1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

An extraordinary life cut far too short

Discussion in 'The OT' started by blingbling, Sep 15, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. blingbling

    blingbling Godfather

    297
    0
    Sep 6, 2002
    http://www1.roanoke.com/sports/racing/9986.html
     
  2. dtcarson

    dtcarson Godfather

    260
    0
    Jan 10, 2003
    That does most heartily suck...

    And then the irony--surviving 5 major heart operations, getting married, adopting a kid, then getting killed by some *&#$*$ drunk driver. Who probably walked away, they usually do.

    To go through all that she did, and still have a positive attitude and want to share their home and lives with an adopted baby....

    My condolences and thoughts go out to Tara's family and friends....
     
  3. blingbling

    blingbling Godfather

    297
    0
    Sep 6, 2002
    I was stunned to read what this poor girl had been through just to survive and try to improve the quality of her life. Then to have it taken away by a mindless drunk driver. Its just an awful thing to have happen for a person who had been through so much. I can't imagine how devastating this must be for her husband and especially her parents. I think most of us don't realize how lucky we are until we learn about the life of someone like Tara Parker. Its definitely given me some clarity.
     
  4. spanishannouncetable

    spanishannouncetable Icon

    717
    2
    Apr 23, 2002
    This was the FOURTH time in the last 10 years this a$$hole was busted for drunk driving :mad:

    People wonder why I approve of the death penalty for drunk drivers who kill someone. After reading this article, I wonder how anyone would believe any other punishment would suffice :(
     
  5. dtcarson

    dtcarson Godfather

    260
    0
    Jan 10, 2003
    Or if some feelgooders thing the death penalty is too 'cruel' for a recidivist DUI committing manslaughter, I would not be averse to taking a hint from your .sig....
     
  6. Steve Mehs

    Steve Mehs Hall Of Fame

    11,499
    2
    Mar 21, 2002
    All I did was read the thread title and I had a feeling that this is what the thread is about, I didn't even notice it was posted by Bling who posted Nascar news in the past.

    I head about it on the radio driving in this morning. The tone in the deejays voice going from making jokes about the fighting in Winston Cup the past few weeks to this story was unbelievable eerie and numbing. A miracle of a life shattered by one drunken asshole...
     
  7. Shel

    Shel Mentor

    45
    0
    Sep 9, 2003
    Oh yes, I heard about her passing Sunday during the NASCAR race. That is so sad. I didn't hear how she died, I figured it was some complication with the heart. I had no idea she was killed by a drunk driver.

    Holy cow, that just makes me sick.
     
  8. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    Until the State Sentencing Guidelines Commission set much tougher sentencing standards, the typical sentence in my county for killing someone while driving drunk was 90 days in jail. This meant the defendant would actually serve 60 days in jail, with credit for good time. There used to be a saying here about it: "Life is cheap in _____ County." (I've withheld the name of the county to protect the innocent.) There seemed to be this attitutude that the drunk didn't intentionally hurt someone, so he should not be punished harshly. The times they are a'changing.
     
  9. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    toenail, you need a MADD chapter in your state or county.

    The other big problem is that DUI attorneys abound and have lucrative practices. In many places, someone charged with a DUI can fork over 4-5 thousand dollars and get off.
     
  10. Strong

    Strong Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    603
    0
    Jul 30, 2003
    How many of us have taken to the road after a couple of beers/wine/drinks in a bar or restaurant?

    I know I have, although my limit is usually a wimpy one.

    It seems pretty hypocritical to me for our society to pay such lip service to punishing drunk drivers but yet allow parking lots in bars/restaurants etc! The amount of people that are designated drivers can't even begin to approach the amount of cars in the typical bar parking lot on a Friday or Saturday night.

    I often wonder why cops just don't set up right down the block from bars/nightclubs/strip joints/restaurants/etc and stop every driver that comes out of the place? Could it be that lots of bars, etc are owned by ex cops? Or is it the political clout of the liquor industry? Or is it again just lip service about a problem that we don't want to seriously address?

    As a society we have decided that we will accept that a certain amount of lives will be lost to drunk driving each year because we are unwilling to adopt the admittedly harsh measures that it would take to seriously reduce this problem.

