massachusetts."

 

[not2cleverRed]

Let us hope that this horrible tragedy at least inspires change in how state-to-state communications about such violations are processed.