Drunk plows into crowd of people outside bar

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

you can punish the majority for the actions of a small minority. do you honestly think that non-drinkers should be forced to blow into a breathalyzer before being able to start their car? i wouldn't be obverse to making them a requirement for anyone previously convicted of a DUI, but not for everyone

I know it's far fetched; but, how many times does someone drive drunk before they get busted? I know my idea would never work but it's really the only solution. (sorta, I know they could just have a sober person blow into the machine)

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

you can punish the majority for the actions of a small minority. do you honestly think that non-drinkers should be forced to blow into a breathalyzer before being able to start their car? i wouldn't be obverse to making them a requirement for anyone previously convicted of a DUI, but not for everyone

How is exhaling into a device any harder than having to put a key in the ignition and turning it? How do you see that as a punishment? Do you have gills or something?

If doing something as simple as that meant some people's lives would be saved by people who thought they were 'ok' to drive why not?

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

FWIW, here's the version I got from a friend of a friend who was there.

The accused and a co-worker/friend or two were in there having drinks. Apparently a wallet was found on the floor by the accused. He then began using the money/credit cards found inside to buy drinks for the house. Supposedly the wallet belonged to someone still in the bar. When it was found out how he was buying drinks, all hell let loose.

Take it with a grain of salt obviously, but I do know that the friend of a friend was actually there, as I was told about it Friday morning before it hit the news.

Hopefully he gets a credit card fraud charge on top of it all too.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

you can punish the majority for the actions of a small minority. do you honestly think that non-drinkers should be forced to blow into a breathalyzer before being able to start their car? i wouldn't be obverse to making them a requirement for anyone previously convicted of a DUI, but not for everyone

I am kind of torn on this. Personally, I would have no problem giving my car a blowie if it saves lives. It seems logical that if it is illegal to drive with a certain amount of alcohol in your system, then preventing anyone from driving in that condition would be a good idea. Even if it is a good idea, there will always be a part of the population that feel they are being punished or oppressed because someone else is too dumb to do the right thing.

Another thing that would be a problem is that there are a variety of substances that trip those breathalysers. I have never had to blow into one myself, but I have a very stubborn/irresponsible uncle who has had several DUI's and now has one installed in every vehicle he owns. He says that some breathmints and mouthwash, even some cough syrup will trip it. Until there is a more refined and cost effective version this seems like a long way off.

I have another set of relatives who were almost killed when they were t-boned by a drunk going 110 KM/h in a 60 zone.

This common acceptance for alcohol and it's consumption should lead to a common acceptance of preventing misuse by any means necessary. While I know I am capable of controlling my actions in these situations, I also know that some people are not/unwilling.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

How is exhaling into a device any harder than having to put a key in the ignition and turning it? How do you see that as a punishment? Do you have gills or something?

If doing something as simple as that meant some people's lives would be saved by people who thought they were 'ok' to drive why not?

if you install a breathalyzer into every car, are you going to also install a metal detector for all cell phones as well? because they're just as dangerous as alcohol when it comes to driving. or how about forcing people to be locked into an F1 style cockpit, where they can't move around and be distracted? fact is that drunk drivers are a tiny percentage of vehicles on the road, i'm more concerned with the idiot on his phone in the lane next to me or the mom with 2 screaming kids in the car in front of me than i am about a drunk driver

the majority of fatal road accidents do not involve alcohol, they just attract the most attention because there is never any doubt to the blame. but having the government step in and force everyone to breathe into a tube before starting their car just reeks of a nanny state

[billybob123]

The proposal for suspicionless breathalyzer tests that MADD is supporting in my mind is the first step on a slippery slope. So a police officer doesn't like what your car looks like, pulls you over on the pretext of "random breathalyzer" and then gets to search your car while he's at it?

Lest anyone here think I'm a softy on drinking and driving - here's my solution to the problem:

1) Lower the legal limit to 0 or 0.02. This means people may not be able to have a small glass of wine or beer with dinner and still be 'ok' - but hey, listen, this will outlaw drinking and driving. Draconian laws might be the only way out. Many countries where drinking is considered a far greater part of the culture than Canada have laws where 0.02% is the legal limit, e.g. Estonia, Poland, Russia, Czech Republic, and Hungary. If you drink, don't drive. No matter the amount you've drank.

