https://www.kbtx.com/2022/09/01/families-friends-four-killed-somerville-by-drunk-driver-outraged-by-plea-deal/

It was dumb for the prosecutor to accept his plea offer. Hopefully, he serves the whole twenty years (he's eligible for parole after serving half of his sentence)

And this is relevant to F16 because?

It has to do with crime and people getting lenient sentences. Also, the article mentions changing the law so drunk drivers who kill can get harsher sentences. He should have gotten at least double in my opinion, so forty years.

I am of the opinion that our DWI punishments are worthless bc it is so tied to the attorney and or other legal bs.


I feel like a DWI charge should be set. Get caught - here is the fine / jail time. Get caught again - here is the more stringent fine / jail time. So on and so forth.


I feel like everyone that gets a DWI gets off of it. If it were required blood draw and 10k plus 30 day sentence regardless - then less would tempt it.

Second tIme is 25k and 90 days. Third time is 360 days.


No getting off the charge!

Another Ethan couch affluenza?

What if they get more than three DWIs?

Article is four months old…

I know, but it's interesting how he was able to do this in Texas and get twenty years. That's something you would expect from Canada.

Maximum Sentence Date: 2040-08-26

Current Facility: WILLACY

Projected Release Date: 2040-08-26

Parole Eligibility Date: 2030-08-26

evestor1 said:

---

I am of the opinion that our DWI punishments are worthless bc it is so tied to the attorney and or other legal bs.


I feel like a DWI charge should be set. Get caught - here is the fine / jail time. Get caught again - here is the more stringent fine / jail time. So on and so forth.


I feel like everyone that gets a DWI gets off of it. If it were required blood draw and 10k plus 30 day sentence regardless - then less would tempt it.

Second tIme is 25k and 90 days. Third time is 360 days.


No getting off the charge!

---

While I understand the sentiment (and I believe the SCOTUS has approved it), I look at forced blood draw as akin to overruling the person's 5th Amendment rights...

Quote:

---

Fifth Amendment
Fifth Amendment Explained

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

How is it that the courts cannot compel a person to SAY something, but they can physically inject a needle into their arm and pull out their blood so that it can be tested? If speech can cause you to be a "witness against" yourself, doesn't your blood also do the same thing?

Doesn't really pass the smell test for me.

And again...I understand where you're coming from but I don't think removing liberty and substituting government oppression is a great solution...

But, that's by libertarian side coming out...I'm definitely a small government type of person.

evestor1 said:

---

I am of the opinion that our DWI punishments are worthless bc it is so tied to the attorney and or other legal bs.


I feel like a DWI charge should be set. Get caught - here is the fine / jail time. Get caught again - here is the more stringent fine / jail time. So on and so forth.


I feel like everyone that gets a DWI gets off of it. If it were required blood draw and 10k plus 30 day sentence regardless - then less would tempt it.

Second tIme is 25k and 90 days. Third time is 360 days.


No getting off the charge!

---

Depends upon the circumstances of course. No way in heck would I vote to convict at a 0.08 breath or blood test as I'd never be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt the test equipment tolerance and accuracy would guarantee the actual value was at or above 0.08, instead of something like 0.07999.

lethalninja said:

---

I know, but it's interesting how he was able to do this in Texas and get twenty years. That's something you would expect from Canada.

Maximum Sentence Date: 2040-08-26

Current Facility: WILLACY

Projected Release Date: 2040-08-26

Parole Eligibility Date: 2030-08-26

---

Try to enter Canada with a DWI conviction...

Yeah...they'll tell you to GFY in Customs and not let you enter.

I was referring to Canada's leniency in terms of punishment. There was a guy there who killed four people and seriously injured two while drunk driving (he had ten prior speeding tickets), and he got ten years and was paroled in less than six.

lethalninja said:

---

I was referring to Canada's leniency in terms of punishment. There was a guy there who killed four people and seriously injured two while drunk driving (he had ten prior speeding tickets), and he got ten years and was paroled in less than six.

---

Fair enough.

I just personally know someone that almost was denied entry into Canada for a work trip we did. We were at the airport for 6 hrs trying to convince them that we could not get the work done without him (he was a guidance and control engineer and former test pilot that apparently ****ed up once).

Once they understood it wasn't just our company that would be hurt but also their NRCC that wouldn't be able to do their research they finally relented - but, with the caveat that it was a ONE TIME THING and he was never allowed back.

My brother in law recently passed from liver failure. He was an alcoholic with many, many DUIs. After the first one no one in the family would bail him out or help pay for his legal fees (he was broke). None of us wanted some innocent families blood on our hands when he got hammered while out on bail and drove it head on into someone else.

