Shoulda gotten 10 for the second or third. I have absolutely no sympathy for repeat DUIs- if you're driving seriously impaired on a regular basis, you're going to kill somebody. 19 is just way too many- he should have been locked up way before this.

Too bad he wasn't caught selling pot. Then he could go to prison for life.

Maybe we should treat drunk driving as a serious crime instead of as an inevitable nuisance.

I was completely shocked...this wasn't in Wisconsin.

Ed Finnerty: I was completely shocked...this wasn't in Wisconsin.

We're professionals here.

cptjeff: Shoulda gotten 10 for the second or third. I have absolutely no sympathy for repeat DUIs- if you're driving seriously impaired on a regular basis, you're going to kill somebody. 19 is just way too many- he should have been locked up way before this.

The jury found Greer guilty of numerous charges on April 5th, including two counts of OVI, a felony of the third degree, with specifications for having five DUI's in 20 years.

so um, this was his farking 19th
why wasnt he thrown in prison after his 5th?

what is the farking point of having a law if people are not prosecuted under it??

/I get the addiction part. It is why you dont toss the guy into prison on the first offense. although other western countries do ...
/but 5ht offense? slammer for you. you clearly are a clear and present danger to society.
/2-4? who the fark knows .... gray areas suck giant balls

Another of the many idiots who would rather chop off an arm than lose their precious "right" to drink before driving. As far as I'm concerned, drink yourself blind if you want, just don't get behind the wheel with ANY alcohol in you.

Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

themeaningoflifeisnot: Another of the many idiots who would rather chop off an arm than lose their precious "right" to drink before driving. As far as I'm concerned, drink yourself blind if you want, just don't get behind the wheel with ANY alcohol in you.

Ironicly, drinking one's self blind would probably be a particularly effective means of making sure they don't drive again. Really hard to drive when you're blind.

I still say DUIs are more a problem of the States' draconian liquor law and lack of light rail infrastructure or other reasonable mass transit system moreso than society.

Consider:

1. Bars MUST close at 2 AM. Usually, It's one thing to turn off the booze, but to kick all the drunks out into the street at prime time?

2. People CAN'T sleep in their cars. That's a DUI in some places. Simply being in the back seat asleep. farkin' bullshiat, right? Too bad logic, that stationary object is every bit at dangerous as a 2 ton steel machine being operated by a drunk.

3. There's NO other reasonable way home. You can't catch the US Rails passenger train home from the nearest station. You COULD call a taxi, but that taxi could get expensive. Plus, you need TWO taxis. One to get home and another to go back and get your car. That's unreasonable.


What they should do is increase the capacity of mass transit to the point where no one WANTS to drive, drunk or sober. Plus even if you can't get the hard core booze hounds off the road, you stand a very good chance of keeping kids and such on the train instead. So it's a twofold protection. Altering liquor laws to reward responsibility, like sleeping it off in the back seat and not leaving the bar at 2 AM, would also help.

We alreadyhave a law covering serious DUI issues, and it is called manslaughter. God, you people love to havemultiple laws covering the same thing.

Wow, I am surpised it wasn't New Mexcio

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2 616506.shtml?cat=500

"Forced blood draw"? Isn't that highly illegal? Aren't our bodies "inviolate" under the Constitution?

lockers: We alreadyhave a law covering serious DUI issues, and it is called manslaughter. God, you people love to have multiple laws covering the same thing.

Why isn't it murder?

namatad: you clearly are a clear and present danger to society.

clearly

namatad: The jury found Greer guilty of numerous charges on April 5th, including two counts of OVI, a felony of the third degree, with specifications for having five DUI's in 20 years.

so um, this was his farking 19th
why wasnt he thrown in prison after his 5th?

I was curious of this as well. In Minnesota three in ten years automatically counts as a felony which comes with real jail time and you lose your driving privileges for a decade.

2wolves: lockers: We alreadyhave a law covering serious DUI issues, and it is called manslaughter. God, you people love to have multiple laws covering the same thing.

Why isn't it murder?

Because murder implies intent and aforethought?

I'm with you on the actual driving drunk part. But this bullshiat where you get a DUI while sleeping in the car is ridiculous.

doglover: You COULD call a taxi, but that taxi could get expensive. Plus, you need TWO taxis. One to get home and another to go back and get your car. That's unreasonable.

No, what's unreasonable is not thinking through your drinking plans for the night. $50 cab ride home? too farking bad.


What they should do is increase the capacity of mass transit to the point where no one WANTS to drive, drunk or sober. Plus even if you can't get the hard core booze hounds off the road, you stand a very good chance of keeping kids and such on the train instead. So it's a twofold protection. Altering liquor laws to reward responsibility, like sleeping it off in the back seat and not leaving the bar at 2 AM, would also help.

