A judge who's hand I want to shake!

Okiewan

Admin
Dec 31, 1969
29,531
2,215
Texas
Normally, I wouldn't care enough to comment on that Paris Hilton "person" ... but this is just too good!

If you've missed it, somehow.

1) DUI, then driving on suspended.
2) 45 days in county, reduced to 23.
3) She's there 3 days, lawyers get her out cause she's not digging it, serve her time at home.
4) Original judge screams BS, sends her back for the full 45 days.

SWEET!! :rotfl:
 

bsmith

Wise master of the mistic
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jun 28, 2001
1,782
0
Doing the right thing is not always the popular thing!

I wonder how much cash they'll find in the Sheriffs Freezer?
 

mtk

Member
Jun 9, 2004
1,409
0
sixds said:
how can she be known as a celebrity anyways. like, she released and album or two, thats it.

More like she's a rich heiress who did an amateur porn tape, which made her "famous."
 

2strok4fun

Member
Apr 6, 2002
1,085
1
She can now release her own pamphlet "My 3 day stint in Lynwood"

-or-

"The Lynwood diet" all the celebs will be trying it.
 

whenfoxforks-ruled

Old MX Racer
~SPONSOR~
Oct 19, 2006
8,129
2
Merrillville,Indiana
Judges rule!They do not really have to answer to anyone.Word I heard was she was suffering from something the jail was incapable of dealing with$$$$$$$$$$$Ahhh,too bad!
 

truespode

Moderator / Wheelie King
Jun 30, 1999
7,945
242
whenfoxforks-ruled said:
she was suffering from something the jail was incapable of dealing with

Yeah... a world class hissy fit!!

Good for the judge... wish there were more people out there who believed in making people take responsibility for themselves!!!

Ivan
 

WoodsRider

Sponsoring Member<BR>Club Moderator
Damn Yankees
Oct 13, 1999
2,812
0
Now if they'd just lock up the rest of the Hollyweird elite!
 

Moose

~SPONSOR~
Sep 16, 2006
1,091
0
Wow, justice is being served.

Reality is, this probably happens to Old Joe Shmo every day, yet now that it's Paris Hilton it's a big deal. It's a waste of time paying attention to all of this imo.
 

76GMC1500

Uhhh...
Oct 19, 2006
2,142
1
It's not a waste of time paying attention to it because the celebs have spent too much time living above the law. If the tabloids didn't pay attention, she should have just slipped through the legal system like the rest of them do. My friend went to jail for a week for a DUI. That was his first and there weren't any wreckless driving charges attached. Apparently, this isn't her first DUI and she violated many other laws. Of course she should have the book thrown at her. A little time in jail really helped my friend turn himself around, too. He doesn't want to go back.
 

rickyd

Hot Sauce
Oct 28, 2001
3,447
0
The judge probably did it do to get media attention. If it were somebody else and they were released he probably wouldn't of even thought about it. Read somewhere that they predict that her popularity would increase if she served her time behind bars, pretty sad IMHO.
 

76GMC1500

Uhhh...
Oct 19, 2006
2,142
1
You can't punish the ultra-wealthy with fines, it means nothing to them. They have to do time. When I got a $350 fine for driving in a carpool lane, I had to skip meals because I didn't have enough money for food. Paris? She could sell a toe-nail clipping for $350.
 

Okiewan

Admin
Dec 31, 1969
29,531
2,215
Texas
rickyd said:
The judge probably did it do to get media attention. If it were somebody else and they were released he probably wouldn't of even thought about it. Read somewhere that they predict that her popularity would increase if she served her time behind bars, pretty sad IMHO.
Problem here is he specifically noted that she NOT get to serve it at home , then the sheriff did it anyway... but yes, I'm sure he's fine with the attention.
 

Rooster

Today's Tom Sawyer
Damn Yankees
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Aug 24, 2000
3,300
1
I've always been amazed at how easily the celeb's get out of fines and jail time. I'm glad they sent her useless butt back to the slammer. Do the crime, DO THE TIME!!!

Okie ... I just noticed your sig line ... nice one!
 

Jeff Gilbert

N. Texas SP
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Oct 20, 2000
2,969
2
I feel sorry for her, she can't relate to reality.
 