I would've had no problem if he'd have rotted in jail for a decade or so after his third DUI.

https://wtaw.com/bryan-mans-first-dwi-conviction-since-1992-is-his-17th-since-1967/

He's already out

Ag with kids said:

---

While I understand the sentiment (and I believe the SCOTUS has approved it), I look at forced blood draw as akin to overruling the person's 5th Amendment rights...


How is it that the courts cannot compel a person to SAY something, but they can physically inject a needle into their arm and pull out their blood so that it can be tested? If speech can cause you to be a "witness against" yourself, doesn't your blood also do the same thing?

Doesn't really pass the smell test for me.

And again...I understand where you're coming from but I don't think removing liberty and substituting government oppression is a great solution...

But, that's by libertarian side coming out...I'm definitely a small government type of person.

---

Not the same at all. Under that logic, if police had probably cause that someone committed a murder and there was evidence in his house, they would not be able to get a search warrant because 'fifth amendment.' Gathering evidence is not forcing testimony.

evestor1 said:

---

I am of the opinion that our DWI punishments are worthless bc it is so tied to the attorney and or other legal bs.


I feel like a DWI charge should be set. Get caught - here is the fine / jail time. Get caught again - here is the more stringent fine / jail time. So on and so forth.


I feel like everyone that gets a DWI gets off of it. If it were required blood draw and 10k plus 30 day sentence regardless - then less would tempt it.

Second tIme is 25k and 90 days. Third time is 360 days.


No getting off the charge!

---

Hell no. DWI's aren't remotely equal. Someone blowing a .08 is not the same as someone blowing a .30. Someone getting a DWI after a wreck vs someone getting a DWI for going to their car to sleep it off but sitting in a parking lot are not the same. There needs to be discretion allowed.

DWI's are serious and should be treated as such but there are definitely varying degrees, especially for a first DWI. I know a LOT of folks (I have never gotten one btw) who got a DWI and never got one again and made sure to change their behavior. Repeat offenders, DWI's that result in injury or death to others, and being way over the limit should also be punished harshly.

aggie93 said:

---

Hell no. DWI's aren't remotely equal. Someone blowing a .08 is not the same as someone blowing a .30. Someone getting a DWI after a wreck vs someone getting a DWI for going to their car to sleep it off but sitting in a parking lot are not the same. There needs to be discretion allowed.

DWI's are serious and should be treated as such but there are definitely varying degrees, especially for a first DWI. I know a LOT of folks (I have never gotten one btw) who got a DWI and never got one again and made sure to change their behavior. Repeat offenders, DWI's that result in injury or death to others, and being way over the limit should also be punished harshly.

---

That's not DWI. No D.

3rd DWI and kills four people?!?

Guy should be hung from the nearest tree.

I wouldn't be surprised if cell phone distracted driver fatalities has surpassed drunk drivers. There is no test for scrolling thru your IG feed or checking emails at 70mph. Not excusing drunk driving, just emphasizing what many more people do more often.

AgRyan04 said:

---

3rd DWI and kills four people?!?

Guy should be hung from the nearest tree.

---

They were indicted for murder, but it is net to impossible to get a murder conviction on a DWI. Intent is tough to prove. That leave intoxication manslaughter, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. That's what he got.

He was originally charged with murder (since he caused a death during the commission of a felony by committing an act clearly dangerous to human life, and the felony was third offense DWI), and if he was convicted at trial, he would have been facing up to life with the possibility of parole after thirty years.

The prosecutor could have allowed him to plead guilty to intoxication manslaughter without accepting his offer, so the judge would be able to stack the sentences at his discretion, and he would be facing up to eighty years (eligible for parole after half of his sentence).

Because blood isn't testimony, it's physical evidence. A blood draw is not compelled statements, but a documentation of your current state of being. It's no different than a fingerprint, a DNA sample, or pictures of your clothes/body.

I'd agree with the sentiment a few posts ago that there should be tiers to DWI offenses. Blowing something like .2 or more should be a felony even if it's your first offense. 2nd offense at any alcohol level should be an automatic felony and 1 year prison sentence. 3rd offense and you should get 20 years minimum because it's obvious you don't take the safety of anyone else on the road seriously.

If someone's dumb enough to get a fourth DWI after serving twenty years for their third, what would the punishment be?

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

While I understand the sentiment (and I believe the SCOTUS has approved it), I look at forced blood draw as akin to overruling the person's 5th Amendment rights...


How is it that the courts cannot compel a person to SAY something, but they can physically inject a needle into their arm and pull out their blood so that it can be tested? If speech can cause you to be a "witness against" yourself, doesn't your blood also do the same thing?

