acemcmac

[z0mb13]

RIP

yet another reason why you should be extremely careful walking at night time, you just never know

 

[saymyname]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: saymyname

Originally posted by: aswedc
An update in the Collegian (Penn State student paper) today:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2006/10/10-30-06tdc/10-30-06dweb-01.asp

Driver was going 50-60mph in a 35mph zone without his headlights on. Other victim still in critical condition.

.242

That guy was approaching a BAC that would result in him passing out. He had at least 5 drinks. Odds are he was close to .3 during the accident.

I wuold say he had no less than a dozen drinks that night. Probably had been drinking for several hours straight. at .24 his walking would be severely impaired.

Depends on what he was drinking, how fast, how long, and what he weighed. Most people don't drink a dozen drinks. People might say they drink a dozen drinks but when you count they're only at 8.

One of my worst experiences (I puked blood) was when I drank a bottle of wine and then a 1 liter bottle of tequilla. Before I even started with the tequilla I was already above a .2 since that is what the BAC reader maxed out at. Now my memory wasn't so good that night but I'm pretty sure that was with only 1 bottle of wine. I know I brought 2 bottles but I don't think I drank the other one. I had near complete memory loss, pictures of me showed me drooling and my tongue hanging out, I had alcohol poisoning, and I puked blood.

This guy that was driving with probably a .3. At .3 to .4 you should pass out. At .5 you should be dead.

 

[TekDemon]

=( even though I didn't know him it's still very sad to see someone so young lose their life-especially to something as stupid as a drunk driver.

Don't ever drive drunk, but also, don't ever drive when you're tired. One of my classmates from high school lost her life in a head-on collision because both cars had tired drivers who just didn't notice. Those micro-sleeps are just as bad as being drunk (and I also have some unfortunate personal experience from when I was younger and stupider).

I guess it's good he managed to see a sunrise while he still could. You really never know if you'll have the opportunity to even see things you normally take for granted again-I know I still regret not going up to the top of the twin towers that night in August 2001 =(

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: aswedc
An update in the Collegian (Penn State student paper) today:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2006/10/10-30-06tdc/10-30-06dweb-01.asp

Driver was going 50-60mph in a 35mph zone without his headlights on. Other victim still in critical condition.

how does someone get out with only posting 10% of their bail? i don't get it.


Torsell was released from Centre County Prison yesterday afternoon after posting 10 percent of his $75,000 bail.


also, the article mentions 3 pedestrians. one of them Richard, one Aaron Stidd who is in the hospital, and no mention of who the third one was who it seems escaped unscathed.

Matthew Shlegel, an eyewitness, told police that Torsell's car was "flying" through the intersection, while Torsell had a green light. Shlegel told police he saw three pedestrians walking fast through the intersection "huddled over." He told police it was raining when he observed Torsell's car strike two of the three pedestrians, according to the criminal complaint.

bail bondsmen. 10% is pretty standard. You put up 10% bail bondsmen puts up the rest. When you show up to court he gets all the bail amount back and pockets your 10% as profit.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: aswedc
An update in the Collegian (Penn State student paper) today:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2006/10/10-30-06tdc/10-30-06dweb-01.asp

Driver was going 50-60mph in a 35mph zone without his headlights on. Other victim still in critical condition.

how does someone get out with only posting 10% of their bail? i don't get it.


Torsell was released from Centre County Prison yesterday afternoon after posting 10 percent of his $75,000 bail.


also, the article mentions 3 pedestrians. one of them Richard, one Aaron Stidd who is in the hospital, and no mention of who the third one was who it seems escaped unscathed.

Matthew Shlegel, an eyewitness, told police that Torsell's car was "flying" through the intersection, while Torsell had a green light. Shlegel told police he saw three pedestrians walking fast through the intersection "huddled over." He told police it was raining when he observed Torsell's car strike two of the three pedestrians, according to the criminal complaint.

You have two options when it comes to bail, you can post the entire bail and get that money back if you show up to court, or pay a bailbonds man a non-refundable payment of 10% to front the rest.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: aswedc
An update in the Collegian (Penn State student paper) today:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2006/10/10-30-06tdc/10-30-06dweb-01.asp

Driver was going 50-60mph in a 35mph zone without his headlights on. Other victim still in critical condition.

how does someone get out with only posting 10% of their bail? i don't get it.


Torsell was released from Centre County Prison yesterday afternoon after posting 10 percent of his $75,000 bail.


also, the article mentions 3 pedestrians. one of them Richard, one Aaron Stidd who is in the hospital, and no mention of who the third one was who it seems escaped unscathed.

Matthew Shlegel, an eyewitness, told police that Torsell's car was "flying" through the intersection, while Torsell had a green light. Shlegel told police he saw three pedestrians walking fast through the intersection "huddled over." He told police it was raining when he observed Torsell's car strike two of the three pedestrians, according to the criminal complaint.

bail bondsmen. 10% is pretty standard. You put up 10% bail bondsmen puts up the rest. When you show up to court he gets all the bail amount back and pockets your 10% as profit.

thanks for the explanation.

