Man gets probation for 7th DUI

[Book]

Man gets probation for 7th DUI

by Associated Press

KTVB.COM

Posted on May 18, 2010

POCATELLO -- A 47-year-old Inkom man has been sentenced to four years of probation after being convicted of his seventh charge of driving under the influence.

Kirk Gardner was sentenced Monday by Sixth District Judge Robert Naftz, who grudgingly accepted a recommendation by the prosecution and the defense against sentencing Gardner to a six-month boot camp program.

Bannock County Deputy Prosecutor Zach Parris told Naftz that he believes Gardner can successfully get treatment for his alcohol problem locally. Naftz noted that Gardner was on probation for his sixth DUI when he was arrested for his seventh in February.

The Idaho State Journal reported that Naftz warned Gardner he would face six years in prison if he got another DUI while on probation.

Linky (http://www.ktvb.com/news/Man-gets-probation-for-7th-DUI-94143199.html)

:oo-->

we really really really really really really REALLY mean it this time pal!

[Ifyouseekay]

-

[StackerKen]

Does that mean he still has a drivers licence? :o

[I am me, I am free]

The glaring issue that most miss is that there is no justice in 'Merika at this time and hasn't been for at least ~75 years.

I don't give a diddlely-squat about those caught driving drunk, what I'd like to see is something along the lines of mandatory life sentences (if not capital punishment) for those drunk drivers who kill anyone while driving drunk and mandatory prison terms for person injury and property damage while driving drunk (on a sliding scale with the term appropriate to the severity of the injury). THAT would put an end to that nonsense. Direct accountability/responsibility for one's own actions is the only solution, anything else is strictly servitude to the corporate state while the victims get screwed over (by the corporate state).

[willie pete]

Damn, 7 DUI's?

[I am me, I am free]

Damn, 7 DUI's?


This is only one example why the current 'DUI' laws are a joke, and the joke is on us.

[ximmy]

He's probably on a program that failed so they send him a government check for his illness... pays for his housing & continual drinking.

yes, government pays alcoholics, they have a disease and must be cared for. >:(

[Book]

I don't give a diddlely-squat about those caught driving drunk, what I'd like to see is something along the lines of mandatory life sentences (if not capital punishment) for those drunk drivers who kill anyone while driving drunk and mandatory prison terms for person injury and property damage while driving drunk (on a sliding scale with the term appropriate to the severity of the injury).


http://passaicnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/drunk-driver.jpg

Yeah...respect their freedoms until they actually kill somebody.

:oo-->

[StackerKen]

we have argued about this before.....

But to me it is exactly like letting a person fire a gun into the air...until they hurt or kill someone....

Not the way to go. IMO

[k-os]

I bet the judge's decision has less to do with drunk driving and more to do with prison over-crowding.

[Ash_Williams]

we have argued about this before.....

But to me it is exactly like letting a person fire a gun into the air...until they hurt or kill someone....

Not the way to go. IMO


What we are doing with DUI is like saying that if you fire your gun off into the air we might give you a ticket. To balance that off, if you hit someone while doing this, unless you actually kill them, the only consequence will be a fine or we'll take away your gun licence. If you hit something non-human your gun insurance will go up some.

The alternative is that you can fire your gun into the air and no one bothers you unless you do hit someone or something, then you deal with the FULL consequences. For driving, this would mean you hurt someone or wreck something, you are fully responsible (doesn't matter if you're drunk or not.)

The amount of regulation really shields people from the reality of driving and removes their responsibility. It gives the impression that if you only have 1 beer, and don't go over the speed limit, then you are safe and whatever may happen is an "accident" and not your fault. They've removed the responsibility from the driver.. 55mph is a safe speed, 1 beer is a safe level... therefore I'm safe, I'm following the rules.

To me the person who has caused an accident, even if they never drink and follow the rules, is worse than the person with 7 DUI's that has never caused an accident. You can't argue with results.

[Ponce]

Prison to crowded with other crimes........like trespassing, shop lifting, jay walking and so on.

[silver_surfer]

I used to know a guy who had 13 DUI's

[I am me, I am free]

I don't give a diddlely-squat about those caught driving drunk, what I'd like to see is something along the lines of mandatory life sentences (if not capital punishment) for those drunk drivers who kill anyone while driving drunk and mandatory prison terms for person injury and property damage while driving drunk (on a sliding scale with the term appropriate to the severity of the injury).


http://passaicnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/drunk-driver.jpg

Yeah...respect their freedoms until they actually kill somebody.

