This happens all too often - and liberals don't care.

[Lewkowski]

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/...163615543.html

"A Visalia man who was already on probation for intoxicated driving when he collided head-on while drunk, killing a woman and injuring five others, was sentenced to 15 years in state prison.

Tulare County Superior Court Judge Michael Sheltzer on Friday sentenced Johnny Mendoza, 27, to 15 years in state prison for DUI manslaughter stemming from the 2016 crash on Highway 65 near Lindsay. In May, Mendoza pleaded no contest to one count of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.

The case included a special allegation of causing injury to more than one person and one count of DUI causing injury with a prior DUI conviction, as well as three special allegations of causing great bodily injury.

Mendoza had a DUI conviction from 2014. He was on probation for that case when the 2016 crash occurred. He also failed to attend DUI classes and did not install a court-required ignition interlock device."

Why don't we as society take drunk driving seriously? We have someone who failed to follow court orders and the police did... nothing. Nothing was done to force this inherently worthless little shit from installing the ignition interlock device. Judges and juries should understand that if things aren't going to be enforced they are not valid alternatives to mandatory prison sentences.

Stakeout bars. Harsh mandatory sentencing. Undercover operations. Make society live in absolute fear of drinking and then getting on the road. This would be money WELL spent rather than going after people doing drugs in their own home, gambling or sex workers. Focus on the evil that actually gets completely innocent people killed and injured.

Society could have prevented this woman who had 30+ years ahead of her from dying. It not only failed to protect her but it gave a laughable cheap sentence to her murderer who will likely be out in under 10 years and I bet you will get behind the wheel drunk once he's out. Recidivism for repeat offenders doesn't go away - they are trash. Society should stop viewing repeat criminals as people and start viewing them as the rabid animals they are.

[Veldan Rath]

What do you mean 'we' don't take DUI seriously?

There is already a fear instilled in the public to some degree. Chirst, I wont even have any booze for the most part if I'm driving. Unless I'm gonna be at a single place for a long time I won't even drink ONE beverage.

This is callous people not caring about their actions with some of the stiff penalties out there. I'd rather not swing into full Police State over this.

[LittleFuzzy]

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/...163615543.html

"A Visalia man who was already on probation for intoxicated driving when he collided head-on while drunk, killing a woman and injuring five others, was sentenced to 15 years in state prison.

Tulare County Superior Court Judge Michael Sheltzer on Friday sentenced Johnny Mendoza, 27, to 15 years in state prison for DUI manslaughter stemming from the 2016 crash on Highway 65 near Lindsay. In May, Mendoza pleaded no contest to one count of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.

The case included a special allegation of causing injury to more than one person and one count of DUI causing injury with a prior DUI conviction, as well as three special allegations of causing great bodily injury.

Mendoza had a DUI conviction from 2014. He was on probation for that case when the 2016 crash occurred. He also failed to attend DUI classes and did not install a court-required ignition interlock device."

Why don't we as society take drunk driving seriously? We have someone who failed to follow court orders and the police did... nothing. Nothing was done to force this inherently worthless little shit from installing the ignition interlock device. Judges and juries should understand that if things aren't going to be enforced they are not valid alternatives to mandatory prison sentences.

Stakeout bars. Harsh mandatory sentencing. Undercover operations. Make society live in absolute fear of drinking and then getting on the road. This would be money WELL spent rather than going after people doing drugs in their own home, gambling or sex workers. Focus on the evil that actually gets completely innocent people killed and injured.

Society could have prevented this woman who had 30+ years ahead of her from dying.

She was a criminal and had it coming. And I don't see why we would care even if she wasn't, it's not like this was a property crime which might actually matter.

[Lewkowski]

She was a criminal and had it coming. And I don't see why we would care even if she wasn't, it's not like this was a property crime which might actually matter.

Her car was property.

[Lewkowski]

What do you mean 'we' don't take DUI seriously?

There is already a fear instilled in the public to some degree. Chirst, I wont even have any booze for the most part if I'm driving. Unless I'm gonna be at a single place for a long time I won't even drink ONE beverage.

This is callous people not caring about their actions with some of the stiff penalties out there. I'd rather not swing into full Police State over this.

Catching criminals is not a police state. Staking out a place that regularly has drug sales isn't unheard of. Why should it not be appropriate for other crimes?

[Veldan Rath]

Catching criminals is not a police state. Staking out a place that regularly has drug sales isn't unheard of. Why should it not be appropriate for other crimes?

Selling alcohol is not illegal. A cop in every bar? Watch that sector take a nose dive.

[Lewkowski]

Selling alcohol is not illegal. A cop in every bar? Watch that sector take a nose dive.

Stakeout bars doesn't mean 24-7 surveillance of all bars. That being said even if there is police presence why would business dry up? Ubre, Lyft, taxi, designated driver or calling a friend are all reasonable alternatives.