Doesn't really pass the smell test for me.

And again...I understand where you're coming from but I don't think removing liberty and substituting government oppression is a great solution...

But, that's by libertarian side coming out...I'm definitely a small government type of person.

---

Not the same at all. Under that logic, if police had probably cause that someone committed a murder and there was evidence in his house, they would not be able to get a search warrant because 'fifth amendment.' Gathering evidence is not forcing testimony.

---

So...they can can't FORCE me to speak and be a witness against myself, but they can FORCE me to allow someone to stick a needle in me and use my blood to be a witness against myself.

Sounds perfectly logical.

Note that the 5th doesn't state that SPEECH has anything to do with it. It states that you cannot compel someone to be a WITNESS AGAINST THEMSELVES.

Taking someone's blood out of the their body without their consent kind of seems like you're doing that...

But, then, I'm not a totalitarian...

What you say may compelled falsehoods. Your BAC is an objective and irrefutable measurement. By your logic, you can't even give a field sobriety test.

Ag with kids said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

While I understand the sentiment (and I believe the SCOTUS has approved it), I look at forced blood draw as akin to overruling the person's 5th Amendment rights...


How is it that the courts cannot compel a person to SAY something, but they can physically inject a needle into their arm and pull out their blood so that it can be tested? If speech can cause you to be a "witness against" yourself, doesn't your blood also do the same thing?

Doesn't really pass the smell test for me.

And again...I understand where you're coming from but I don't think removing liberty and substituting government oppression is a great solution...

But, that's by libertarian side coming out...I'm definitely a small government type of person.

---

Not the same at all. Under that logic, if police had probably cause that someone committed a murder and there was evidence in his house, they would not be able to get a search warrant because 'fifth amendment.' Gathering evidence is not forcing testimony.

---

So...they can can't FORCE me to speak and be a witness against myself, but they can FORCE me to allow someone to stick a needle in me and use my blood to be a witness against myself. Again, collecting evidence is not forcing testimony. They can gather all sorts of evidence against your interests.

Sounds perfectly logical.

Note that the 5th doesn't state that SPEECH has anything to do with it. It states that you cannot compel someone to be a WITNESS AGAINST THEMSELVES. I think you do not understand the difference between evidence and testimony. 'Witnesses give testimony, not evidence.


Taking someone's blood out of the their body without their consent kind of seems like you're doing that...

But, then, I'm not a totalitarian... Again evidence is gathered all the time without the consent of the accused.

---

And finally, when you accepted a DL from the state, you agreed to give a sample of your breath or blood when requested. If you refuse, it can be obtained with a search warrant based on probable cause.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

What you say may compelled falsehoods. Your BAC is an objective and irrefutable measurement. By your logic, you can't even give a field sobriety test.

---

You don't have to consent to a field sobriety test.

And your testimony can also be evidence.

So, you're completely fine with requiring people to have no 5th Amendment rights to not be a witness against themselves.

Glad to know the Constitution isn't that important to you.

Welcome to the Democratic Party. They'll love you there.

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

While I understand the sentiment (and I believe the SCOTUS has approved it), I look at forced blood draw as akin to overruling the person's 5th Amendment rights...


How is it that the courts cannot compel a person to SAY something, but they can physically inject a needle into their arm and pull out their blood so that it can be tested? If speech can cause you to be a "witness against" yourself, doesn't your blood also do the same thing?

Doesn't really pass the smell test for me.

And again...I understand where you're coming from but I don't think removing liberty and substituting government oppression is a great solution...

But, that's by libertarian side coming out...I'm definitely a small government type of person.

---

Not the same at all. Under that logic, if police had probably cause that someone committed a murder and there was evidence in his house, they would not be able to get a search warrant because 'fifth amendment.' Gathering evidence is not forcing testimony.

---

So...they can can't FORCE me to speak and be a witness against myself, but they can FORCE me to allow someone to stick a needle in me and use my blood to be a witness against myself. Again, collecting evidence is not forcing testimony. They can gather all sorts of evidence against your interests.

Sounds perfectly logical.

Note that the 5th doesn't state that SPEECH has anything to do with it. It states that you cannot compel someone to be a WITNESS AGAINST THEMSELVES. I think you do not understand the difference between evidence and testimony. 'Witnesses give testimony, not evidence.


Taking someone's blood out of the their body without their consent kind of seems like you're doing that...

But, then, I'm not a totalitarian... Again evidence is gathered all the time without the consent of the accused.

---

And finally, when you accepted a DL from the state, you agreed to give a sample of your breath or blood when requested. If you refuse, it can be obtained with a search warrant based on probable cause.