(both of you)

 

[saymyname]

I was always wondering how that worked. Thx

 

[randay]

Alcoholics take note, time to change your lives.

 

[TheSlamma]

This is why the penalty for drunk driving needs to be cranked up.

That drunk has taken away more then he can ever pay for.

 

[mitaiwan82]

RIP

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
This is why the penalty for drunk driving needs to be cranked up.

That drunk has taken away more then he can ever pay for.

Filling the jails and courts with offenders isn't the answer. Stopping them from being able to offend would be the real thing to do. Just like we made airbags a requirement for all new cars....we should outfit cars with a system that will only allow the car to start after a successful Breathalyzer test. We have the technology today to do this and if it was mandated on a large scale it could be done cheaply. It would also be fairly easy to mandate that older cars get retrofitted with this system in order to renew registration. You can even be proactive and use this system to fine individuals who have tried to start a car drunk x amount of times. Also impose steep fines if you are pulled over and your Breathalyzer system is found to have been disabled.

This would be the ultimate deterrent to DWI. Make it nearly impossible to drive impaired to begin with. Of course someone sober could still start a car and start driving and get sloshed while driving but most cases of drunk driving aren't where the person is getting drunk while actually driving.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Filling the jails and courts with offenders isn't the answer. Stopping them from being able to offend would be the real thing to do. Just like we made airbags a requirement for all new cars....we should outfit cars with a system that will only allow the car to start after a successful Breathalyzer test. We have the technology today to do this and if it was mandated on a large scale it could be done cheaply. It would also be fairly easy to mandate that older cars get retrofitted with this system in order to renew registration. You can even be proactive and use this system to fine individuals who have tried to start a car drunk x amount of times. Also impose steep fines if you are pulled over and your Breathalyzer system is found to have been disabled.

This would be the ultimate deterrent to DWI. Make it nearly impossible to drive impaired to begin with. Of course someone sober could still start a car and start driving and get sloshed while driving but most cases of drunk driving aren't where the person is getting drunk while actually driving.

its so crazy that it just migh- no, no its too crazy.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Too sad! Way too young! RIP ACE

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Filling the jails and courts with offenders isn't the answer. Stopping them from being able to offend would be the real thing to do. Just like we made airbags a requirement for all new cars....we should outfit cars with a system that will only allow the car to start after a successful Breathalyzer test. We have the technology today to do this and if it was mandated on a large scale it could be done cheaply. It would also be fairly easy to mandate that older cars get retrofitted with this system in order to renew registration. You can even be proactive and use this system to fine individuals who have tried to start a car drunk x amount of times. Also impose steep fines if you are pulled over and your Breathalyzer system is found to have been disabled.

This would be the ultimate deterrent to DWI. Make it nearly impossible to drive impaired to begin with. Of course someone sober could still start a car and start driving and get sloshed while driving but most cases of drunk driving aren't where the person is getting drunk while actually driving.

its so crazy that it just migh- no, no its too crazy.

they already have it in some states for repeat dui offenders.

 

[Xylitol]

Wow this is so sad
I'll miss him a lot
RIP

Only 21...
That 20 year old should be jailed for a longgggggg time

 

[oogabooga]

That's a real bummer to hear. Hope the guy in the hopsital makes it. I think that the driver will have a long long time to think about his actions and how he threw away the lives of others and his own =\

 

[Acanthus]

Terrible to hear, i dont know how i missed this thread...

Murder 1 in my opinion, possibly a premeditated double homicide if the other pedestrian doesnt pull through.

I cant stand how fvcking stupid drunk drivers are. He was a great part of this community and I will personally miss him.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
This is why the penalty for drunk driving needs to be cranked up.

That drunk has taken away more then he can ever pay for.

Filling the jails and courts with offenders isn't the answer. Stopping them from being able to offend would be the real thing to do. Just like we made airbags a requirement for all new cars....we should outfit cars with a system that will only allow the car to start after a successful Breathalyzer test. We have the technology today to do this and if it was mandated on a large scale it could be done cheaply. It would also be fairly easy to mandate that older cars get retrofitted with this system in order to renew registration. You can even be proactive and use this system to fine individuals who have tried to start a car drunk x amount of times. Also impose steep fines if you are pulled over and your Breathalyzer system is found to have been disabled.

This would be the ultimate deterrent to DWI. Make it nearly impossible to drive impaired to begin with. Of course someone sober could still start a car and start driving and get sloshed while driving but most cases of drunk driving aren't where the person is getting drunk while actually driving.

and what is going to stop someone drunk from having a sober person start their car for them?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
This is why the penalty for drunk driving needs to be cranked up.

That drunk has taken away more then he can ever pay for.