[Veldan Rath]

Yeah, everyone has fun when cops are around...especially in bars.

Whose gonna pay for that?

[LittleFuzzy]

Yeah, everyone has fun when cops are around...especially in bars.

Whose gonna pay for that?

What do you mean? We can just close a school and a library in every town and that should cover it, right?

[Veldan Rath]

[Lewkowski]

Yeah, everyone has fun when cops are around...especially in bars.

Whose gonna pay for that?

Effective stakeouts shouldn't be out in the open.

Also... yes? Why would police presence put a damper on legal activity?

[LittleFuzzy]

Effective stakeouts shouldn't be out in the open.

Also... yes? Why would police presence put a damper on legal activity?

We really should just put cameras in your house to make sure you're not drinking at home before driving. Maybe use the TV as the nexus for this surveillance hub? I mean, since you're law-abiding that wouldn't be an issue for you, right?

[Lewkowski]

We really should just put cameras in your house to make sure you're not drinking at home before driving. Maybe use the TV as the nexus for this surveillance hub? I mean, since you're law-abiding that wouldn't be an issue for you, right?

You don't have the right to privacy in public but you do have it in your own home.

[LittleFuzzy]

You don't have the right to privacy in public but you do have it in your own home.

Hey Lewk, guess what. Bars are privately held property, remember? There is no inherent police power to maintain a presence on their property.

[Lewkowski]

Hey Lewk, guess what. Bars are privately held property, remember? There is no inherent police power to maintain a presence on their property.

True, but I'd like to see the bar that throws out police. Hell even the rumor of mistreatment of the police leads to a tidal wave of negative publicity.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/10/kro...olice-officer/

Also, like I said before, the idea would be for police to stakeout places which means they aren't going to just be in uniform.

[Aimless]

Does the right to privacy really cover things anyone might see if they stood next to you at a bar?

[LittleFuzzy]

True, but I'd like to see the bar that throws out police. Hell even the rumor of mistreatment of the police leads to a tidal wave of negative publicity.

You're talking about them engaging in surveillance. That's not a case of refusing to provide service. If they're getting service in a bar while on duty, the police should be reprimanded because that's totally unacceptable behavior on the their part. THEY'LL be drinking and driving in that case. You're asking for them to engage in 24/7 surveillance and harassment of people going about legitimate and legal recreational activities, regardless of whether there was any suspicious behavior or probable cause.
But here we have another example of your bigotry. See if a white woman gets killed, you'll even throw out that constantly vaunted insistence on protecting property rights and are happy to threaten property owners to allow constant intrusive government interference with their legal market activities. What happened to not liking big government, government interference with trade, etc? Oh, I forgot, you only care when discussing white, middle class people engaged in white-collar jobs.

[Ominous Gamer]

True, but I'd like to see the bar that throws out police. Hell even the rumor of mistreatment of the police leads to a tidal wave of negative publicity.

Only when it concerns a black person. It's quite common for well to do white areas to restrict uniformed officers, through a variety of methods, from being a regular occurrence.

[Lewkowski]

Only when it concerns a black person. It's quite common for well to do white areas to restrict uniformed officers, through a variety of methods, from being a regular occurrence.

I've never seen any evidence of this. I'm sure you could find a community somewhere in America (probably some liberal hippy commune place that hates cops and preach about social justice) but the vast majority of middle class and upper class don't have a problem with police.

[Ominous Gamer]

I've never seen any evidence of this.

This is because you're an idiot who lives in some sort of sheltered alternate reality.

[Aimless]

Only when it concerns a black person. It's quite common for well to do white areas to restrict uniformed officers, through a variety of methods, from being a regular occurrence.

Afaict, some white neighbourhoods want a more prominent police presence, while others do not. Black neighbourhoods are more likely to be both under-served and over-policed. In predominantly white neighbourhoods, if you do have cops roaming around, they're more likely to target black people.

[GGT]

I've never seen any evidence of this. I'm sure you could find a community somewhere in America (probably some liberal hippy commune place that hates cops and preach about social justice) but the vast majority of middle class and upper class don't have a problem with police.

The mostly white middle/upper class Country Club set wouldn't want police stake-outs anywhere near their drinking. Get real.

[Lewkowski]

The mostly white middle/upper class Country Club set wouldn't want police stake-outs anywhere near their drinking. Get real.

I don't hang out at Country Clubs but OG's comment was literally the first time I've seen that statement made (outside of speed traps).

[GGT]

I don't hang out at Country Clubs but OG's comment was literally the first time I've seen that statement made (outside of speed traps).

Then you need to get out more. Better yet, read more sources and opinions before you post a link to a story, and go on a moral tirade that doesn't even comport with your supposedly libertarian or small gummint views. Seriously, your posts sound racist or fascist, or both. You're not fooling anyone here.