| FTBL Kenny Stabler's sentencing Wed.

[rammerjammer]

Where the heck is Alpha Male when you need him?

This thread is begging for some of his dialogue.

 

[Guest]

While I don't condone drinking and driving, too many lives have been lost to harp on this subject. if Stabler wasn't who he is, we're not even discussing this. He should have known better obviously prior to the first offense, definitely after the first...

Still in our society, some people are going to do as they damn well please...

I for one know first hand that I am wrong to have a few drinks even watching football for five hours and three beers and then drive home... I know its wrong! Yet. I may make a conscious decision to gamble my freedom by doing so...

We've all done it and we all know we shouldn't... I can't pass judgement on the snake. I'm fortunate that I don't do this kind of behaviour anymore.

I hope he learns and doesn't do this anymore.

;w;w

 

[Guest]

Where the heck is Alpha Male when you need him?

This thread is begging for some of his dialogue.

;w;w

 

[runswithscissors]

FYI, Stabler's trial has been continued

http://www.wkrg.com/crime/article/stabler_dui_trial_postponed1/16854/

i wish they would just get it over with, but at least everybody is taking the right steps and recusing themselves where applicable.

 

[runswithscissors]

The state wants his money. If they can't have that, they will put him in jail. That's the sad reality. Another reality is that the "land of the free" has more people incarcerated per capita than any other country in the world. Over 25% of ALL incarcerations on this planet are in the good ole' US of A with the vast majority being locked up for non-violent offenses. This, in a world of almost 7 billion people. As a nation and as a people, are we really THAT BAD? Or, are there perhaps flaws in our approach to crime and punishment in this country? - maybe if people stopped breaking the law, they wouldn't be in jail. we could be like other countries and cut somebody's hand off for shoplifting, now couldn't we? some people get the message when they do a little time. some get the message when they have to pay some cash. some don't.

If Stabler or anyone else in a similar situation goes to jail over this their career will be ruined, their families will suffer while the centerpiece of the family unit is ripped away, and a tax-paying and otherwise law abiding citizen will be removed from society and will be replaced, at the expense of the tax payers, with a ward of the state. Surely, we can come up with a better solution than that for someone who may have had a few too many drinks at the local watering hole, who perhaps didn't maintain a lane well enough for a patrolman, and who most importantly DIDN'T HURT ANYONE! - .....yet. i think its crazy that we should wait until he is drunk one night and kills a family of 4 or something. don't you think whoever might survive that family would wonder why nothing had ever been done before. true, in this case apparently fining him hasn't stopped him from driving drunk. but its alot better than doing nothing. plus, part of their fines go towards victim compensation funds and things like that.

Take his license away for some number of years? Sure. After all, there has to be accountability else we have anarchy. But if the politicians and lawyers had their way we'd all be prisoners with the only way of avoiding incarceration being the transfer of our bank accounts into theirs.

FDR's "fear itself" comment was never more relevant than it is now. Fear, and not reason, is driving many of us to vote for politicians who are running a "tough on crime" campaign with no solutions other than lock them up and throw away the key while certain blowhard pundits on the TV are singing the fear-laced chorus line every night of the week. These politicians are willing to enact legislation that is strictly punitive and makes no attempt whatsoever to help fix the underlying problem. And for what?

Will he be a better man when he gets out? Will he have more remorse than he already has? Will his family be better off? No, no, and no.

Will the fear-mongering politicians get more votes running a "tough on crime" campain? Will lawyers put tens of thousands of dollars into their pockets every time they handle a DUI case? Will certain judges who belong to the same country clubs as those lawyers also reap financial gains if the offender comes up with the right amount of cash? Yes, yes, and sadly yes.

Do I sometimes get into a cynical mood? Do I do so at the expense of those who bother to read this far down into my blathering? Yes and yes.

Seriously, I do hope and pray for him and his family that he manages to get his life and his family back on track very soon.

 

[alagator]

I wonder if Siran Stacey might still have his wife and children with him each night if someone in the legal system had been a little more serious about drunken drivers and taken the criminal who caused that accident off the road BEFORE that fateful night?

