Jim Leyritz arrested for vehicular homicide

[pitchleague]

I just found out this weekend that my dad was involved in a drunk driving accident. We were watching family slides (yes, with a projector and everything) when we came up to some shots of my dad's wrecked Duster Twister (this was back in the late 70s). I had always wondered how the wreck happened so I asked dad during the presentation.

 

He said it was from drunk driving. But not his fault. Apparently, he was at a convention/seminar for auto parts salesmen and was at a local establishment (I believe it was in Chilton, but I'm not sure) after meetings. Apparently, after the evening was through the bartender got dad into his car to send him to the hotel (remember, this is the 70s we're talking about). Dad didn't make it too far, plowing through trees, ditches, etc. but not hitting any other cars.

 

When he recovered (he, too, had the black eyes and such--I remember that part from when I was a kid and wondered why he was at home instead of at work--I never saw him in the hospital), the sheriff's dept. was doing their follow-up investigation and found out that the bartender had been serving my dad doubles and triples for most of the night. No wonder he couldn't drive!

 

I couldn't believe it when dad said that he didn't press charges or anything. But I guess the bartender did lose his job. Still, kinda weird to find out in an instant, while just asking an innocent question, that your own father was involved in this kind of thing. Thankfully, he (and his great car) were the only things hurt.

[hawing]

My father caused an accident by driving drunk, on Christmas Eve in either 1990 or 1991. (By then he'd been estranged from our family for over a decade, which is why I'm not certain on the year.) His second wife died in the accident. That appears to have been his "rock bottom" point from which he began a recovery from alcoholism.

 

This doesn't help get us back on track of the original topic, but (at the risk of sounding hackneyed) if any of these horror stories make any of you posters think twice before drinking and driving, it'll be worth while.

 

(Honestly, when I think of how often my dad must have been impaired while driving us somewhere - and this was in the 1960s and 70s, when seatbelts were for wusses - I tend to feel extremely fortunate.)

[LouisEly]

Given that these types of arrests occur in the middle of the night, by refusing the breathalizer you are giving yourself several hours to metabolize the alcohol form above legal to below legal limits. Often if you even have double the legal limit when arrested by the time the blood draw occurs you are under the limit (provided you have a few hours).

 

Actually Dave, they are very good at "regression analysis" (for lack of a better term) for blood tests that occur several hours after being arrested for suspicion of drunk driving. They can calculate based on the blood level and body weight/size of the person and how long it has been since they arrested the person what their minimum BAC would have been at the time of the arrest. It is fairly accurate, probably within .02% at most. So if someone were to blood test at .05% four or five hours after they were arrested, they know that four or five hours ago they were well over the limit. If several hours after the arrest someone tests at .01%, and based on regression analysis they determine them to be around .08% they might get off; but if they determine based on the blood test that they were at least at .10% at the time of arrest they are screwed.

[Gopher74]

I'm not proud to admit this, but i used to drive drunk sometimes in my late teens/early 20's, until one night i hit a pole and nearly killed myself. I'm just so thankful that i never harmed anyone else during those selfish years that i'd drive drunk at times. I really can't imagine living the rest of my life knowing i killed some kid or some kids parent or grandparent just because i was to stupid and/or selfish to call a cab or get a ride from someone else.

Man, I can relate. I used to drink and drive a lot as well. Same ages. A couple times at the tail end of high school, and then in college. I got into an accident on my way to work in the morning one day, and while I wasn't out drinking the night before, I had been up late. I actually fell asleep at the wheel driving on an old country road and woke up when my tires hit the gravel. There was a women, quite a ways up the road out at her mailbox, and while I certainly wasn't close to hitting her or anything, it just kinda shook me up. I thought that I'd never get into an accident, never hurt anyone. That sounds like a stupid little story, but just the prospect of being responsible for hitting a women like that, IF I had, really shook me up. I'm now probably the biggest pain in the arse with my friends when it comes to drinking and driving. You talk about risk vs reward on her with signings and what not, but the risk/reward for drinking and driving is just so utterly ridiculous. Risk-you kill someone, ruin your life, their's, go to prison, leave a family without a mother/daughter/father/son, whatever the case may be. Reward-get your car home and don't have to come get it the next day. Seriously, are you kidding me?

