Support BikePortland

30-day jail sentence handed down for drunken hit-and-run in SW Portland

Posted by on November 21st, 2014 at 10:24 am

vesely

Lisa Vesely after her arrest back in July.

A woman who drove her car recklessly while drunk, then rear-ended two other road users, only to drive away and leave them lying in the street with serious injuries was sentenced to just 30 days in jail on Tuesday.

The incident happened back in July when 32-year old Lisa Vesely was arrested for Assault, DUII, and Reckless Endangerment. Vesely was driving her car east on SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway when she swerved into Cameron Duff and Jasmine Zamora. The pair were headed home from training at the Alpenrose Velodrome. Zamora, 30, sustained serious back and neck injuries while Duff, 25, escaped with only cuts and bruises.

Vesely claimed she didn’t even know she hit anyone, yet a police statement at the time said she drove back to the scene of the crime, only to drive away again before being arrested at her home. It’s worth noting that Vesely had a blood alcohol level of .17, which is twice the legal limit.

Advertisement

According to a report in The Oregonian from the sentencing hearing, Vesely plead guilty to felony hit-and-run, a misdemeanor DUII and misdemeanor fourth-degree assault. Here’s more from The O:

Deputy District Attorney Lauren Kemp recommended 30 days in jail, three years of probation and 120 hours of community service

Vesely’s attorney, Lawrence Hunt, asked Judge Angel Lopez to sentence his client to some amount less than 30 days, noting that his client had no previous criminal history, was college-educated and has worked as a caregiver at a retirement center. Hunt said his client is eager to get back to work because she has only $25 left in her bank account after expenses she has incurred hiring him as a privately retained attorney.

As part of her sentence, Vesely’s driver’s license will be suspended for three years because of a 2013 law targeting hit-and-run drivers. Previously, state law called for a one-year suspension.

Also as part of her plea deal, she can ask a judge to reduce her felony hit-and-run conviction to a misdemeanor after 1 1/2 years if she abides by the terms of her sentence.

We’ve reached out to Justine Zamora to get her response to the sentencing and will update this post if/when we hear back.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

66
Leave a Reply

avatar
20 Comment threads
46 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
38 Comment authors
El BicicleroDan AGary Johnsonrickwas carless Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
eli bishop
Guest
eli bishop

FOUR YEARS for a brick, but 30 days for hit and run?!

Terry D-M
Guest
Terry D-M

Offensive. That kid was 15 I think , and people wonder why our streets are dangerous. AUTOMOBILES are deadly weapons and should be treated as such.

F.W. de Klerk
Guest
F.W. de Klerk

That “poor boy” deserved four years, and so does this woman.

spare_wheel
Guest
spare_wheel

A permanent felony conviction and 4 years for a 15 year old african american child.

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

Not a child. Young adult. I figure you know the difference, but maybe you don’t, or just don’t care.

Alex Reed
Guest
Alex Reed

Wsbob, I think 15 is too young to be considered a “young adult.” I’m 29, and many people call me a “young adult” too (e.g. my religious denomination considers “young adults” to be 21 to 35). Yes, one could call this fellow a “young man” in conversation, but I think that “young man” doesn’t have the connotations of responsibility (especially legal in this case) that “young adult” has – and rightfully so. 15 years old is below the legal age of adulthood.

I agree that 15 is probably too old to be considered a “child,” depending on the context. I think “youth”, “teenager”, and “minor” are all appropriate terms.

davemess
Guest
davemess

Regardless of semantics, he’s more than old enough to know that you shouldn’t assault people.

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

Alex…fair enough, point is, it’s pushing things to refer to this tall, gangly (I think that’s the way Richardson’s father was quoted in the Oregonian as having described him.) kid as a ‘child’ to try sensationalize the sentence he received for throwing a potentially lethal instrument at somebody, striking and injuring the person.

Adolescent may be a better suited term.

spare_wheel
Guest
spare_wheel

Funny how I’ve never seen the term “young adult” pornography being used.

was carless
Guest
was carless

Sorry, not according to the Oregon Legislature.

And I quoteth:

‘”Child” means an unmarried person who is under 18 years.’

http://www.oregonlaws.org/glossary/definition/child

Terry D-M
Guest
Terry D-M

I intentionally did not comment on the 15 year old’s sentence, just on the disparity. I would call any 15 year old a “kid.” I did not say “Poor boy”…your words.