:oo-->


Book, you ENTIRELY missed the point, which makes you another mindless drone looking to the corporate state to protect you from yourself.

[Book]

I don't give a diddlely-squat about those caught driving drunk, what I'd like to see is something along the lines of mandatory life sentences (if not capital punishment) for those drunk drivers who kill anyone while driving drunk and mandatory prison terms for person injury and property damage while driving drunk



http://behavioralhealth.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/20/jacqui_poster.jpg

Read real slow...like a recipe.

:oo-->

[I am me, I am free]

I don't give a diddlely-squat about those caught driving drunk, what I'd like to see is something along the lines of mandatory life sentences (if not capital punishment) for those drunk drivers who kill anyone while driving drunk and mandatory prison terms for person injury and property damage while driving drunk



Read real slow...like a recipe.

:oo-->


Book, I think you're a complete knucklehead.

AW totally gets it - it's about full liability (as it SHOULD be) vs. the privilege of limited liability granted by the corporate state.

Get a clue - limited liability ENCOURAGES bad behavior, just like those assholes who were criminally negligent in causing the BP blowout will never get charged with anything, much less punished like they truly deserve.

What you're advocating is a Ministry of Pre-Crime. lol

[I am me, I am free]

BTW, in the accident in which Saburido was injured there were two other girls killed instantly. The 17 y.o. (yes, that's right, all the laws in the world preventing minors from getting alcohol failed to keep this SEVENTEEN year old from driving drunk) kid who ran head-on into the girl's car, Reginald Stephey, was recently released from prison after serving 7 years for two counts of intoxicated manslaughter (not long enough imo, two life terms would have made a much better example to the community).

And FWIW, the scene of this accident is less than 6 miles from my office, I'm very familiar with this situation. It's a quick curve on a four lane undivided highway (unpaved shoulder) with a 55 mph speed limit which can trip up sober drivers not paying attention. Stephey turned sharply (possibly over-correcting) into an already sharp curve and ended up in the path of those girls - had he not made the turn he would have simply left the road (not the case the other direction, i.e. northbound). I've driven this particular road hundreds of times, and you better be paying attention when you hit that curve.

[Book]

I'm very familiar with this situation. It's a quick curve in an area with a 55 mph speed limit which can trip up sober drivers not paying attention.



And yet you don't "give a diddlely-squat" if drunks drive around that quick curve.

:oo-->

[Dave Thomas]

If we lock all these drunks up for life, how are they going to repay society?

Forced labor, not mandatory 3 hots and a cot.

Oh wait, that's what they were doing before the DUI!

LOL.

[I am me, I am free]

I'm very familiar with this situation. It's a quick curve in an area with a 55 mph speed limit which can trip up sober drivers not paying attention.



And yet you don't "give a diddlely-squat" if drunks drive around that quick curve.

:oo-->


You still don't get it, but it's not entirely your fault since you've been dumbed down into thinking that the corporate state is here to protect you. lol

(That's right, it appears to me that you're depending upon the corporate state as if it was your god)

[Book]

Book, I think you're a complete knucklehead.



http://getfancy.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/1236292250-drunk.jpg

He has the "freedom" to drive until he kills somebody. Then and only then you want to interrupt his "freedom".

:oo-->

[I am me, I am free]

So Book, why don't you list all the people who have been harmed in the course of this guy racking up 7 DUIs?

I want to know specifically the names of the humans he harmed and the damages done.

(I have a point to make, and if you fail to provide any such info this will prove my point anyway, so TIA)

[Book]

I have a point to make, and if you fail to provide any such info this will prove my point anyway, so TIA)



Now you make ME responsible to prove YOUR point. Ha Ha. Have another drink...Ha Ha.

:D

[Horn]

What's the death ratio?

I'll figure 65 to 2.

[I am me, I am free]

I have a point to make, and if you fail to provide any such info this will prove my point anyway, so TIA)



Now you make ME responsible to prove YOUR point. Ha Ha. Have another drink...Ha Ha.

:D






My point is that you're a dyed-in-the-wool apologist for the corporate state, one without a clue. You want to see people punished for behavior in which they've harmed no one but themselves.