I know look back on the drinking and driving I did and I'm more ashamed of it than anything else I've ever done. And I've shaken babies, kicked puppies, pushed old people...obviously I'm kidding. But seriously, it's something I can't beleive I ever did and something I'll never do again.

 

Just think about having to live the rest of your life knowing that someone's not living because of you? Some kid's Mother's gone because you got loaded and smacked into her? Some dad's not taking his son to a baseball game?

 

I've got no respect for people who drink and drive and thank god that I never hurt anyone. It's really just such a selfish act, and the victims families have to be left just so angry and frustrated.

 

Not to babble on her TOO much, but think about that 50 year old couple from Franklin that just got hit on Christmas night as they were getting presents out of their trunk? Both of them got hit by a guy who'd already had several DUI's, and they were on their way back in for a Christmas party. I hope that POS gets 20 years to think about what he did to their children and grandchildren.

[Glennron]

Gopher74 wrote:

Not to babble on her TOO much, but think about that 50 year old couple from Franklin that just got hit on Christmas night as they were getting presents out of their trunk? Both of them got hit by a guy who'd already had several DUI's, and they were on their way back in for a Christmas party. I hope that POS gets 20 years to think about what he did to their children and grandchildren.

Yeah, that happend less than 1/2 mile from my house. Apparently the guy "thought he hit a mailbox" and didn't think much about it. Also, when he left the bar he was at (where he could barely walk) the bartender wasn't concerned cause apparently the guy usually passes out in his work van. I know you can't really blame a bartender, but if he knows him well enough-which it sounds like from him knowing he goes to his van-wouldn't he know he had multiple OWI's? I'd be pissed at him too if I was the victim's family.

[Gopher74]

Apparently the guy "thought he hit a mailbox" and didn't think much about it. Also, when he left the bar he was at (where he could barely walk) the bartender wasn't concerned cause apparently the guy usually passes out in his work van. I know you can't really blame a bartender, but if he knows him well enough-which it sounds like from him knowing he goes to his van-wouldn't he know he had multiple OWI's? I'd be pissed at him too if I was the victim's family.

I'd be just disgusted with everyone in the entire process. I'd be upset with the bartender(who could very well be lying in order to save his own hyde), I'd be upset with the system that allowed him to get away with those DUI's with a "slap on the wrist". You should see what the laws are in Cali. Must more severe. I'd be upset with the other patrons who were friends with him who said he could barely walk, and I'd never be able to forgive the POS who mistook my parents for a friggin mailbox. I'd honestly just have such hate in my heart for him. Seriously, you kill two people and you're so bombed that you think they were mailboxes? C'mon.

 

[SeriesFinale]

He said it was from drunk driving. But not his fault.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but regardless of whether the bartender was serving him doubles or triples, it was his fault. It wouldn't have been OK if he was just drinking singles.

 

[DuWayne Steurer]

But sometimes, I feel bad for people who are charged with vehicular homicide for drunk driving.

I waited a good while to read this thread. This comment above all others stuck out to me. I have a friend who's serving 25 years for triple vehicular homicide while drunk. It was also his 4th drunk driving and 11th (yes, 11) time driving after suspension. He's my friend, and to be honest, I almost hope he never gets out. Because if he does, he'll do it again. By and large, people who drink and drive don't learn the hard lesson until something terrible happens. There are people who hit "rock bottom" before they injure or kill themselves or others, but just as many, if not more, who don't.

 

A life was lost, 100% needlessly, because someone chose to operate a motor vehicle impaired. It's not like we don't know to not drink and drive. It's hammered into us from every angle, and rightfully so. When a person willfully chooses to put others lives at risk by drunk driving, they deserve every bit of punishment they receive. I hope Leyritz doesn't see the light of day for a good long time.

[Bernie Crewer]

I think in Leyritz's case they have to draw blood even after a refusal since their was someone who died, or an injury accident. If he would've had a normal traffic stop and refused I believe the officers can't draw blood involuntarily in that circumstance, and his refusal is an admission of guilt and the penalties are slightly stiffer. Because there was an injury accident, or in this case a homicide, blood draw is mandatory I believe even if he refuses.