Unlike AFF, I think it wise to act BEFORE a habitual offender actually HURTS SOMEONE than AFTER the fact. I guess AFF would have no problem letting someone go who shoots a gun at someone but misses the mark? Afterall, where is the crime and why take away a potential bread-winner from his family if the shooter did not HURT ANYONE?

I really love the rationalization by AFF for keeping a habitual offender like Stabler out of jail because he is an 'otherwise law abiding citizen.' Kind of like saying Bill Clinton was 'an otherwise devoted husband' if you ignore all the philandering and adultry.

Stabler should thank God each and every night he has not maimed or murdered someone in his multiple escapades of drunken or under the influence driving. He has really dodged a bullet than defies all odds.

 

[Outlaw]

I wonder if Siran Stacey might still have his wife and children with him each night if someone in the legal system had been a little more serious about drunken drivers and taken the criminal who caused that accident off the road BEFORE that fateful night?

Unlike AFF, I think it wise to act BEFORE a habitual offender actually HURTS SOMEONE than AFTER the fact. I guess AFF would have no problem letting someone go who shoots a gun at someone but misses the mark? Afterall, where is the crime and why take away a potential bread-winner from his family if the shooter did not HURT ANYONE?

I really love the rationalization by AFF for keeping a habitual offender like Stabler out of jail because he is an 'otherwise law abiding citizen.' Kind of like saying Bill Clinton was 'an otherwise devoted husband' if you ignore all the philandering and adultry.

Stabler should thank God each and every night he has not maimed or murdered someone in his multiple escapades of drunken or under the influence driving. He has really dodged a bullet than defies all odds.

^^YOUda

 

[reger60]

I wonder if Siran Stacey might still have his wife and children with him each night if someone in the legal system had been a little more serious about drunken drivers and taken the criminal who caused that accident off the road BEFORE that fateful night?

Unlike AFF, I think it wise to act BEFORE a habitual offender actually HURTS SOMEONE than AFTER the fact. I guess AFF would have no problem letting someone go who shoots a gun at someone but misses the mark? Afterall, where is the crime and why take away a potential bread-winner from his family if the shooter did not HURT ANYONE?

I really love the rationalization by AFF for keeping a habitual offender like Stabler out of jail because he is an 'otherwise law abiding citizen.' Kind of like saying Bill Clinton was 'an otherwise devoted husband' if you ignore all the philandering and adultry.

Stabler should thank God each and every night he has not maimed or murdered someone in his multiple escapades of drunken or under the influence driving. He has really dodged a bullet than defies all odds.

Very, very well said.

 

[AFF]

I wonder if Siran Stacey might still have his wife and children with him each night if someone in the legal system had been a little more serious about drunken drivers and taken the criminal who caused that accident off the road BEFORE that fateful night?

Unlike AFF, I think it wise to act BEFORE a habitual offender actually HURTS SOMEONE than AFTER the fact. I guess AFF would have no problem letting someone go who shoots a gun at someone but misses the mark? Afterall, where is the crime and why take away a potential bread-winner from his family if the shooter did not HURT ANYONE?

I really love the rationalization by AFF for keeping a habitual offender like Stabler out of jail because he is an 'otherwise law abiding citizen.' Kind of like saying Bill Clinton was 'an otherwise devoted husband' if you ignore all the philandering and adultry.

Stabler should thank God each and every night he has not maimed or murdered someone in his multiple escapades of drunken or under the influence driving. He has really dodged a bullet than defies all odds.

OK alagator - I'll bite (pun intended)

If it is indeed wise to act BEFORE the crime is committed, then perhaps we should really get serious and treat everyone above the legal alcohol limit who gets behind the wheel of a car as if they are actually intending to kill a family. The punishment would have to be life in prison because we already know BEFORE the fact that they're going to kill a family as soon as they get out. This solution would certainly stop convicted DUI offenders from ever killing anyone. But what about first-time offenders - teenagers and the like? Maybe we should also hire geneticists to determine at birth who has the "alcoholic" gene and lock them up as soon as they reach legal driving age. That'd REALLY be effective in preventing the crime BEFORE it ever happens. Boy, what a wonderful country this would be then! But wait! Why stop there? We've cracked the human genetic code. There's all sorts of undesirables we could eliminate from society just by doing a little tweaking and genetic splicing. We could create a super race of people! Tut dieses Tonvertraute? This is not new approach. Just how far would you be willing to go down the slippery slope of convicting someone BEFORE an actual crime is committed?