In the status quo (which you so strongly defend), victims are NEVER made whole again, EVERYTHING flows to the corporate state. People are punished strictly for behavior, and this does NOTHING to deter them from harming others. This is what the corporate state privilege of limited liability has wrought - people not being accountable and responsible for their actions when they harm others. Victims virtually NEVER receive compensation for their injuries/damages directly from the party who harmed them, the corporate state collects EVERYTHING from the 'wrongdoer' and the victim gets shat upon.

Admit it Book, you're shilling for the corporate state and limited liability, 'cause if you weren't you wouldn't be on this bandwagon of yours.

I see NO evidence that this knucklehead with the 7 DUIs has harmed any other human by his actions. And no, I don't *support* drunk driving in any from or fashion - only a jackass would say that I do.

[StackerKen]

I am me;

Drunk driving is dangerous behavior is it not?

Im not talking one beer...thats dumb...everyknows that one beer would not put someone over the Blood alcohol limit.

If someone drives above the B.A. limit, it is dangerous for every one on the road.

But you don't think it should be against the law to drive after a few drinks or a sixpack?

[Book]

I see NO evidence that this knucklehead with the 7 DUIs has harmed any other human by his actions. And no, I don't *support* drunk driving in any from or fashion - only a jackass would say that I do.



http://getfancy.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/1236292250-drunk.jpg

You support a drunk's "right" to drive drunk. Just scroll up and read your own posts...lol.

:oo-->

[Quantum]

Book, you ENTIRELY missed the point, which makes you another mindless drone looking to the corporate state to protect you from yourself.


Can I shoot my rifle towards you while you go about in public, as long as I miss by at least five feet every time?

[kiffertom]

i know a guy who got 4 years for his 4th dui!!

[mike88]

must have been a sharp jew lawyer to get him off this time.

[Bigjon]

Well drunk driving, one of my favorite things to do.

I confess I've done it multiple times and never ever had an accident. I along with my drinking pals usually go someplace where they have multiple British ales on tap. We do this in the late afternoon at the sidewalk cafe's where the girl watching is awwwwsome. Our limit is 6 pints (20 US oz), then we go home under cover of rush hour, when all the people on the road know how to drive. It's the safest time to drive, no little old ladies stopped at the end of the accelleration ramp.

Stick it in your ear, bozo's.

[Ash_Williams]

Im not talking one beer...thats dumb...everyknows that one beer would not put someone over the Blood alcohol limit.

If someone drives above the B.A. limit, it is dangerous for every one on the road.

But you don't think it should be against the law to drive after a few drinks or a sixpack?

The problem is that you should then have a law against anything that could put others at risk.

It should be illegal to smoke in your car, or look down at the radio, or talk on a cellphone, or talk, or be tired, or be angry, or too old, or glance at a cute girl, or drive if you might sneeze, or drive on the ice without 4x4 and snow tires...

All those things increase your risk of hurting someone. The only business you have doing behind the wheel is driving in perfect health with no impairments. I got rammed into once by an 80 year old that mixed the peddles up, but never by a drunk. Most near misses I experience involve old people with limited awareness or smokers who are no paying attention, not drunks. The problem is when you hurt someone... you've then proven you did something that you shouldn't have done or driven in a condition when you couldn't handle a car. Driving above the BA limit isn't necessarily dangerous... people who do it tend to take the lonely road home and aren't doing 55 around a corner. Is it more dangerous to have one too many beers and driving down an empty road at 2 am than to be cruising through daytime traffic with your smoke out the window and blow through a red light? There's always judgment. Most accidents are not caused by drunks. And with a BA limit that changes, how can you say it was dangerous for this guy to driving with 0.6 in this state and the other guy is safe driving with 0.7 in that state? It's just a number because if you give people a sobriety test a lot of them will do just fine (better than a lot of old people I'd wager) and you won't be able to convict them. I think anyone that can't pass a test of basic motor functions and coordination should be taken off the road - booze in their system or not.

[StackerKen]

In Ca. it is against the law to drive while talking on a cell phone(unless it's hands free)
and it also against the law to drive while eating.

any kind of "Impaired" driving is dangerous...and is against the law

[Book]

any kind of "Impaired" driving is dangerous...and is against the law.



Exactly.

:)