That's retarded. Invest in infrastructure for the sole purpose of drunks having a way to get home? guess what? they're going to drive anyway.

I live in NYC and dont have a car (had one for 29 years prior.) I take the train everywhere and love it. If you drive drunk in NYC you deserve life in jail. doesn't meant we should waste money on busses/ trains/ etc in bum-fark USA to accommodate the drunks.

THIS guy needs to go to meetings.

But really, DUIs in this country are a joke. The people passing the judgement drive drunk all the time but they never get in serious trouble unless the media gets involved because of the buddy structure that has become our Judicial System. They get caught and it is swept under the rug. Really, unless you go overboard like this guy did our DUI laws are pretty much just an easy way for drunks to be put into the system and held down their whole lives.

2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

If only there were some device that could prevent you from driving if you're intoxicated...

So, who's going to Fark.com now?

fusillade762: If only there were some device that could prevent you from driving if you're intoxicated...


Shoes?

Clearly, we need more pubs within walking distance

fusillade762: If only there were some device that could prevent you from driving if you're intoxicated...

[winbackyourlife.org image 300x346]

Buddy had one of those in high school. Unless the technology got better people will just do what he did - fill his backseat up with balloons that he blew up. He had to special order really big ones so that they released a long enough 'breath', but it worked until his 5th DUI at 18.

Once is a mistake, twice is a serious problem, and three is a demonstrated habit. I have two, and I have gone to great lengths to ameliorate my problem. The only positive thing I have to say about my situation is that I didn't kill or injure anybody. I have been sober since 25 November 2010, and not a day goes by that I don't think about what I did.

That said, he should have been put away a long time ago. At the same time, I agree with some of the other posters where it makes no sense that simply sleeping it off in your car constitutes a DUI. They tell you not to drive, so you don't and you still get whacked for it? It's one thing to have an interest in saving lives, but zealousness and spitefulness should have no place in lawmaking, no matter how much money MADD gives politicians.

He shpould never be allowed to drive again

Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

doglover,I still say DUIs are more a problem of the States' draconian liquor law and lack of light rail infrastructure or other reasonable mass transit system moreso than society.
Consider:
1. Bars MUST close at 2 AM. Usually, It's one thing to turn off the booze, but to kick all the drunks out into the street at prime time?
2. People CAN'T sleep in their cars. That's a DUI in some places. Simply being in the back seat asleep. farkin' bullshiat, right? Too bad logic, that stationary object is every bit at dangerous as a 2 ton steel machine being operated by a drunk.
3. There's NO other reasonable way home. You can't catch the US Rails passenger train home from the nearest station. You COULD call a taxi, but that taxi could get expensive. Plus, you need TWO taxis. One to get home and another to go back and get your car. That's unreasonable.
What they should do is increase the capacity of mass transit to the point where no one WANTS to drive, drunk or sober. Plus even if you can't get the hard core booze hounds off the road, you stand a very good chance of keeping kids and such on the train instead. So it's a twofold protection. Altering liquor laws to reward responsibility, like sleeping it off in the back seat and not leaving the bar at 2 AM, would also help.

First don't you know drinking is immoral, and should be avoided at all costs.

1. Bars MUST close at 2 AM. Usually, It's one thing to turn off the booze, but to kick all the drunks out into the street at prime time?
Isn't that the point?

DWI's are no longer about public safety,they are about making money. One needs to probably kick their car keys under the car to ward away the revenue vampires looking for an easy arrest. That still does not keep cops from playing fast and loose with details if they need to make performance expectations.

Mass transit in the United States in flyover country. How quaint.
/It is fun to be able to get blasted and jump on a subway.

2wolves: lockers: We alreadyhave a law covering serious DUI issues, and it is called manslaughter. God, you people love to have multiple laws covering the same thing.

Why isn't it murder?

Hey, a drunk killed my mother in law. I would have loved to see him hanged, but he really did me a favor.

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Once is a mistake, twice is a serious problem, and three is a demonstrated habit. I have two, and I have gone to great lengths to ameliorate my problem. The only positive thing I have to say about my situation is that I didn't kill or injure anybody. I have been sober since 25 November 2010, and not a day goes by that I don't think about what I did.

That said, he should have been put away a long time ago. At the same time, I agree with some of the other posters where it makes no sense that simply sleeping it off in your car constitutes a DUI. They tell you not to drive, so you don't and you still get whacked for it? It's one thing to have an interest in saving lives, but zealousness and spitefulness should have no place in lawmaking, no matter how much money MADD gives politicians.

