Oregon Washington County Deputy Shoots Man Dead - Roy Rodgers Road

[mkwerx]

My question is, why is he free, out driving around? With that kind of record he should be doing serious time behind bars. If this had not taken place, it was only a matter of time until he killed some one on the road.

Oregon (most of the US) does not treat DUII harshly enough, or like a real crime. It rarely results in prison time unless theres a death. Probation, diversion, and fines are standard punishments. Interlock devices in cars - the interlocks are garbage and readily bypassed by getting a non drunk to blow. Newer installs do use cameras to monitor the driver BUT someone still has to review the footage.

If we locked drunks away in jail for 6 months min. on a first offence (obviously far longer if they cause major property damage, or injury/death to someone else) we may see a decline in this behaviour. Too many people out there don't take it seriously enough. Too many folks, especially conservatives/libertarians spout that its victimless and not criminal until the drunk hots someone else. They've never worked a DUII crash, or known someone hurt or killed by drunks. I've done both. I had two cousins hit head on by a drunk on their way to school. One was killed in the crash, the other paralyzed. Having had to clean up numerous DUII crashes including fatalities - I have zero sympathy for drunks. I think if you get popped for a 2nd DUII you should loose your driving privliges for 10 years and spend 3 of them behind bars, a 3rd offence gets a lifetime revocation and 5+ years in prison. It needs to be socially unacceptable behaviour. With the availability of cabs/ubers and everyone having cell phones to call someine if they don't want to pay for a cab - there is zero reason to get behind the wheel drunk.

 

[CoastRange57]

Too many folks, especially conservatives/libertarians spout that its victimless and not criminal until the drunk hots someone else.

I am going to respectfully disagree here with you. I think most of us here are pretty conservative and I never get the idea anybody thinks it is a victim less crime. I concur with your observations and penal ideas, and think they could be even harsher. I have done dozens of body removals from DUI crashes and treated hundreds of victims over the years.

The recent accident in the Wilsonville area where the driver struck a pedestrian and killed him was DUI. He had a felony DUI warrant and had 3 prior DUI convictions. That son of a bi*ch should have been doing 10 years on those convictions as far as I am concerned, and it will take him killing some one to get maybe 5 years on a manslaughter beef.

If people want to get a real understanding of the enormity of the problem, sign up for flash alerts from your local police and fire agencies and OSP statewide and you will get a bunch of e mails where impairment is a factor in over 30% of the traffic accidents both injury and fatal.

 

[NWGlockgal]

Oregon (most of the US) does not treat DUII harshly enough, or like a real crime. It rarely results in prison time unless theres a death. Probation, diversion, and fines are standard punishments. Interlock devices in cars - the interlocks are garbage and readily bypassed by getting a non drunk to blow. Newer installs do use cameras to monitor the driver BUT someone still has to review the footage.

If we locked drunks away in jail for 6 months min. on a first offence (obviously far longer if they cause major property damage, or injury/death to someone else) we may see a decline in this behaviour. Too many people out there don't take it seriously enough. Too many folks, especially conservatives/libertarians spout that its victimless and not criminal until the drunk hots someone else. They've never worked a DUII crash, or known someone hurt or killed by drunks. I've done both. I had two cousins hit head on by a drunk on their way to school. One was killed in the crash, the other paralyzed. Having had to clean up numerous DUII crashes including fatalities - I have zero sympathy for drunks. I think if you get popped for a 2nd DUII you should loose your driving privliges for 10 years and spend 3 of them behind bars, a 3rd offence gets a lifetime revocation and 5+ years in prison. It needs to be socially unacceptable behaviour. With the availability of cabs/ubers and everyone having cell phones to call someine if they don't want to pay for a cab - there is zero reason to get behind the wheel drunk.

I 100% agree. It is treated way too lightly.

 

[fredball]

My question is, why is he free, out driving around? With that kind of record he should be doing serious time behind bars. If this had not taken place, it was only a matter of time until he killed some one on the road.

It's called perpetuation of the system if we don't have crooks victimizing law abiding people we can't ask for and get the bloated budgets and piss it away and ask for bigger budgets next year and the year after that ect ect . Have you ever seen a temporary govt. program ?

 

[mkwerx]

I am going to respectfully disagree here with you. I think most of us here are pretty conservative and I never get the idea anybody thinks it is a victim less crime. I concur with your observations and penal ideas, and think they could be even harsher. I have done dozens of body removals from DUI crashes and treated hundreds of victims over the years.

The recent accident in the Wilsonville area where the driver struck a pedestrian and killed him was DUI. He had a felony DUI warrant and had 3 prior DUI convictions. That son of a bi*ch should have been doing 10 years on those convictions as far as I am concerned, and it will take him killing some one to get maybe 5 years on a manslaughter beef.

