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.
Originally posted by: moshquerade
how does someone get out with only posting 10% of their bail? i don't get it.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.
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.
Originally posted by: moshquerade
how does someone get out with only posting 10% of their bail? i don't get it.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.
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.
thanks for the explanation.Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: moshquerade
how does someone get out with only posting 10% of their bail? i don't get it.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
Originally posted by: Baked
Dude... DUI drivers need to fry.
My condolence to his family. RIP to acemcmac...