    Is it unreasonable to force every establishment that has a liquor license to have a uniformed police officer at the door checking for intoxication with the cost passed on to those that order liquor? How about a device on a car that tests the drivers' blood alcohol level before it will start?

    If we say that measures such as these are too draconian, then we are willing to accept a certain amount of deaths so that we can continue to enjoy liquor in public places and the comfort of our homes.
     
  11. dtcarson

    dtcarson Godfather

    260
    0
    Jan 10, 2003
    You do have a point, but there's a difference between a 'couple drinks in a restaurant' and being a habitual DUI like this guy apparently was. Having a couple drinks in a restaurant implies eating food also, which lowers the 'drunkenness' you get, and also stretches the time period out over which you drink it. Besides, the current laws of DUI are based on a semi-arbitrarily chosen BAC level, which can affect different people in different ways [ie a person who's BAC is .02 could be 'totally wasted', but still legal, whereas I've known some guys in college who were probably .04 or .06, which is probably at or near the legal limit, yet to my {untrained, yes} eye, they were 'fine' {I still wouldn't ride with them, though.}].

    But within your solution is another problem--I dislike absolving the individual of such responsibility, and saying "we" [the citizens or customers] need to take 'measures.' Some things are just wrong, regardless if they're legal or not, and the fact that many people in today's society don't see this is indicative of how far we've gone with 'It's not my fault,' 'It's not a big deal,' 'Everyone else does it' kind of thinking.

    To 'force' the people who would make use of those uniformed officers at every door *could* be determined unconsititutional forfeiture of property, depending on who was doing the 'forcing.' As far as I know, a bar could hire off-duty police officers, many malls and concert events do. But then--let's mix issues here--isn't that profiling? You're coming from a bar, thus I'm assuming you're drunk, thus I'm assuming you're going to be drinking and driving? Not racial profiling, but profiling nonetheless, which we all know is EEEE-vil.

    And there already is such a device as you speak of, the breathalyzer/car starter; I know some states use that for convicted DUI offenders. Again, convicted, because otherwise we run into three issues: guilty before proven guilty, unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant, and violation of the nebulous 'right of privacy.'

    Again, I don't think we need someone [most likely yet another governmental, taxpayer-funded organization] 'forcing' people and businesses to add another layer of restriction to their lives. People should and do have responsibilities, and should be mature enough to handle them, and yes, they should be punished when they violate the laws. But we don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we do have, and purge the system of those that are pointless/ineffectual/not-beneficial. The more laws we have, the easier it is for someone to think, Well, there's no law against it, so it must be ok.
     
  12. Strong

    Strong Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    603
    0
    Jul 30, 2003
    I'm not sure I follow your arguments. The BAC is partially scientifically based and averaged for different folks, genders, weights, etc. Regardless, its the law and whether we like it or not it should be consistently enforced.

    As far as giving up constitutional rights, have you heard of the Patriot Act or travelled on an airplane lately? I wouldn't be surprised if soon every passenger is forced to strip search, given a personality test, background checked and full body x-rayed before being allowed to board! We've accepted severe intrusions as acceptable so its not such a strecth to think what may be coming down the road as far as gov't intrusion in our daily lives. I'm certainly not saying I approve, but its a fact of life.
     
  13. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    The BAC restrictions are not very arbitrary at all. Many states have a .08 limit. Minnesota is still in the dark ages at .10. Zillions of studies have shown that nearly everyone is impaired in their ability to safely operate a motor vehicle at .08. There are some exceptions, but they are extremely rare. Thus, the limit is "rationally based." Have any of you tried the intoxilizer? We had the state patrol visit us at a seminar last year, and got to try out the intoxilizer after having a few glasses of wine. It doesn't take much of a reading to "feel" the effects of alcohol.
     
  14. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    "To 'force' the people who would make use of those uniformed officers at every door *could* be determined unconsititutional forfeiture of property, depending on who was doing the 'forcing.' As far as I know, a bar could hire off-duty police officers, many malls and concert events do. But then--let's mix issues here--isn't that profiling? "

    Nope, it isn't profiling as long as you do it to everyone.

    Furthermore, you could make a public declaration that such a practice would be standard for anyone leaving a bar, then by entering a premises, you accept that measure, just like entering an airport gate gives the government the right to search you. It is actually LESS intrusive than highway sobriety checkpoints.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page