If people want to get a real understanding of the enormity of the problem, sign up for flash alerts from your local police and fire agencies and OSP statewide and you will get a bunch of e mails where impairment is a factor in over 30% of the traffic accidents both injury and fatal.

I was not calling out anyone on this forum, bjt in other associations and on other forums I am on I hear it a lot. Libs think they can be educated to stop drunk driving, and a lot of hardcore conservative/libertarian folk say if theres not a bleeding victim no crime was committed. They say its an aspect of Nanny government on the level of seatbelt & helmet laws. I call BS there because if you don't wear belts or helmets the only person harmed physically is the person making that choice, but I do believe they should be mandated for minor children. Drunks on the other hand tend to hurt & kill others more than themselves.

 

[Koda]

Its a grey are because not all DUIs are deadly, nore are they conclusive indicators of a violent person likely to commit violence later on.

I know a couple people that got a DUI that are no way at all alcoholics or anywhere remotely unstable people. Its actually incredibly easy to get one if you even have as little as 1 or 2 drinks depending.....
Most people have no clue that .08 is no where near drunk.

 

[NWGlockgal]

Have you ever seen a temporary govt. program ?

That is what is known as an oxymoron.

 

[mkwerx]

Its a grey are because not all DUIs are deadly, nore are they conclusive indicators of a violent person likely to commit violence later on.

I know a couple people that got a DUI that are no way at all alcoholics or anywhere remotely unstable people. Its actually incredibly easy to get one if you even have as little as 1 or 2 drinks depending.....
Most people have no clue that .08 is no where near drunk.

Not exactly. .08 was the standard settled on because at that BAC most people are impaired to the point of being unsafe. For a real big guy, or a hardcore drunk, .08 may be fine. For others, .08 is drunk. I've done a number of rides with local leo and witnessed many DUII arrests, watched the intoxilyzer results. Some folks that were all over the road blew under .08. One dude hooted a .24. Everyone is different, its why you can get a DUII with lower than .08, but if you are over .08 you're done.

Having a DUII does not predict violence, no. It shows poor decision making and unsafe driving though. Multiple DUIIs show a pattern of poor decision making and lack of concern for others on and near the roads. An automobile is as deadly a weapon as a gun, maybe moreso, especially under the control of a drunk.

 

[Lilhigbee]

Its a grey are because not all DUIs are deadly,

Not all ND's are deadly either, but that does not make them acceptable!!
The difference is that ND's are not intentional, whereas impaired driving is always a choice that is made.

nore are they conclusive indicators of a violent person likely to commit violence later on.

I didn't see where anyone said they might be??

They say its an aspect of Nanny government on the level of seatbelt & helmet laws. I call BS there because if you don't wear belts or helmets the only person harmed physically is the person making that choice,

Correct on calling it BS!! Impaired driving, whether it be from alcohol, weed, cell phone, or eating a bowl of cereal, endangers others who don't have any knowledge of your condition or ability to avoid you.

 

[Koda]

Interesting, maybe my understanding on .08 is off.... Based on some stories ive heard of people getting DUIs from just 2 drinks at dinner. Or maybe in reality their covering up the truth, id have no way of knowing but have always felt that .08 isnt near drunk but set super low to discourage drivers from drinking more.

Regardless though its still a grey area in determining if someone is fit to be free in society. Im not so concerned about most people with only 1 DUI, a good friend of mine got one last year that I know is not an alcoholic or anywhere remotely agressive or prone to violence.

Im just cautious jumping to conclusions on the DUI angle alone for judging someone...

 

[CoastRange57]

It shows poor decision making and unsafe driving though. Multiple DUIIs show a pattern of poor decision making and lack of concern for others on and near the roads. An automobile is as deadly a weapon as a gun, maybe moreso, especially under the control of a drunk.

Excellent analogy. Everyone has the ability to make good decisions as to how they conduct themselves and how that relates to the safety and well being of others in this world.

 

[mkwerx]

The .08 limit is just an average for impairment, if you are a CDL holder the standard is even lower, if you're driving a CMV .04 is the limit.

You don't have to be falling down to get a DUII, just impared to the point of slow reflexes, worse vision, and slower cognition. You can get a DUII for being under the influence of anything, not just booze. Cold medicines, pain killers, etc. Esp bad if you mix booze and medicines.

I don't view DUII convicts as bad people, but the penalty needs to be stiff to deter the behavior in the first place. Habitual offenders need harsh incentive to change their behavior. Some folks never learn either, or just give zero fornications. Theres a guy in Oregon City who made the news because of all his arrests and lifetime driving ban, he buys beater cars or gets family to make strawman purchases of vehicles for him. He refuses to give up driving, the police keep hauling him in and seizing his vehicles. He's persistant, but someone needs to cut off his driving hand so he'll stop.