 

I appreciate all the various comments on DUI. I too was very selfish in my HS and college days. Happy to report that is not the case anymore many years later. I just wish we'd do more to prevent DUI's with education and much stiffer penalties on 1st offenses on down the line. I think a $5,000 fine and a mandatory 3 months in jail would be a good deterrant for 1st time DUI's. Problem is our tavern league has too many lobbyists. So many lives could be saved. The Tavern league should be fully funding safe ride programs that work, instead of getting into politicians pockets to keep the consequences of DUI's so low.

[dadofandrew]

While i am all for a higher 1st offense penalty, the idea of not having very severe penalties for repeat offenders is just absurd.

 

I'd start at $10K, seizure of the vehicle, and a year in jail, including 3-6 months with no huber privileges. Exactly how many people, completely innocent of any wrongdoing, have to die before we start treating these irresponsible drunks like criminals?

[homer]

My theory has always been - the money you spend on 1000 cab rides will never equal the money you spend on a single DUI.

[fondybrewfan]

My wife's dad is a notorious drunk. Luckily he lives out in the country in a very rural area. My wife would tell me stories about how he would drive home in the middle of the night and forget to turn his lights on. Hes also started his truck on fire twice by throwing a cigarette on the floor (while he was drunk of course) One time he did this while the truck was in the garage and nearly started the house on fire. Her whole family has issues really (Not her, she has witnessed this her whole life and wants nothing to do with it). Before I met her, her grandfather was at her dad's barn drinking and left piss drunk and drove the wrong way down Highway 41 , crashed and died. To this day there are some strained relationships. Just this past Halloween a fight started at a party and one guy his wife and his two kids (3 and 4 I believe) left, but the father was pissed up and pissed off because the fight so hopped on a four wheeler hit a hole and ended up dying 2 weeks later. Left his wife and 2 kids with no life insurance. Needless to say I am about as opposed to drunk driving (and drinking in general) as one can get. And please have life insurance, you can put your loved ones in a major hole if you don't

 

I am iffy on the Leyritz deal. If they can prove that this person would not have died if he'she had her seat belt on I would be very wary of charging him with vehicular homicide, I would assume they could charge him a lesser offense.

[patrickgpe]

I used to too make stupid decision and drive drunk when i first turned 21. Then I got pulled over once when i was very over the limit for speeding. I was so scared but the officer never even asked if I was drinking. Figured I got away with that one and was never going to do it again.

[twobrewers]

But sometimes, I feel bad for people who are charged with vehicular homicide for drunk driving.

I waited a good while to read this thread. This comment above all others stuck out to me.

My point is/was, that drunk driving is the crime. Someone getting killed is a factor of luck. Someone who drove drunk and gets home safe committed the same crime as someone who drove home drunk and ran a red light and killed someone. You are punishing one for being in the wrong spot at the wrong time - while the other is not punished. (In baseball terms, ERA and Batting Average have lot of luck involved)

 

I think we need to punish everyone who drives drunk more severely - particularly repeat offenders.

 

I'd start at $10K, seizure of the vehicle, and a year in jail, including 3-6 months with no huber privileges.

That sounds about right. I like seizure of vehicle. Because suspending their license doesn't do anything - they just drive with a suspended license.

 

Lastly, thanks to everyone who shared their stories of drinking and driving. I hope that others might learn. However, you will notice, that everyone's story is "I used to, then......so I stopped". The truth is, most humans learn from their own mistakes, not the mistakes of others.

 

When my wife was 20 (fiance at the time), she called me to pick her up. She had just been arrested for drunk driving. She was so scared that I would be mad at her she was shaking when I picked her up. She told me she thought it would be OK, because she only had to drive like 5 blocks. It was the first time she ever drove drunk.

 

I was so grateful that she was arrested that night. Because she has never driven drunk again. Getting a DUI is always the best case scenario. Because if you get home safely - you are likely to keep going until something worse happens.

 

Happy New Years - Drive Safe Tonight!