Filling the jails and courts with offenders isn't the answer. Stopping them from being able to offend would be the real thing to do. Just like we made airbags a requirement for all new cars....we should outfit cars with a system that will only allow the car to start after a successful Breathalyzer test. We have the technology today to do this and if it was mandated on a large scale it could be done cheaply. It would also be fairly easy to mandate that older cars get retrofitted with this system in order to renew registration. You can even be proactive and use this system to fine individuals who have tried to start a car drunk x amount of times. Also impose steep fines if you are pulled over and your Breathalyzer system is found to have been disabled.

This would be the ultimate deterrent to DWI. Make it nearly impossible to drive impaired to begin with. Of course someone sober could still start a car and start driving and get sloshed while driving but most cases of drunk driving aren't where the person is getting drunk while actually driving.

and what is going to stop someone drunk from having a sober person start their car for them?

Not to mention everyone who isnt retarded enough to drive drunk having to pay for those pieces of crap in our cars?

 

[saymyname]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
This is why the penalty for drunk driving needs to be cranked up.

That drunk has taken away more then he can ever pay for.

Filling the jails and courts with offenders isn't the answer. Stopping them from being able to offend would be the real thing to do. Just like we made airbags a requirement for all new cars....we should outfit cars with a system that will only allow the car to start after a successful Breathalyzer test. We have the technology today to do this and if it was mandated on a large scale it could be done cheaply. It would also be fairly easy to mandate that older cars get retrofitted with this system in order to renew registration. You can even be proactive and use this system to fine individuals who have tried to start a car drunk x amount of times. Also impose steep fines if you are pulled over and your Breathalyzer system is found to have been disabled.

This would be the ultimate deterrent to DWI. Make it nearly impossible to drive impaired to begin with. Of course someone sober could still start a car and start driving and get sloshed while driving but most cases of drunk driving aren't where the person is getting drunk while actually driving.

and what is going to stop someone drunk from having a sober person start their car for them?

That's a stretch.

 

[tbike06]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
This is why the penalty for drunk driving needs to be cranked up.

That drunk has taken away more then he can ever pay for.

Filling the jails and courts with offenders isn't the answer. Stopping them from being able to offend would be the real thing to do. Just like we made airbags a requirement for all new cars....we should outfit cars with a system that will only allow the car to start after a successful Breathalyzer test. We have the technology today to do this and if it was mandated on a large scale it could be done cheaply. It would also be fairly easy to mandate that older cars get retrofitted with this system in order to renew registration. You can even be proactive and use this system to fine individuals who have tried to start a car drunk x amount of times. Also impose steep fines if you are pulled over and your Breathalyzer system is found to have been disabled.

This would be the ultimate deterrent to DWI. Make it nearly impossible to drive impaired to begin with. Of course someone sober could still start a car and start driving and get sloshed while driving but most cases of drunk driving aren't where the person is getting drunk while actually driving.

and what is going to stop someone drunk from having a sober person start their car for them?

Not to mention everyone who isnt retarded enough to drive drunk having to pay for those pieces of crap in our cars?

yup

 

[saymyname]

If you throw this 20 yo in jail for 20 or so years you've just given up on him as ever being a usefull member of society. People can't miss those years and live a fruitfull life. He'll learn crime in prison and come out to be a repeat offender.

I'd take his license away forever. I'd put him on a 40 year probation. Community service for 20 years. But prison doesn't help anyone and will probably make it worse unless you never let the guy out.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
This is why the penalty for drunk driving needs to be cranked up.

That drunk has taken away more then he can ever pay for.

Filling the jails and courts with offenders isn't the answer. Stopping them from being able to offend would be the real thing to do. Just like we made airbags a requirement for all new cars....we should outfit cars with a system that will only allow the car to start after a successful Breathalyzer test. We have the technology today to do this and if it was mandated on a large scale it could be done cheaply. It would also be fairly easy to mandate that older cars get retrofitted with this system in order to renew registration. You can even be proactive and use this system to fine individuals who have tried to start a car drunk x amount of times. Also impose steep fines if you are pulled over and your Breathalyzer system is found to have been disabled.

This would be the ultimate deterrent to DWI. Make it nearly impossible to drive impaired to begin with. Of course someone sober could still start a car and start driving and get sloshed while driving but most cases of drunk driving aren't where the person is getting drunk while actually driving.

and what is going to stop someone drunk from having a sober person start their car for them?

Not to mention everyone who isnt retarded enough to drive drunk having to pay for those pieces of crap in our cars?

Its not 100% full proof. but nothing will be.

I'd pay the $50 or so to be content in knowing that the roads are going to be much safer for everyone.

 

[Rogueverve]

http://img182.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rickcroppeddw1.jpg

This picture is much more recent (was taken this past august) and is the best photo we have of him.

There will be more information sometime in the next few days as his family begins to sort everything out.

Again, thanks for everyone's comments and support. It really means a lot to myself and his family to see how much the atot community will miss him.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: Baked
Dude... DUI drivers need to fry.

My condolence to his family. RIP to acemcmac...