2) Impose SEVERE penalties to those caught. First time offense: lifetime driving ban, huge fine ($5000+), and jail time (30 days). Lifetime driving ban can be apppealed after 5 years, but only with a valid cause. Second time offense: jail, minimum a year. This should act as a deterrent to people who aren't habitual DUI drivers. The habitual drunks have to be dealt with in a more severe way, and perhaps long jail terms for the second or third offense might do it. License suspensions don't work - these jerkwads drive without licenses.

Infringing on people's civil liberties won't solve DUIs - but it will let the police stop people for no reason. We need more police on the road apprehending drunks - not pulling over people for random screening.

Full disclosure: two colleagues from school were killed by drunks - one on a divided 4-lane highway, the other after a party where he walked home because he was too lit to drive; instead gets plowed over and killed by a 3-time loser drunk. Two wasted lives for nothing. The people who did it are being punished now, but we need to wipe this out. I had hoped that it was a previous generation who drove drunk; and younger people (my generation) were smart enough not to do it, but I keep reading about 20 and 30-year olds killing someone.

As to the OP's story - I hope the killer driver gets what's coming to him - and I'm glad to see first-degree charges were laid. This is no ordinary drunk driver.

[CaptainCrunch]

So here's an old joke, so please stop me if you've heard it before.

There's this guy you see, and he goes to the bar one night, gets drunk and belligerent and assaults a guy in a wheel chair, tries to pick a fight with everyone and finally gets forcibly ejected from the establishment.

So this guy goes out to his truck, gets in starts the engine, revs it a couple of time and then stomps on the gas, plowing into a crowd of innocent bystanders, killing one of them.

So where's the punchline so to speak Crunch, you're jokes are usually better then this. Be patient I'm getting to it.

So it seems like this guy, Jeffrey Leinen had a pretty lengthy criminal past, including last year where he tried to ram a police cruiser while in a drunken cocaine and alcohol fueled rage. When he was sentenced last year the Judge stated that he deserved a lengthy jail term and sentenced him for 2 years. He was on probation the other night, and we all know that usual terms of probation involve no drinking, and no drugs.

Are we laughing yet.

Is it funny that we have a multiple time offender out on probation getting liquored up and intentionally plowing into a crowd of people.

Because this is a joke, but its not even funny, not remotely. I've always said that people deserve another chance, but this is ridiculous.

Why the hell was he driving? What the f$$k was he doing in a bar drinking, while in possession of a vehicle.

Why the hell wasn't this thug still in prison, who the f%%k calls a two year sentence lengthy when it clear that this guy not only had serious problems when he stole a car and tried to ram a cop car last year, but where the f%%k was his probation officer in all of this.

I hope that the judge that presided over this punks case last year never gets a good nights sleep again. This is his fault.

I hope that his supervisory officer gets completely reemed on this.

I hope that the first degree charges stick and the judge ignores any phony statement of remorse of contrition, I hope he uses common sense and sends the multiple time loser away for a good chunk of the rest of his worthless life.

Sorry, maybe the joke wasn't so funny after all.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alber.../15889961.html

Sources said Jeffrey Kevin Leinen, a 24-year-old with a lengthy criminal record, was on probation at the time of the incident where a pickup driver, evicted from the Texas Mickey Bar in Olds minutes earlier for unruly behaviour, allegedly drove up to the premise, pausing briefly before plowing into a crowd of patrons

Court records show Leinen has numerous prior convictions in various parts of Alberta, many for driving-related offences.
He was convicted in February 2009 for a cocaine-fuelled incident where he deliberately drove a stolen car at a cop cruiser to evade capture.
At sentencing, provincial court judge Sharon Van de Veen said Leinen, who earned a two-year sentence for a prior conviction for fleeing a police pursuit, said the incident warranted a jail term.
“This a case there the accused made several conscious choices … his driving was extremely dangerous,” she said in court.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So here's an old joke, so please stop me if you've heard it before.