Vic

***** freak.
LIFETIME SPONSOR
May 5, 2000
4,008
0
Jeff Gilbert said:
I feel sorry for her, she can't relate to reality.

Same, here. I'd rather see her parents in jail.
 

robwbright

Member
Apr 8, 2005
2,283
0
I agree, she should not have been given and should not be given preferential treatment. I strongly dislike the woman and I DO NOT think she's attractive. She looks like a mouse to me.

However, I question any law which pre-emptively takes away a person's freedom when that person has not caused any injury to another person.

600+ people drive under the influence for each person that is pulled over.

If you injury or kill another person due to losing control of your vehicle - for whatever reason that is your fault - you should be subject to severe criminal and civil penalties.

However, arresting people and forcing them to do jail time - for whatever reason - when they have not injured another person is stupid and tyrranical.

You might want to read this - selective quotes below. . .:

Legalize Drunk Driving
http://www.mises.org/story/2343

"What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government's "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.

Sure, we can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over some period of time. But at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals. That's not the way law is supposed to work. Indeed, this is a form of tyranny.

Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.

Despite the propaganda, what's being criminalized in the case of drunk driving is not the probability that a person driving will get into an accident but the fact of the blood-alcohol content itself. A drunk driver is humiliated and destroyed even when he hasn't done any harm.

There are many factors that cause a person to drive poorly. You may have sore muscles after a weight-lifting session and have slow reactions. You could be sleepy. You could be in a bad mood, or angry after a fight with your spouse. Should the government be allowed to administer anger tests, tiredness tests, or soreness tests? That is the very next step, and don't be surprised when Congress starts to examine this question.

We need to put a stop to this whole trend now. Drunk driving should be legalized. And please don't write me to say: "I am offended by your insensitivity because my mother was killed by a drunk driver." Any person responsible for killing someone else is guilty of manslaughter or murder and should be punished accordingly. But it is perverse to punish a murderer not because of his crime but because of some biological consideration, e.g. he has red hair.
 

Ol'89r

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jan 27, 2000
6,961
45
robwbright said:
However, I question any law which pre-emptively takes away a person's freedom when that person has not caused any injury to another person.
QUOTE]

Rob.

She has been caught driving drunk and on a suspended license. It was not the first time. She failed to show up for court. When she did, she blamed it all on her manager for not telling her that she couldn't drive on a suspended license.. Any nitwit knows that. When interviewed, she talked about it like it was a big joke.

She failed again to show up in court on friday. Thought she could just call in. :coocoo: The judge sent a police car to pick her arrogant little butt up and bring her to court. Now, she knows that she is not above the law. :cool: I would think as an attorney, you would know this stuff.

It was only a matter of time until she killed someone, now she has 45 days to think about it. :nod:

I applaud this judge. To bad we don't have more like him.
 

truespode

Moderator / Wheelie King
Jun 30, 1999
7,945
242
robwbright said:
However, arresting people and forcing them to do jail time - for whatever reason - when they have not injured another person is stupid and tyrranical.

I guess I get to rob whoever I want as long as they are not home and/or I don't injure them during my "redistribution" of their property.

robwbright said:
"What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment.

No... driving while intoxicated is reckless endangerment.


What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves?

We are criminalizing the action of driving while under the influence.

The law should deal in actions and actions alone,


You drink and drive, which is breaking the law, then you should be arrested.

Drive 100mph in a 35mph zone and you should be arrested as well.

Both are actions that someone takes and laws that they choose to ignore... laws with ramifications.

and only insofar as they damage person or property.

So, I can drive 110mph + or drive my dirtbike on the highway (or my moped (even though it won't make the minimum 45mph limit but that is an arbitrary number and does not cause damage unless someone else hits me).

Despite the propaganda, what's being criminalized in the case of drunk driving is not the probability that a person driving will get into an accident but the fact of the blood-alcohol content itself.

No... the ACTION of CHOOSING to ignore the law and get behind a wheel while under the influence of alcohol is criminalized.

A drunk driver is humiliated and destroyed even when he hasn't done any harm.

He broke the law. Don't like the law, petition to remove it.

Drunk driving should be legalized.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read on here from you, Rob.

Ivan
 
Top Bottom