My peronal opinions on American’s military-industrial-prison complex are just that, too complex for this topic or platform.

middle of the road guy
Guest
middle of the road guy

An automobile is NOT a weapon – it is a mode of conveyance. It can be used as a weapon if there is a purposeful intent to harm someone else (just like a brick).

Dan
Guest
Dan

A chainsaw is not a weapon either, it is a tool for chopping down trees. If I get drunk and buzz someone with my chainsaw and then run away, it’s purely an accident, right? A chainsaw is only a weapon if I use it on purpose. Is that the point?

9watts
Guest
9watts

Yeah, but the kid was black.

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

And neither punishment will fix these broken people.

J_R
Guest
J_R

By broken people, I assume you were referring to Zamora and Duff who were injured by the drunk driver. Zamora may well be suffering for years. Punishing the perpetrators won’t help Zamora and Duff, but maybe a greater punishment for the drunk driver would send a message that it’s not OK to drink and drive and leave the scene.

Punishment in European countries is generally more severe and the occurrences are less frequent, too. A connection maybe?

GlowBoy
Guest
GlowBoy

Based on my own experience with minor spinal injuries, I wouldn’t be surprised if Zamora’s “serious back injuries” mean that she will never be the same again. 30 days is an insult.

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

There’s so many more variables when you’re comparing the behaviour of Europeans to Americans, such as mental healthcare, income inequality, and social services.

On the subject of punishment alone, I’m not sure the “throw ’em in jail longer” mentality entirely works. Once you slap felony charges on someone and throw them for years into a system designed to beat them down, you’re pretty much condemning them to a future where they’ll have to resort to crime to survive (it’s hard for people with convictions to get a decent job, for example). The prison industry feeds on this because these same people end up life-long frequent customers. Additionally there’s also the issue of false convictions and otherwise good people who have simply made a mistake, or been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be consequences for people’s actions, but I’d like for judges to have more discretion in sentencing so they can come up with more creative solutions. And if the persons charged fail to fulfil the judge’s requirements then they’d face more serious jail time.

DL King
Guest
DL King

I have to be honest, the discussion on this subject has moved to a place that I don’t understand. I’ll ignore that for now and say that I think the one crime that should be (depending on how we want to shape the conversation) either immediate execution or life in prison with no chance of parole is hit and runs. To me, it’s the ultimate expression of self-centeredness and the one crime that people might thing twice about.

On the first piece, there’s someone laying lifeless in the road, after you’ve ran them over. You make the decision that you spending 30 days to 3 years in jail is more important than the person’s life you see laying in the road…honestly, you’re someone I hope is dead before morning. You’ve essentially made a decision that you’d rather someone die (a son, unsound and father) so that you can avoid paying a minuscule pittance. Anyone that values 30 days of freedom over someone’s life is a person that I’d be glad to see executed or thrown in jail unit they rot and go to hell.

Also, it’s one of the few crimes that I think people might think twice about. “Oh, I just killed a group of people lying in the street, I could bolt and if they never catch me they;re a bunch of suckers. If they catch me they’ll fry me though. If I call 911 and say, I’ve been drinking and just mowed over 3 people, how can I help them?” if that leads to 30 days in jail versus getting lethal injection, I think thats a group that would think through the consequences.

I feel like a hit-and-life” and those are the people I’d love to not be part of our society (either through incarceration or execution).

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

“And neither punishment will fix these broken people.” Kyle

Vesely the woman care giver, being a drunk driver for whatever reason, and Robert Gudgens the 15 year old brick thrower for whatever reason, seem to be broken people too. So what, that’s acceptable to people that are angry at them and that’s civil and humane, will fix them?

So some here think Vesely should have got more time in jail, or ‘punishment’. At least more than 30 days, so, how long? Four years? Forty years? What, inflicted on these two people, would satisfy angry people’s sense of ‘justice’? In the U.S., fortunately, justice legally administered doesn’t include stoning people to death, or some other vicious form of revenge.

Giving up on people because they’re broken, is not a response that’s likely to bring people that are messed up, around to becoming better people.

DL King
Guest
DL King

she made a choice, “my freedom is more important than any of these people laying on the pavement’s life.” Based on that decision she made to kill people so she wouldn’t have to suffer any consequences, what do you think is fair?

was carless
Guest
was carless

I think many people believe there should be consequences for one’s actions, and that they should be proportional to the crime. Assaulting people (in this instance, two) and leaving them for dead is highly offensive to many people. 30 days seems like a fairly trite punishment, although jail time is still extremely unpleasant.