---

Ok. So, the State of Texas has demanded that you waive your 5th Amendment rights in order to receive a DL.

Glad we're such a "free" state.

BTW...I'm not pushing for people to drive drunk. I'm against government tyranny.

Lots of "conservatives" on here that like big government though...that always amuses me.

I know someone who was drunk and so they got in their car in the parking lot to sleep it off, cop knocked on the window and gave them a DWI. If you are behind the wheel of a car that isn't moving you can still be cited.

Ag with kids said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

While I understand the sentiment (and I believe the SCOTUS has approved it), I look at forced blood draw as akin to overruling the person's 5th Amendment rights...


How is it that the courts cannot compel a person to SAY something, but they can physically inject a needle into their arm and pull out their blood so that it can be tested? If speech can cause you to be a "witness against" yourself, doesn't your blood also do the same thing?

Doesn't really pass the smell test for me.

And again...I understand where you're coming from but I don't think removing liberty and substituting government oppression is a great solution...

But, that's by libertarian side coming out...I'm definitely a small government type of person.

---

Not the same at all. Under that logic, if police had probably cause that someone committed a murder and there was evidence in his house, they would not be able to get a search warrant because 'fifth amendment.' Gathering evidence is not forcing testimony.

---

So...they can can't FORCE me to speak and be a witness against myself, but they can FORCE me to allow someone to stick a needle in me and use my blood to be a witness against myself. Again, collecting evidence is not forcing testimony. They can gather all sorts of evidence against your interests.

Sounds perfectly logical.

Note that the 5th doesn't state that SPEECH has anything to do with it. It states that you cannot compel someone to be a WITNESS AGAINST THEMSELVES. I think you do not understand the difference between evidence and testimony. 'Witnesses give testimony, not evidence.


Taking someone's blood out of the their body without their consent kind of seems like you're doing that...

But, then, I'm not a totalitarian... Again evidence is gathered all the time without the consent of the accused.

---

And finally, when you accepted a DL from the state, you agreed to give a sample of your breath or blood when requested. If you refuse, it can be obtained with a search warrant based on probable cause.

---

Ok. So, the State of Texas has demanded that you waive your 5th Amendment rights in order to receive a DL.

Glad we're such a "free" state.

BTW...I'm not pushing for people to drive drunk. I'm against government tyranny.

Lots of "conservatives" on here that like big government though...that always amuses me.

---

I understand you would like to make this a 5th Amendment issue, but it isn't. It really isn't.

The 5th amendment privilege applies to testimony. It does not apply to fingerprints, blood, DNA. That's a 4th amendment issue

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

While I understand the sentiment (and I believe the SCOTUS has approved it), I look at forced blood draw as akin to overruling the person's 5th Amendment rights...


How is it that the courts cannot compel a person to SAY something, but they can physically inject a needle into their arm and pull out their blood so that it can be tested? If speech can cause you to be a "witness against" yourself, doesn't your blood also do the same thing?

Doesn't really pass the smell test for me.

And again...I understand where you're coming from but I don't think removing liberty and substituting government oppression is a great solution...

But, that's by libertarian side coming out...I'm definitely a small government type of person.

---

Not the same at all. Under that logic, if police had probably cause that someone committed a murder and there was evidence in his house, they would not be able to get a search warrant because 'fifth amendment.' Gathering evidence is not forcing testimony.

---

So...they can can't FORCE me to speak and be a witness against myself, but they can FORCE me to allow someone to stick a needle in me and use my blood to be a witness against myself. Again, collecting evidence is not forcing testimony. They can gather all sorts of evidence against your interests.

Sounds perfectly logical.

Note that the 5th doesn't state that SPEECH has anything to do with it. It states that you cannot compel someone to be a WITNESS AGAINST THEMSELVES. I think you do not understand the difference between evidence and testimony. 'Witnesses give testimony, not evidence.


Taking someone's blood out of the their body without their consent kind of seems like you're doing that...

But, then, I'm not a totalitarian... Again evidence is gathered all the time without the consent of the accused.

---

And finally, when you accepted a DL from the state, you agreed to give a sample of your breath or blood when requested. If you refuse, it can be obtained with a search warrant based on probable cause.

---

Again...the 5th Amendment does not say anything about TESTIMONY. It says WITNESS AGAINST THEMSELVES.

I guess that you lawyers love to parse things so that THING A that gives witness is out of bounds but THING B that gives witness is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE!!!!

I can't go over to the ******ed Democratic party side, but this kind of totalitarian view is what has been pushing me away from the Republican party.

Just because it's established law doesn't mean it's right.

3/5
Dred Scott

Both were 100% legal and established law.

BTW...I'm not pro-DWI