Quote:
Originally Posted by The Eagle
... First, I have to think (regardless of the drinking, because it was never proven she was legally drunk), it was most likely just an accident. We all know how fast, and sudden, lake conditions change. We see storms come so quickly during the day, I can only imagine a storm sneaking in at night. Sure they were "fooling around," going to pull a prank on her Dad..so what! That's what kids do, and it's all in fun. They were all good friends, and meant no harm to anyone, or anything. So, it was just an accident, that could have happened to you, or me, or anyone else. The fact that she was a "high Profile person," in the Lakes Region, in effect, makes her a "Prime Target," to set an "example." I personaly (and I Stress Personaly) think she has paid a high enough price for a life altering accident. Her best friend was killed, her other best friend injured, and she, herself, severely injured and disfigured, FOR LIFE! She is going to see the cause and effects of her misjudgemet, and the effects of a storm at night, every day, for the rest of her life. She doesn't need (and shouldn't) to go to jail, to be reminded of it. If everyone of us who have ever been involved in an accident (of any type) were put on public trial, and sent to jail, we'd most likely, all have some kind of criminal record. It's time to call it, what it was, a tragic and horrible accident. Nothing more, nothing less! ... "The Eagle"
|
She WAS legally drunk. Her blood alcohol levels show she was. The other evidence backs it up. The jury probably didn't want to dump the harsher penalties on her, feeling sorry for her as you are but it isn't right. She should have been convicted on that charge as well if the jury was impartial.
She is a little old to be considered a "kid" and be excused for childish behavior. I don't care what her intentions were around the prank she planned, that is irrelevant.
NO, it wouldn't have happened to me because I wouldn't have been drinking and if I couldn't see where I was going I would have been operating at headway speed and I wouldn't have been out at night without a GPS unit. Her DECISIONS put her in the position she is in. I would not make those decisions. Maybe it is possible I could have run into an island given terrible visibility but I would have done it at 5 MPH with far less devastating results.
Storms can pop up suddenly and we are expected to make prudent reactions to them. Her actions were NOT prudent and THAT is why she was found guilty. Bad weather is NOT an excuse.
There is no targeting of her in any special way. She was in an accident that killed one person and severely injured two others. She was tried for her responsibility for that accident just like any other person would be. A fatality in a motor vehicle accident makes it a serious legal issue and it was rightfully treated that way.
Yes, she has and is suffering for her actions. The judge can take some of that into account when sentencing her to allow for justice. I recognize that a lot of people make bad decisions and push the limits and luckily get away with it all the time. But we have laws in place that specify responsibility when our luck fails us. When any one of us ends up in the same position as her the law says we should all be treated equally. That seems in this case to require some jail time no matter how sympathetic we feel toward her.
It is unclear to me why her facial reconstruction is an issue. She could be directed to a prison where it would be unlikely to get into any altercations. And if she can whiz down the highway at 84 MPH it seems like she isn't too worried about her fragility.
As to her running the business, that is irrelevant. Based on that thinking no businessman should be set to jail because it would be disruptive to the business. With all the responsibilities she had maybe she should have been more careful to begin with.