On the other hand, I doubt few on this blog are familiar with Oregon’s sentencing guidelines (I sure am not). I don’t really have any feelings on the matter one way or the other, and am grateful that they at least pursued the case and prosecuted her.

Rico
Guest
Rico

If she weren’t drunk, she would gotten off with a warning.

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

If she hadn’t been drunk, she probably wouldn’t have hit them in the first place. Not being a drunk, eliminates a lot of problems.

mran1984
Guest
mran1984

You have no facts to support your statement. Being a drunk and being drunk are two different things, fyi. I hope that the result of the civil case is more in line with the initial crime. Serious back injuries do not equal thirty days of inconvenience.

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

“…Being a drunk and being drunk are two different things, fyi. …” mran1984

Relative to this collision and the person driving drunk, explain your claim.

Doesn’t really matter whether an intoxicated person deciding to drive, is a one time drunk or chronically drunk person, if they’re too intoxicated to drive.

Drinking can be fine. Drink responsibly. I know about lifestyle drunks, if that’s what your fyi is in reference to. If that lifestyle makes them happy, they’re free to live it, but they shouldn’t be driving when they’re under the influence.

Dan
Guest
Dan

Thank you for reporting on this update to the case. Not what we would want to hear, but at least there’s something of an ‘ending’ to the original story.

rick
Guest
rick

BH Highway still has lots of speeding drivers, though.

Edwards
Guest
Edwards

The nice thing is with a felony conviction the cyclists will be able to go after her civilly and very easily win, her insurance will settle well before it goes to court and they can go after both her homeowners/renters (umbrella insurance) and auto insurance to get a fair settlement/reimbursement for all the recovery costs.

She’s got a solid 10 years of hell in front of here if they go after her civilly!

Dan
Guest
Dan

Yeah, but none of that will be reported publicly, which is necessary for it to be a deterrent.

Pete
Guest
Pete

Unfortunately civil cases are also punishment for the plaintiffs.

Cheif
Guest
Cheif

Too bad they won’t confiscate the car along with the license. Of course she’s most likely been driving since this, and will continue to do so indefinitely.

Eric
Guest
Eric

Since when in the f*** does “college-educated” have any relevance in judicial sentencing?!?!

TonyT
Guest
TonyT

Thank you. That’s some classist **** right there.

pixelgate
Guest
pixelgate

B… but… she has flawless caucasian skin, and a bachelors degree – plus she recycles, owns a Prius and sells artisan yoga mats on Etsy! And what about the fact she runs the 2nd largest Meg Ryan Myspace fan page in the world???? Surely the judge can recognize this woman isn’t nearly as threatening as a 15 year old with black skin, right?

Jonathan Radmacher
Guest
Jonathan Radmacher

If you’re comparing sentences, the person who was throwing a brick to try and injure someone gets a longer sentence than the person who was simply reckless. Punishment of a criminal will rarely feel comparable to what the crime did to the victim, but that’s partly because the jail time imposed is not supposed to compensate the victim. That, hopefully, comes from her insurance company.

eli bishop
Guest
eli bishop

SIMPLY RECKLESS? is that what you mean when she drove away?

davemess
Guest
davemess

He’s talking about intent as well.
I think we can all agree that this woman should have gotten more jail time and drunk driving is a horrible, irresponsible thing. But it is most likely that she didn’t get in her car with the intent of mowing down some cyclists (regardless she has to deal with the consequences), where as the intent of throwing a brick at someone else’s head is a lot more straight forward and obvious.

middle of the road guy
Guest
middle of the road guy

Intent, dude. Much of the sentencing guidelines are based upon intent.

Brendan
Guest
Brendan

Does anyone know how this would have been different if the two victims were in a car and everything else was the same (same injuries etc.)? I’d be happy to leave all the other arguments about crime and punishment to other people so long as the bike/car difference was equitable.

caesar
Guest
caesar

College education = money = part of the ruling class.
QED

We all know that “white collar crime” is rarely punished in an equivalent manner to “blue collar crime.”