There's this guy you see, and he goes to the bar one night, gets drunk and belligerent and assaults a guy in a wheel chair, tries to pick a fight with everyone and finally gets forcibly ejected from the establishment.

So this guy goes out to his truck, gets in starts the engine, revs it a couple of time and then stomps on the gas, plowing into a crowd of innocent bystanders, killing one of them.

So where's the punchline so to speak Crunch, you're jokes are usually better then this. Be patient I'm getting to it.

So it seems like this guy, Jeffrey Leinen had a pretty lengthy criminal past, including last year where he tried to ram a police cruiser while in a drunken cocaine and alcohol fueled rage. When he was sentenced last year the Judge stated that he deserved a lengthy jail term and sentenced him for 2 years. He was on probation the other night, and we all know that usual terms of probation involve no drinking, and no drugs.

Are we laughing yet.

Is it funny that we have a multiple time offender out on probation getting liquored up and intentionally plowing into a crowd of people.

Because this is a joke, but its not even funny, not remotely. I've always said that people deserve another chance, but this is ridiculous.

Why the hell was he driving? What the f$$k was he doing in a bar drinking, while in possession of a vehicle.

Why the hell wasn't this thug still in prison, who the f%%k calls a two year sentence lengthy when it clear that this guy not only had serious problems when he stole a car and tried to ram a cop car last year, but where the f%%k was his probation officer in all of this.

I hope that the judge that presided over this punks case last year never gets a good nights sleep again. This is his fault.

I hope that his supervisory officer gets completely reemed on this.

I hope that the first degree charges stick and the judge ignores any phony statement of remorse of contrition, I hope he uses common sense and sends the multiple time loser away for a good chunk of the rest of his worthless life.

Sorry, maybe the joke wasn't so funny after all.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alber.../15889961.html

I take issue with two aspects of that. First, what the hell does the probation officer have to do with anything? Are they supposed to monitor the whereabouts and activities of those assigned to them at all times? I have no idea what your point is here. Second, I'm not sure how you can really pin any blame on a judge who handed down a sentence that would appear to be within the sentencing guidelines (kind of hard to tell without knowing more, but if a Judge talks about being harsh they're not going to hand down a sentence that falls below that range). Judges don't have the ability to just whip up what ever term they feel like, it doesn't work like that.

I don't disagree completely with your overall point, but you're targeting people who had nothing to do with it.

[CaptainCrunch]

A probation officer not only has to make sure that his person is living up to the conditions of the probation, but to constantly monitor whether is guy was a threat.

I have my doubts that this guy just suddenly decided to go a bar and get pissed.

In terms of the judge. I have my doubts that she gave the maximum sentence to this scumbag, considering his crime in Feb was theft over a $5000.00 where the convicted can be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison, and that doesn't include the assault of a police car, nor the fact that he was in a cocaine fueled rage.

So, yes, I can blame the judge in this case who had the opportunity to line up and get rid of a guy who was a career criminal, and handed him a two year sentence.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by billybob123

The proposal for suspicionless breathalyzer tests that MADD is supporting in my mind is the first step on a slippery slope. So a police officer doesn't like what your car looks like, pulls you over on the pretext of "random breathalyzer" and then gets to search your car while he's at it?

Lest anyone here think I'm a softy on drinking and driving - here's my solution to the problem:

1) Lower the legal limit to 0 or 0.02. This means people may not be able to have a small glass of wine or beer with dinner and still be 'ok' - but hey, listen, this will outlaw drinking and driving. Draconian laws might be the only way out. Many countries where drinking is considered a far greater part of the culture than Canada have laws where 0.02% is the legal limit, e.g. Estonia, Poland, Russia, Czech Republic, and Hungary. If you drink, don't drive. No matter the amount you've drank.

2) Impose SEVERE penalties to those caught. First time offense: lifetime driving ban, huge fine ($5000+), and jail time (30 days). Lifetime driving ban can be apppealed after 5 years, but only with a valid cause. Second time offense: jail, minimum a year. This should act as a deterrent to people who aren't habitual DUI drivers. The habitual drunks have to be dealt with in a more severe way, and perhaps long jail terms for the second or third offense might do it. License suspensions don't work - these jerkwads drive without licenses.