Yes, Stabler should have known better. Yes, he deserves punishment for the crime he COMMITTED and not for the crime he COULD have committed. Someone (drunken or otherwise) who picks up a gun and "misses" another person, either accidentally or intentionally, should be punished for the crime they actually committed - not for Murder I. Taking away the offender's right to carry a firearm, for one, would make sense in such a case. Likewise, taking away a person convicted of a DUI's right to drive makes sense.

Giving a DUI offender and extended prison sentence when nobody is actually physically injured is just too harsh IMHO. But then again, my political center falls closer to Goldwater/Reagan conservatism with libertarian leanings than it does to many of the bloodthirsty, boorish, neocon proselytes out there who are always looking for a good hanging or witch hunt in order to feel themselves beyond reproach by comparison.

Stabler's reckless behavior as well as his contribution to society as a whole should all be taken into account. Put the pitchfork down and try not to ignore all the good he has done for charities and other humanitarian acts. After all, it's not as if the guy is some sort of a "snake".....OK, scratch that last comment. Maybe he's a snake. But he's also got a lot of fine human qualities. I'd rather reserve a prison cell for someone more deserving.

 

[Guest]

30 years ago I had what I know consider the good fortune to be stopped and arrested for DUI. I had not killed or maimed anyone, and really wasn't speeding all that much (50 in a 40 zone) but I wasn't exactly going straight. I got all the law called for... a night in jail, a court appearance and a hefty fine, points on my drivers license and more expensive insurance. But it served as a wake up call for me. It would be accurate to say that there were dozens of times before that one where I was over the legal limit and behind the wheel and just did not get stopped. There were some mornings when I got up and couldn't remember driving home, times when my car was parked rather strangely. Realization set in that every time I had been drinking and got behind the wheel I was wantonly placing someone else's life in danger. Fortunately I never had an accident while drinking.

You can't just throw everyone in the clink who might drive drunk, because there are people who might be genetically predisposed to that weakness who never give in to it. Nonetheless, when someone is stopped for DWI we should come down on them hard enough to make them really think about drinking and driving. Perhaps pictures and descriptions of what happened to Siran and his family would drive home the point. And if a drunken driver does kill or injure someone while driving he should indeed be treated as a criminal.

If there are no injuries, deaths or property damage:

1st time: stiff fine, scare them straight if possible:

2nd time: suspend the license for a long time

3rd time: serious jail time, pemanent loss of license.

 

[Guest]

I wonder if Siran Stacey might still have his wife and children with him each night if someone in the legal system had been a little more serious about drunken drivers and taken the criminal who caused that accident off the road BEFORE that fateful night?

Unlike AFF, I think it wise to act BEFORE a habitual offender actually HURTS SOMEONE than AFTER the fact. I guess AFF would have no problem letting someone go who shoots a gun at someone but misses the mark? Afterall, where is the crime and why take away a potential bread-winner from his family if the shooter did not HURT ANYONE?

I really love the rationalization by AFF for keeping a habitual offender like Stabler out of jail because he is an 'otherwise law abiding citizen.' Kind of like saying Bill Clinton was 'an otherwise devoted husband' if you ignore all the philandering and adultry.

Stabler should thank God each and every night he has not maimed or murdered someone in his multiple escapades of drunken or under the influence driving. He has really dodged a bullet than defies all odds.

OK alagator - I'll bite (pun intended)

If it is indeed wise to act BEFORE the crime is committed, then perhaps we should really get serious and treat everyone above the legal alcohol limit who gets behind the wheel of a car as if they are actually intending to kill a family. The punishment would have to be life in prison because we already know BEFORE the fact that they're going to kill a family as soon as they get out. This solution would certainly stop convicted DUI offenders from ever killing anyone. But what about first-time offenders - teenagers and the like? Maybe we should also hire geneticists to determine at birth who has the "alcoholic" gene and lock them up as soon as they reach legal driving age. That'd REALLY be effective in preventing the crime BEFORE it ever happens. Boy, what a wonderful country this would be then! But wait! Why stop there? We've cracked the human genetic code. There's all sorts of undesirables we could eliminate from society just by doing a little tweaking and genetic splicing. We could create a super race of people! Tut dieses Tonvertraute? This is not new approach. Just how far would you be willing to go down the slippery slope of convicting someone BEFORE an actual crime is committed?