Eric
Since when in the f*** does “college-educated” have any relevance in judicial sentencing?!?!
Recommended 0

JoshC
Guest
JoshC

The brick in the face implies intent to harm someone. That still being said I think they both could use more time in jail for all our sake.

eli bishop
FOUR YEARS for a brick, but 30 days for hit and run?!
Recommended 30

eli bishop
Guest
eli bishop

She drove away. She left them injured. That’s worth at least half a brick, right?

davemess
Guest
davemess

Did you read his second sentence?

caesar
Guest
caesar

Her’s what I find troubling and ultimately depressing about the drinking and driving problem.

We know, without a doubt, that alcohol consumption impairs and inhibits normal human mental abilities, to which we would generically refer as “judgement capacity” or the ability to make rational, well-informed decisions. This is the main reason that in the medical profession (in which I work) a patient’s right to decide about his/her medical treatment becomes null and void if he/she is intoxicated, barring a legally-recognized surrogate decision maker that is at the bedside to accept that responsibility or a legal document stating the same (an “advanced directive”, etc). Thus every day in ERs across this country we are doing things (invasive things, painful things, risky things) to patients “against their will” because we determine that they are either intoxicated or have sustained a brain injury or are acutely psychotic (etc) and are therefore not competent to decide for themselves. Granted, what we do to them must be medically indicated, within the accepted standard of care, and must be what “most any reasonable person” would likely choose to have done to them in order to save their life or limb.

Likewise, every day in ERs across this country, patients who DO appear to have the capacity to make informed decisions (the majority of patients are like this) are “allowed” to refuse medical care that many or most of us would probably want – and are allowed to die or, at best, remain at a very high risk of death or serious complications. Because our society has decided that individuals have the ultimate right to choose or refuse medical care, even if refusal leads to death. Assuming that they are “compos mentis,” of course.

So back to drinking and driving. Even though I have worked as a trauma surgeon for over fifteen years and personally witnessed the carnage, pain and heartbreak wrought upon innocents by drivers who are intoxicated, and even though I have had to endure the personally painful experience, time and time again, of meeting with a father or a wife or a son in the ER ‘Quiet Room” to tell them that I just pronounced their loved one dead despite attempting every known maneuver to save them, I experience cognitive dissonance when thinking about the guilt and the punishment of the intoxicated driver. Because unless that driver fully intended to drive home drunk before he consumed the first ounce of alcohol, most of these people make the decision to drive while already impaired and incapacitated. It’s still a horrible decision. But I don’t believe that they fully appreciate or understand what they are about to do (drive impaired) nor do they recognize, at that moment, the potentially devastating consequences of driving home with an elevated blood alcohol concentration. Essentially, they are in the same “state of mind” as that of a recent patient I had who was quite drunk, yet awake enough to yell at me and the ER team that he wanted nothing done, that he wanted to just get off the gurney (to which he was securely strapped) and walk home, thank you very much. Yet we knew, based on our rapid initial assessment, that he had a collapsed lung on the left side from several broken ribs (he had fallen from a roof), and we knew that without proper emergency treatment (inserting a 2 cm diameter tube between the ribs to decompress the chest full of air and blood) he would likely die within the hour. And that’s what we did, despite his protests – we sedated him and then rapidly inserted a chest tube using a bit of local anesthesia (it still hurts) and treated the injury like it was meant to be treated. And when he finally sobered up, he thanked us.

So how is it that alcohol intoxication abrogates ones right to self determination when faced with emergency, life-or-death medical decisions yet a similarly intoxicated driver is held to a different and much higher standard of mental capacity? This is what I have trouble reconciling. The very act of drinking alcohol renders most, if not all of us, relatively incapable of making informed, conscientious, rational decisions. We become impulsive, careless, stupid. Which is why severely punishing those people for decisions made “under the influence” seems like the wrong approach.

Not sure what the right approach is, but I’m gonna venture it’s multi-pronged and will require re-educating and re-motivating those who are in a position to prevent the potential drunk driver from either drinking to begin with, or of driving after already drunk. Friends, family, bartender, random bystander – etc – need to do something and keep that person off the streets.

And lets stop glorifying alcohol consumption so much. Which I acknowledge is a dangerous thing to say in this town, given the excellent brew culture that exists here.

David McCabe
Guest
David McCabe

I appreciate your sensitivity in these issues. But someone who is driving drunk has very likely chosen, while sober, to drive to a bar. They have chosen to afford themselves the ability to drive home while drunk. Most of the time, they have planned all along to get home by car after drinking.