[LouisEly]

In WI if you refuse a breatholizer it's an automatic assumption of guilt, with a 1-year driving license suspension, of drunken driving. Go back to the station, refuse a breath test again and you sign a waiver which seals the deal. No blood test needed. Wonder what the law is in FL...?

Just out of curiosity, what laws if any exist if you refuse the field sobriety test or just certain portions of the field sobriety test? For example, I have narrow feet with high arches and coupled with my height and high center of gravity equals poor balance. Standing on one foot or walking on a line one foot in front of the other is very difficult for me to do, so being asked to do that if suspected of drunk driving scares me. Could someone say something like, "I have poor balance so this test would not be an accurate indication of my sobriety" and not have to take certain portions of a test without guilt being assumed?

 

(BTW, I never have more than three drinks and drive - whomever said 1000 cab rides is cheaper is my thoughts exactly, plus if I lose my license I lose my job; and I drink very slowly so it always takes me at least an hour and a half to finish 3 drinks, plus being over 200lbs I know that three is my limit, two if my drive is more than 10 minutes.)

[pitchleague]

He said it was from drunk driving. But not his fault.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but regardless of whether the bartender was serving him doubles or triples, it was his fault. It wouldn't have been OK if he was just drinking singles.

 

yeah, I know you're not trying anything. My dad intended to be at the bar for a couple of drinks because he had a big presentation the next day. Unfortunately, what he thought was going to be only 2-3 drinks over 2 hours or so turned into the equivalent of about 9 drinks in about 2 hours and by that time, his judgement was gone and ended up staying longer. My dad's buddies left early, I guess, due to some bad shrimp dip or something (my dad didn't eat it--he's allergic to shellfish).

Thankfully, it's in the long past and now that I know the truth, I'd like to keep it that way.

[DuWayne Steurer]

My point is/was, that drunk driving is the crime[/u]. Someone getting killed is a factor of luck. Someone who drove drunk and gets home safe committed the same[/u] crime as someone who drove home drunk and ran a red light and killed someone. You are punishing one for being in the wrong spot at the wrong time - while the other is not punished.

 

Don't drive drunk, and you don't run the risk of killing someone. You say it's bad luck to kill someone when driving drunk, I say it's luck when a drunk driver *doesn't* kill someone. Yes, driving drunk and getting home safe is technically being as irresponsible as driving drunk and killing someone, but the fact is, someone didn't die. You can't say "well, this shouldn't have happened, so the punishment should be the same as if he hadn't killed someone". Tell that to the family of the deceased.

 

For the record, I was appalled that my friend still had the means to get in a vehicle and drive after 4 drunk driving tickets. I'm all for tougher first time penalties, as well as ultra-harsh penalties for repeat offenders, but getting caught is just not the same as killing another person due to irresponsible behavior.

[patrickgpe]

i also think that the penalities should be higher depending on your BAC level (ie a .2 should be treated more harshly than a .1 BAC)

[Gopher74]

i also think that the penalities should be higher depending on your BAC level (ie a .2 should be treated more harshly than a .1 BAC)

If you drive with a .2 I think you should automatically get a jail sentence of no less than 60 days. Maybe half could be work release, but a .2 is just pure dumb luck if you don't kill someone. Now a .1, I think it's incredibly irresponsible to drive and your reactions are slowed, but for some who drink semi-regularly, you can feel absolutely fine. I mean that's what, 3-4 beers in a 2 hour span?

 

Anyway, I absolutely agree with you, the penalty should be far more severe.

 

[LouisEly]

i also think that the penalities should be higher depending on your BAC level (ie a .2 should be treated more harshly than a .1 BAC)

 

Amen to that. The punishment for .08% should still be harsh, but it should not be the same as say .18%. I'd like to see statistics, but I'd be willing to bet that the average BAC of someone who gets in a serious accident is much higher than someone who just gets pulled over. .08% to .10% should be one level, .10% to .15% should be another level, and .15% and higher should be a much higher level.

[ktown21]

In WI if you refuse a breatholizer it's an automatic assumption of guilt, with a 1-year driving license suspension, of drunken driving. Go back to the station, refuse a breath test again and you sign a waiver which seals the deal. No blood test needed. Wonder what the law is in FL...?