Yes, Stabler should have known better. Yes, he deserves punishment for the crime he COMMITTED and not for the crime he COULD have committed. Someone (drunken or otherwise) who picks up a gun and "misses" another person, either accidentally or intentionally, should be punished for the crime they actually committed - not for Murder I. Taking away the offender's right to carry a firearm, for one, would make sense in such a case. Likewise, taking away a person convicted of a DUI's right to drive makes sense.

Giving a DUI offender and extended prison sentence when nobody is actually physically injured is just too harsh IMHO. But then again, my political center falls closer to Goldwater/Reagan conservatism with libertarian leanings than it does to many of the bloodthirsty, boorish, neocon proselytes out there who are always looking for a good hanging or witch hunt in order to feel themselves beyond reproach by comparison.

Stabler's reckless behavior as well as his contribution to society as a whole should all be taken into account. Put the pitchfork down and try not to ignore all the good he has done for charities and other humanitarian acts. After all, it's not as if the guy is some sort of a "snake".....OK, scratch that last comment. Maybe he's a snake. But he's also got a lot of fine human qualities. I'd rather reserve a prison cell for someone more deserving.

This solution would certainly stop convicted DUI offenders from ever killing anyone. But what about first-time offenders - teenagers and the like? Maybe we should also hire geneticists to determine at birth who has the "alcoholic" gene and lock them up as soon as they reach legal driving age. That'd REALLY be effective in preventing the crime BEFORE it ever happens. Boy, what a wonderful country this would be then! But wait! Why stop there? We've cracked the human genetic code. There's all sorts of undesirables we could eliminate from society just by doing a little tweaking and genetic splicing. We could create a super race of people! Tut dieses Tonvertraute? This is not new approach. Just how far would you be willing to go down the slippery slope of convicting someone BEFORE an actual crime is committed?

ROFL!! Damn that's funny!

 

[Argo]

Giving a DUI offender and extended prison sentence when nobody is actually physically injured is just too harsh IMHO.

I'd rather reserve a prison cell for someone more deserving.

I agree that giving a DUI offender an extended prison sentence is ridiculous. Now, giving a repeat DUI offender anything less than an extended prison sentence is unacceptable.

It's not that hard to find someone to drive you home when you've been drinking. It's also not that hard to NOT drink when you know you are going to be driving in a few hours.

I can't understand why it's so hard for people to actually accept and expect a small amount of responsibility and self control as adults.

 

[runswithscissors]

Giving a DUI offender and extended prison sentence when nobody is actually physically injured is just too harsh IMHO.

I'd rather reserve a prison cell for someone more deserving.

I agree that giving a DUI offender an extended prison sentence is ridiculous. Now, giving a repeat DUI offender anything less than an extended prison sentence is unacceptable.

It's not that hard to find someone to drive you home when you've been drinking. It's also not that hard to NOT drink when you know you are going to be driving in a few hours.

I can't understand why it's so hard for people to actually accept and expect a small amount of responsibility and self control as adults.

a cab ride is only $20 away....and there are plenty of them down here. personally, working in the criminal justice system, i think its sad the way we cater to offenders and i don't think some are punished enough. for example, we have one guy in our jail now that is in pretty much every other month, never appears for court dates, and runs from the police anytime we interact with him. he is a habitual drug user, an alcoholic, etc. i don't think he will ever get it thru his head that he should obey the law, but that is no reason to just let him go scott free whenever he does break the law, as AFF would seem to suggest.

 

[AFF]

Giving a DUI offender and extended prison sentence when nobody is actually physically injured is just too harsh IMHO.

I'd rather reserve a prison cell for someone more deserving.

I agree that giving a DUI offender an extended prison sentence is ridiculous. Now, giving a repeat DUI offender anything less than an extended prison sentence is unacceptable.

It's not that hard to find someone to drive you home when you've been drinking. It's also not that hard to NOT drink when you know you are going to be driving in a few hours.

I can't understand why it's so hard for people to actually accept and expect a small amount of responsibility and self control as adults.

a cab ride is only $20 away....and there are plenty of them down here.