Pete
Guest
Pete

“Which is why severely punishing those people for decisions made “under the influence” seems like the wrong approach.”

As someone who works in the ER I’m certain you’ve seen the amount of ‘punishment’ intoxicated people can (and do) give to your staff. While I agree it’s a complex social problem with no easy solution, the underlying transgression is based on the damage that person’s behavior has inflicted on others – intoxicated or not. The general public has an inherent right to be protected from damage inflicted from irresponsibility, alcohol-induced or not.

Sadly, I agree with the commenter above that the severity of the punishment is generally higher based on the DUI. If she had merely been texting, like the girl who swerved and killed my neighbor, she may not have even been prosecuted. (Apparently having to live with the fact that you’ve killed someone in an “accident” is punishment enough – in the words of our DA – and the poor girl didn’t stop for the “accident” because she was scared).

Tom
Guest
Tom

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

DUI plus Hit and Run: Lifetime drivers license revocation. Its not a punishment, its to protect society from another occurrence. DUI is a high probability repeat offense, not just in the next year, but over the lifetime of the alcoholic. A lifetime breathalyzer ignition interlock is the only other option (paid for by offender).

Pete
Guest
Pete

+1 for the breathalyzer ignition interlock. Personally I’d prefer cars that start with chipped driver’s licenses in addition.

middle of the road guy
Guest
middle of the road guy

I’d prefer cyclists to have license plates also so that we can track illegal behavior and invade their privacy in an equal manner

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

If by “illegal behavior” you mean, rolling a stop sign, vs. the “illegal behavior” of driving a two-ton car drunk, hitting someone, and driving away leaving them lying in the road, then yeah, by all means—that’s totally comparable. Stop the scofflaw bicyclist menace before more helpless drivers are killed!

Pete
Guest
Pete

Yes, because license plates have proven so effective to ensure drivers behave laws and don’t endanger other road users. (There was an era where they were relatively effective, but they don’t seem to have scaled so well).

A chipped driver’s license architecture may be designed simply so it needs to be validated to start the car for a driver who’s allowed to drive it – and there’s no difference in privacy than the current (magnetic) implementation – or you can get more complicated and broadcast the driver’s identity embedded in the chip to other vehicles (and/or police officers, or even traffic signals) in a V2V/V2I network. Frankly I think the topic of privacy is a cop-out (to a degree) for use of public infrastructure, but I agree that transportation mode is irrelevant. A vehicle operator is a vehicle operator in my opinion, but this is treated differently for automobiles due to the costs of the damages they’ve imposed on an insurance industry with a traditionally powerful lobby.

Many modern cars already have “black boxes” in them that record data leading up to ‘incidents’, and that’s not to mention the OBD modules that your insurance company wants you to plug in. Correlating the actual driver’s identity to this data would save taxpayers lots of money spent by courts in subrogation and litigation. Currently there’s a lot of overhead incurred in proving a car owner was the actual driver of their own car and caused an “accident” – and that’s predominately an American thing. In many other countries cars are impounded or even confiscated for things like DUIs regardless of who was driving them at the time.

Veggiepedaler
Guest
Veggiepedaler

College-educated and a caregiver…Oh!Well then. Carte blanche for that one. Drink up and grab the keys, all ye wisened scholars! Unbelievable.

EngineerScotty
Guest

Here’s a suggestion. While I’m not sure prison is the best place for offenders such as this (house arrest might be preferable–folks learn lots of bad habits in jail, it’s expensive, and I’d rather reserve prison for dangerous or repeat offenders)–until we come up with more creative ways of punishing such offenders, prison will have to do.

But since the perp is having her driver’s license suspended for X years: How about requiring her to buy–and she can spread out the cost over time if she cannot afford it, but it’s part of her sentence–a TriMet pass for the entire length of her suspension? (If she needs to move somewhere else during the time–she can choose to buy a different transit agency’s pass if she likes).

Given that she won’t (or shouldn’t) be driving….

pompilot
Guest
pompilot

Okay, before sentencing she was a caregiver. The next morning, she woke up a convicted FELON. This is something that she will have to reveal to any potential employer. Even if a judge reduces it at a later date, any background check will still show the felony conviction. If she does reveal the conviction as a felony, a lot of potential employers in healthcare will not hire her for hiding that information. If she does reveal the conviction, she may not be allowed to certain jobs or handle medications, (especially DEA scheduled drugs). In other words, changing diapers, emptying bedpans are okay. However, even touching a patient’s painkillers will be a big no-way.