Just like the people who go on diets after they are obese, and the people who quit smoking after developing lung problems, the guys who drunk drove repeatedly until they got busted repeatedly are noxious hypocrites. You didn't do jack to ameliorate anything until you had already been punished for it twice.

But gee, thanks for the moral lecture about drunk driving. I'm glad you were forced to stop and see the light that never flashed before you were punished. If you never got those DUIs you would still be doing it.

doglover: I still say DUIs are more a problem of the States' draconian liquor law and lack of light rail infrastructure or other reasonable mass transit system moreso than society.

Consider:

1. Bars MUST close at 2 AM. Usually, It's one thing to turn off the booze, but to kick all the drunks out into the street at prime time?

2. People CAN'T sleep in their cars. That's a DUI in some places. Simply being in the back seat asleep. farkin' bullshiat, right? Too bad logic, that stationary object is every bit at dangerous as a 2 ton steel machine being operated by a drunk.

3. There's NO other reasonable way home. You can't catch the US Rails passenger train home from the nearest station. You COULD call a taxi, but that taxi could get expensive. Plus, you need TWO taxis. One to get home and another to go back and get your car. That's unreasonable.


What they should do is increase the capacity of mass transit to the point where no one WANTS to drive, drunk or sober. Plus even if you can't get the hard core booze hounds off the road, you stand a very good chance of keeping kids and such on the train instead. So it's a twofold protection. Altering liquor laws to reward responsibility, like sleeping it off in the back seat and not leaving the bar at 2 AM, would also help.

Are you retarded? We should fund mass transit so that irresponsible drunks can get home?

Also, citation for 2.? The only laws in that regard that I've seen are something along the lines of "in actual physical control" of the vehicle. This is to cover falling asleep in the driver's seat with the car running etc. I have not seen, and highly doubt the existence of, a law that would cover sleeping in the back seat of a car with the keys out of the ignition.

majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

Lawyer to judge: "But your honor, it's not my clients fault. The car companies haven't developed a standard system to stop him from driving drunk. It's their fault"
Judge: WTF?

Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

18,000 fatalities attributed to DUIs in 2006, vs almost 1.5 million DUI arrests in 2006. The claim is 40% of fatal traffic accidents are related to alcohol. Using this standard: "NHTSA defines fatal collisions as "alcohol-related" if they believe the driver, a passenger, or non-motorist (such as a pedestrian or pedal cyclist) had a BAC of 0.01% or greater. NHTSA defines nonfatal collisions as alcohol-related if the accident report indicates evidence of alcohol present."

Sounds reasonable.

Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

I can drive after 3 to 4 beers. Why? Because I am not an idiot and drive the speed limit and pay extra attention to the road and how i am driving. I don't do it very much at all but sometimes I just have to,. like when i get a text at 3AM from a female asking to come over. Sometimes it is worth the risk. It is all the idiots that think it is time to see how fast you can drive or the ones who drive blackout drunk that have ruined it for everyone else. People that want to give you the death penalty for getting 2 DUI's are the same people who text and talk on the cell phone while driving which causes way more accidents and is way more universally accepted.

Nrokreffefp: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Once is a mistake, twice is a serious problem, and three is a demonstrated habit. I have two, and I have gone to great lengths to ameliorate my problem. The only positive thing I have to say about my situation is that I didn't kill or injure anybody. I have been sober since 25 November 2010, and not a day goes by that I don't think about what I did.

That said, he should have been put away a long time ago. At the same time, I agree with some of the other posters where it makes no sense that simply sleeping it off in your car constitutes a DUI. They tell you not to drive, so you don't and you still get whacked for it? It's one thing to have an interest in saving lives, but zealousness and spitefulness should have no place in lawmaking, no matter how much money MADD gives politicians.

Just like the people who go on diets after they are obese, and the people who quit smoking after developing lung problems, the guys who drunk drove repeatedly until they got busted repeatedly are noxious hypocrites. You didn't do jack to ameliorate anything until you had already been punished for it twice.

But gee, thanks for the moral lecture about drunk driving. I'm glad you were forced to stop and see the light that never flashed before you were punished. If you never got those DUIs you would still be doing it.

You're right, I probably would still be doing it. But I'm not anymore. The whole point of punishment is to stop the activity, and even that wouldn't have stopped me were it not for the fact that I (finally, belatedly) recognized that I had a severe problem. Not everybody does. There but for the grace of God go I.