Infringing on people's civil liberties won't solve DUIs - but it will let the police stop people for no reason. We need more police on the road apprehending drunks - not pulling over people for random screening.

Full disclosure: two colleagues from school were killed by drunks - one on a divided 4-lane highway, the other after a party where he walked home because he was too lit to drive; instead gets plowed over and killed by a 3-time loser drunk. Two wasted lives for nothing. The people who did it are being punished now, but we need to wipe this out. I had hoped that it was a previous generation who drove drunk; and younger people (my generation) were smart enough not to do it, but I keep reading about 20 and 30-year olds killing someone.

As to the OP's story - I hope the killer driver gets what's coming to him - and I'm glad to see first-degree charges were laid. This is no ordinary drunk driver.

MADD's proposal seems a lot more reasonable than yours.

I'd support a large fine ($1000-2000) for first time offenders and community service, but not jail time and especially not a life time driving ban.

I don't think lowering the limit would do much. However, if that was the case, I'd expect Calgary to starting allowing more cab companies to be created. Right now it's ridiculous trying to get a cab, imagine if the legal limit was 0!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

A probation officer not only has to make sure that his person is living up to the conditions of the probation, but to constantly monitor whether is guy was a threat.

I have my doubts that this guy just suddenly decided to go a bar and get pissed.

In terms of the judge. I have my doubts that she gave the maximum sentence to this scumbag, considering his crime in Feb was theft over a $5000.00 where the convicted can be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison, and that doesn't include the assault of a police car, nor the fact that he was in a cocaine fueled rage.

So, yes, I can blame the judge in this case who had the opportunity to line up and get rid of a guy who was a career criminal, and handed him a two year sentence.

Probation officers can't monitor behavior 24/7, nor can they act upon 'well I think maybe he might go out and drink' suspicions without more to base it upon. If he was meeting the terms of his probation there's nothing a probation officer could have done. Nothing.

You're not understanding that there are sentencing guidelines that steer judges into a certain range when sentences are handed down, it's not a matter of saying here's the minimum and here's the maximum and picking somewhere in between. You can get sent to jail for pulling a fire alarm, that doesn't mean that the max sentence is imposed in anything but the most egregious cases. You're also pointing the finger here with absolutely no knowledge of what the circumstances were. For all you know the prosecution may have asked for less time and the judge went above it. The fact is you really don't know.

You're pointing fingers at people that had nothing to do with what happened this weekend.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

if you install a breathalyzer into every car, are you going to also install a metal detector for all cell phones as well? because they're just as dangerous as alcohol when it comes to driving. or how about forcing people to be locked into an F1 style cockpit, where they can't move around and be distracted? fact is that drunk drivers are a tiny percentage of vehicles on the road, i'm more concerned with the idiot on his phone in the lane next to me or the mom with 2 screaming kids in the car in front of me than i am about a drunk driver

the majority of fatal road accidents do not involve alcohol, they just attract the most attention because there is never any doubt to the blame. but having the government step in and force everyone to breathe into a tube before starting their car just reeks of a nanny state

My apologies - I didn't realize that we had to pick one or the other. I guess if I had to pick one it would also be cell phone use - jeepers, sure is a shame we couldn't focus on two things. oh well.

[Travis Munroe]

Im not a fan of lowering the limit for a couple reasons.
1) I dont think it would do much but make cops feel more powerful. Ill speak on my own behalf and say that I can drink 2 beers over a dinner and 10x out of 10 your never going to know that I even had a sip.
2) I think the best solution is to cut down on the cops rolling around after 10pm looking for speeders, cut down on the 10 man checkstops and set up 10 times the checkstops.

[PIMking]

I just thought (I know scary) but driving isn't a right, you have to jump through hoops just to get a license and you take on the responsibility of driving. So I guess I don't see the big deal about the breath machines. Talking on a phone should be illegal (starting to be in some areas).