That is definately the best solution. It always has been. Calling a cab also requires a level of reasoning not always present after 6 or so beers.

If a car seat can detect when someone is sitting in a seat and set off that darn seatbelt tone - they need to implement an alcohol blood level detector which prohibits ignition of the engine unless you are under the limit. Some of you young technical bucks get crackin' on that technology and you'll make yourselves very rich!

 

[alagator]

If it is indeed wise to act BEFORE the crime is committed, then perhaps we should really get serious and treat everyone above the legal alcohol limit who gets behind the wheel of a car as if they are actually intending to kill a family. The punishment would have to be life in prison because we already know BEFORE the fact that they're going to kill a family as soon as they get out. This solution would certainly stop convicted DUI offenders from ever killing anyone. But what about first-time offenders - teenagers and the like? Maybe we should also hire geneticists to determine at birth who has the "alcoholic" gene and lock them up as soon as they reach legal driving age. That'd REALLY be effective in preventing the crime BEFORE it ever happens. Boy, what a wonderful country this would be then! But wait! Why stop there? We've cracked the human genetic code. There's all sorts of undesirables we could eliminate from society just by doing a little tweaking and genetic splicing. We could create a super race of people! Tut dieses Tonvertraute? This is not new approach. Just how far would you be willing to go down the slippery slope of convicting someone BEFORE an actual crime is committed?

If that is supposed to be some attempt to point out absurdity by using absurdity then you only succeeded in the 'using absurdity' part of the equation.

You see, we are merely talking about punishing Stabler for his THIRD or FOURTH violation of the DUI laws. We are merely talking about enacting just punishment for someone who has THREE or FOUR times ALREADY violated the law - not punishing him before he does so (unliess it is the FIFTH violation). We are merely talking about giving him his just punishment BEFORE he repeats his behavior - most likely because he has never suffered any real consequences for violations one or two or three, and causes physical harm to another human being.

I am not aware of anyone calling for Stabler to be convicted and sentenced for anything he might do - only that which he had done, and done, and done, and done.

So, before you go off on some rant - and least make sure the point of your rant is real and not something you imagine.

Yes, Stabler should have known better. Yes, he deserves punishment for the crime he COMMITTED and not for the crime he COULD have committed. Someone (drunken or otherwise) who picks up a gun and "misses" another person, either accidentally or intentionally, should be punished for the crime they actually committed - not for Murder I. Taking away the offender's right to carry a firearm, for one, would make sense in such a case. Likewise, taking away a person convicted of a DUI's right to drive makes sense.

Why would you punish anyone who fires a weapon at another person where no harm was committed? Afterall, the presence of physical harm was the crux of your argument and call for lax punishment.

And still, by incarcerating someone who fires a weapon at another to no consequence might be taking away an 'otherwise law abiding citizen' and physical and fiscal provider for a family. And that is bad, bad, bad I thought.

And of course we just KNOW taking away a right to carry a firearm will prevent a criminal (aka 'an otherwise law abiding citizen') from EVER possessing such a weapon ever again. And we just KNOW taking away the drivers license of someone will result in them NEVER getting behind the wheel of an automobile EVER again - sober or drunk.

And would not taking away one's ability to drive result in great harm in their ability to seek and maintain gainful employment - thus causing fiscal harm to their families?

Giving a DUI offender and extended prison sentence when nobody is actually physically injured is just too harsh IMHO. But then again, my political center falls closer to Goldwater/Reagan conservatism with libertarian leanings than it does to many of the bloodthirsty, boorish, neocon proselytes out there who are always looking for a good hanging or witch hunt in order to feel themselves beyond reproach by comparison.

If we were talking about a FIRST time offender you might have some point. But we are talking about a HABITUAL offender.

You political center, at least by your assertions here, is nowhere near Goldwater or Reagan.

Stabler's reckless behavior as well as his contribution to society as a whole should all be taken into account. Put the pitchfork down and try not to ignore all the good he has done for charities and other humanitarian acts. After all, it's not as if the guy is some sort of a "snake".....OK, scratch that last comment. Maybe he's a snake. But he's also got a lot of fine human qualities. I'd rather reserve a prison cell for someone more deserving.

You mean someone who is more an 'otherwise law abiding citizen?'