As for the "moral lecture", I fail to see where I did that. I offer no judgment except to say that people who make a mistake like drinking too much and try to do the right thing by not driving and sleeping it off are unjustly charged with a crime. What crime did they commit? I never saw a guy sleeping in the back seat kill or injure anybody.

DUI law in the United States became a serious subject in the 1960s when a single child was killed by a drunk driver, prompting MADD to lobby (to this day, despite having been abandoned by founding members for overzealousness) for zero tolerance drinking laws. These were not supported by science, the medical community, or the public. Once the government found the profit incentive by assigning draconian fees, we started down the slide.

Many people on Fark have commented on the stupidity of things like Caylee's Law (spelling?), because, as I argue, we already have laws against this sort of thing. Like Caylee's law, DUI laws were passed for emotional feelgoodery by women, and serve no real purpose except to represent that a part of the populace is willing to curtail their liberty and allow the government to assign another tax.

Silly Jesus: Also, citation for 2.? The only laws in that regard that I've seen are something along the lines of "in actual physical control" of the vehicle. This is to cover falling asleep in the driver's seat with the car running etc. I have not seen, and highly doubt the existence of, a law that would cover sleeping in the back seat of a car with the keys out of the ignition.

In New York, if you pull over on your way home from the bar and climb into the back seat to sleep, all you have to do when the cop wakes you up is admit operation. Cop knocks on window, says what's up? You say you pulled over to take a snooze. Cop asks how long ago and who was driving when you pulled over. You respond an hour ago and I was driving. Bingo. Here come the field sobriety tests, breathalyzer or blood test. They might have a problem with common law DWI which considers reasonable and prudent operation (assuming the car isn't parked in the side of a tree), but the straight BAC count won't be much of a problem.

My good friend just got a DUI for BIKING home after leaving a local bar. Same charge and punishment as a DUI. Thanks MADD. I live in Georgia so don't know if that is the case in every state but it is here.

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Nrokreffefp: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Once is a mistake, twice is a serious problem, and three is a demonstrated habit. I have two, and I have gone to great lengths to ameliorate my problem. The only positive thing I have to say about my situation is that I didn't kill or injure anybody. I have been sober since 25 November 2010, and not a day goes by that I don't think about what I did.

That said, he should have been put away a long time ago. At the same time, I agree with some of the other posters where it makes no sense that simply sleeping it off in your car constitutes a DUI. They tell you not to drive, so you don't and you still get whacked for it? It's one thing to have an interest in saving lives, but zealousness and spitefulness should have no place in lawmaking, no matter how much money MADD gives politicians.

Just like the people who go on diets after they are obese, and the people who quit smoking after developing lung problems, the guys who drunk drove repeatedly until they got busted repeatedly are noxious hypocrites. You didn't do jack to ameliorate anything until you had already been punished for it twice.

But gee, thanks for the moral lecture about drunk driving. I'm glad you were forced to stop and see the light that never flashed before you were punished. If you never got those DUIs you would still be doing it.

You're right, I probably would still be doing it. But I'm not anymore. The whole point of punishment is to stop the activity, and even that wouldn't have stopped me were it not for the fact that I (finally, belatedly) recognized that I had a severe problem. Not everybody does. There but for the grace of God go I.

As for the "moral lecture", I fail to see where I did that. I offer no judgment except to say that people who make a mistake like drinking too much and try to do the right thing by not driving and sleeping it off are unjustly charged with a crime. What crime did they commit? I never saw a guy sleeping in the back seat kill or inju ...

The moral lecture comes in the form of your moral absolute "Once yada yada, twice yada yada....". For most people a DUI is not representative of having driven unsafely or irresponsibly. I posted the stats before, 10-20k accidents versus 1.5 million arrests. Just because something is illegal, or you feel that you were a danger to others, does not mean that the governments definition of DUI represents a moral failure by others who fail to agree.

Who is this guy related to? Who does he know? What has he got on some official?

This reeks of corruption. He must sell awful good dope to an awful lot of high mucky-mucks.

/and if you've ever had your muck muckied before...

Jesus farking Christ, society! Why the fark can't we just permanently end him already?

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.

majestic: I'm with you on the actual driving drunk part. But this bullshiat where you get a DUI while sleeping in the car is ridiculous.

So it's cool to drive halfway home from the bar and then pass out in a parking lot?

Clearly this guy is an idiot. If you drive into a pole or cause an accident because of your driving drunk you should be charged and your license should be revoked. I am just talking about in general the law changed that people like this have on the rest of the public.

pinktaco4lunch: Wow, I am surpised it wasn't New Mexcio

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2 616506.shtml?cat=500


Me too. There are some hardcore drinkers in New Mexico.