Just out of curiosity, what laws if any exist if you refuse the field sobriety test or just certain portions of the field sobriety test? For example, I have narrow feet with high arches and coupled with my height and high center of gravity equals poor balance. Standing on one foot or walking on a line one foot in front of the other is very difficult for me to do, so being asked to do that if suspected of drunk driving scares me. Could someone say something like, "I have poor balance so this test would not be an accurate indication of my sobriety" and not have to take certain portions of a test without guilt being assumed?

 

(BTW, I never have more than three drinks and drive - whomever said 1000 cab rides is cheaper is my thoughts exactly, plus if I lose my license I lose my job; and I drink very slowly so it always takes me at least an hour and a half to finish 3 drinks, plus being over 200lbs I know that three is my limit, two if my drive is more than 10 minutes.)

 

I'm not exactly sure on the law concerning your question, but I'd just assume that's why there is a breatholyzer test as well as other field sobriety tests that would back up your claim that you have poor balance, and that it isn't due to being drunk.

[ktown21]

Also, when they shine their flashlight and have your eyes follow it while they move it around is a test that is really all they need. From what my buddy told me, who's a cop, that that test will tell you right then and there that the person is drunk or not. Obviously that's why cops do more tests so everything holds up in court.

[bigredrobbo]

Obviously, there are some viewpoints here with a little more of a personal slant, but it's real simple to me. Drive after drinking and your driving is impaired. End of story. To what extent depends on the amount drunk, but impairment starts at one drink.

 

For Leyritz and other "celebrities" who think they are above the law, they need to realize that just because you can hit a ball with a stick, or remember some lines of dialogue, you're no better than an everyday schmo. He should do time (he had previous after all) and I won't feel an ounce of regret if he does.

 

I'm not condoning any idiot who gets in a car with a skinful, but for those who made more money in a year than most of us will make in a lifetime, not hiring a cab is even more shameful. We had this discussion about Hancock, except in that case the only victim was himself. Leyritz killed someone, I'm sure he feels terrible, but terrible doesn't bring someone's daughter back.

 

And as for the comments throughout about bartenders being partly to blame; when do we as a society start taking responsibility for our own actions instead of always looking for a scapegoat?

[djoctagone]

i would love it if there was a system in place that required a valid driver's license to purchase gasoline. one can't drive drunk (or drive, period, without gasoline).

 

granted, it would take an overhaul of the driver's licenses in all 50 states and territories and an overhaul of gas stations' systems, but think of the benefits it would reap.

 

for those that pay at the pump by swiping a credit or debit card, you first have to swipe your driver's license. if it's suspended because of a dui, no gas. if it's suspended because of talking on a cell phone while driving, no gas.

 

all gas stations would have to become pre-pay before gas is dispensed. for those not paying at the pump, the clerk runs the buyer's license. if something's amiss, at the very least, no gas. at the most, the authorities are notified.

 

granted, a suspended driver could "borrow" a friend's valid license to pay at the pump, but that friend's credit or debit card would have to be used as well to complete the transaction. how many people are going to keep financing their friends' problems?

 

banks would love this as it would help minimize card fraud (numbers are stolen and magnetically encoded far more often than one's actual license and credit card are stolen).

 

communities would love this as it'd minimize crime (how much crime is committed on foot without an escape vehicle?) and it'd help track down offenders of all types (sex offenders, deadbeat parents, parking violators, etc.)

 

while fuel types keep changing, i still do see the gas station being part of our society for many decades to come. for those with electric cars, ownership of the technology to charge your car would be dependent on having a valid driver's license.

 

and knowing that it keeps people with warrants out or suspended licenses from buying gas to power their vehicles, i'd certainly welcome having to produce my driver's license every time i bought gasoline. big brother? i don't think so. i have to hand over my license at the bar, when writing a check, at the airport, etc. if it helps keep my community safe, i'm all for it.

[homer]

They should just equip all cars with some kind of breathalyzer/retinal scan combo so it wouldn't start if the person driving had a BAC above the legal limit. Someone somewhere could figure out a way to make it impossible for another person to blow into it (ala 40 Year Old Virgin).