 

[kott0n]

I was not calling out anyone on this forum, bjt in other associations and on other forums I am on I hear it a lot. Libs think they can be educated to stop drunk driving, and a lot of hardcore conservative/libertarian folk say if theres not a bleeding victim no crime was committed. They say its an aspect of Nanny government on the level of seatbelt & helmet laws. I call BS there because if you don't wear belts or helmets the only person harmed physically is the person making that choice, but I do believe they should be mandated for minor children. Drunks on the other hand tend to hurt & kill others more than themselves.

Having been in an accident whilst not wearing a seat by belt, not only did it throw me across the car and away from the controls but had someone of been in the passenger seat all my force would of smashed them.

I can appreciate the libertarian point of view on seat belts but if you aren't able to control the car, that's an issue.

Helmets? Probably a non issue.

 

[billdeserthills]

I was referring to my post # 289
I still do not think that I said anything wrong in my other posts...but I did erase them 'casue there was no further use in me , continuing my part of the discussion.

On that note What are you trying to ask or say to me with your comments?
Just asking as much can be lost in electronic communication...and wanting to make sure that I understand what you are saying to me....
Andy

I was just goofing around, Andy
I'm not trying to upset you
You have as much right to erase your comments as I have to use the [ignore] feature

 

[Pandaz3]

As it goes with DUI, I agree that it is a problem.
I recall my dad mentioning the guy at the gas station in Coeur d' Alene in 1952, just got out of prison after a year and a half for killing someone while driving drunk. It sounded to me as if my Dad felt sorry for him due to the Attendants service in the Pacific in WWII. I wondered out loud if the guy that hit us a few years earlier and killed my brother, if he had gone to prison. My Dad said he never filed charges because the guy was in the Service. (That wreck was near Black Hawk SD, just a few miles west of Rapid, winter of '49/'50) He thought maybe the Air Force punished him, but I never found out if he did get punished.

There did not seem to be a real change in attitude toward drinking and driving till the early 80's and even then it took a decade until States all got serious...kind of.

 

[billdeserthills]

As it goes with DUI, I agree that it is a problem.
I recall my dad mentioning the guy at the gas station in Coeur d' Alene in 1952, just got out of prison after a year and a half for killing someone while driving drunk. It sounded to me as if my Dad felt sorry for him due to the Attendants service in the Pacific in WWII. I wondered out loud if the guy that hit us a few years earlier and killed my brother, if he had gone to prison. My Dad said he never filed charges because the guy was in the Service. (That wreck was near Black Hawk SD, just a few miles west of Rapid, winter of '49/'50) He thought maybe the Air Force punished him, but I never found out if he did get punished.

There did not seem to be a real change in attitude toward drinking and driving till the early 80's and even then it took a decade until States all got serious...kind of.

Much the same way with cigarette smoking as well
I think a certain amount of old thinkers must die or be pushed aside before changes take place, look at the way marijuana is becoming more prolific

 

[Pandaz3]

Much the same way with cigarette smoking as well
I think a certain amount of old thinkers must die or be pushed aside before changes take place, look at the way marijuana is becoming more prolific

I quit smoking, slowed way down on the drinking, but legal or not I'll never embrace marijuana. Why start smoking again. That and if illegal federally then its illegal everywhere, States do not trump federal law.

 

[billdeserthills]

I quit smoking, slowed way down on the drinking, but legal or not I'll never embrace marijuana. Why start smoking again. That and if illegal federally then its illegal everywhere, States do not trump federal law.

If You bother to read the Constitution You will see that the powers not set aside for the fed gov't are reserved for the States. Since marijuana is not allowed by the Constitution to be regulated by the feds, that makes it a 'states right', much like your ccw is. Perhaps that is why marijuana is legal in 30 states in some capacity

 

[bbbass]

Much the same way with cigarette smoking as well
I think a certain amount of old thinkers must die or be pushed aside before changes take place,

Oprah.

 

[Pandaz3]

If You bother to read the Constitution You will see that the powers not set aside for the fed gov't are reserved for the States. Since marijuana is not allowed by the Constitution to be regulated by the feds, that makes it a 'states right', much like your ccw is. Perhaps that is why marijuana is legal in 30 states in some capacity

I don't buy that. I do agree that there may be a case for Medical Marijuana as I have talked to many fellow patients over time and those with Glaucoma and Nausea seem to benefit. My personal experience with medicine, OxyContin after surgery, is that did nothing but make me constipated. I did return to work too early and saw after the fact) that it did make my work pretty sketchy. After switching to Tylenol, my pain and work both improved. So I know some of the 'approved' drugs do not work for everyone. As such I have become more compassionate toward Medical Marijuana, but it is grossly abused by people without a medical need.
I am not making State or Federal Laws and my voice or vote does damn little to affect either. We had State's rights issues 150 years ago... How did that work out?
You can't push Marijuana issues without remembering Immigration issues. Immigration is not specifically addressed either.