Gerald Fittipaldi
Guest
Gerald Fittipaldi

Would you be writing the same sentiments if she had KILLED the two cyclists? The only reason the cyclists are not dead is because of pure luck. My family has seen one of ours killed by a drunk driver. Even if she hadn’t left the scene of the crash (not accident), her punishment as it now stands would be a joke.

The fact that this was a HIT AND RUN absolutely warrants making her a FELON and it should rightfully change the rest of her life. Stong laws and repercussions are the best tools we have for preventing future murders from happening. There is no excuse for drunk driving. NONE.

spare_wheel
Guest
spare_wheel

i guess you missed the part about being eligible to have her felony plea converted to a misdemeanor.

rick
Guest
rick

BH Highway, an ODOT highway, needs a 35 mph speed limit, not the current 40 mph, between 65th Ave and 30th ave.

Alan 1.0
Guest
Alan 1.0

Besides the disparity in sentences between this case and the brick case, I think there’s also a disparity between what a plain DUI conviction gets and what Vesely got for hit-and-run. Yes, she gets 30 days in jail (if it’s not so full she gets out sooner) but some DUIs get at least a day, and yes, she gets a felony but it can be reduced by the judge (and no, her record will not reflect the felony if that happens, and she will not need to declare it for employment, housing, etc). Hit-and-run is not only a violent act with severe consequences to the victims, but it is also a high immoral act of cowardice to leave them injured on the road, possibly to die from lack of care that the driver could have summoned. It’s far worse actual damage than plain DUI. And hit-and-run criminals often get away with it. So, what’s this slightly-tougher-than-DUI sentence saying to potential hit-and-runners? Where’s the incentive structure for a DUI driver to stick around a collision? Seems to me the devil whispering in the criminal’s ear is saying, “hey, you will probably get away with it if you flee, but even on the off chance you get caught, it will only be slightly worse than if you stick around. What’s it gonna be? Isn’t it worth the small sentencing increase risk to play the odds and avoid the whole thing?”

Gerald Fittipaldi
Guest
Gerald Fittipaldi

If anyone can provide the name and addresses of the those who would be the *most effective* people for me to write to, to express my deep desire to have our laws reformed, I will write multiple letters. Phone numbers and email addresses would also be appreciated, but I’m going to write letters. Thank you in advance.

rick
Guest
rick

PBOT and ODOT and Jennifer Williamson

Trikeguy
Guest
Trikeguy

The problem with really long jail sentences is that it keeps them from working and paying on the money they’ll be owing the injured cyclist as soon as they sue her.

Personally I think they got it all wrong – permanent revocation of the license and a couple thousand hours of community service maintaining bike lanes in Portland (getting debris out of them) combined with a hefty civil fine so her wages are garnished for the rest of her life. That sounds about equitable.

Pete
Guest
Pete

This is a common argument in courts (usually for monetary damages determined in criminal, not civil cases) that leads to some people being able to still use their cars with designated times and routes solely to get between home and work. I forget the name of the process, but as you could guess it’s even harder to enforce than a suspended license.

Gary Johnson
Guest

Yes, I fully understand the judgement as a college graduate ‍ we add more to society and therefore we expect more…even if that may mean a lighter sentence (of course capital crimes i.e. Murder, Rape is the exception, or should be…that Ivy League swimmer that got away with rape under a good ole boy judge should have a red hot poker shoved up his ass). As college grads we are smart enough to evolve along with our changing globalized economy, not stuck on our fat ass complaining about our lost coal shovelers job, blaming everybody else (Mexicans, Muslims, Jews, Liberals {even tho they are the only ones offering an honest no bullshit solution [except it takes work, willingness to train for and go where the jobs are]}). As college grads we see the big picture, we think analytically, we believe science (we don’t burn books because we don’t live in fear like superstitious hill folk), we can’t be duped by Fox News, or Alex Jones, or David Duke, or Dick Limbaugh. As the enlightened, the deciders, and thinkers for those that will not, cannot because they know not; we will reap the benefits of this land as the intelligent elite simply cause we are willing to embrace change. The uneducated white-collars-dyed-blue Chumps are the losers inbreeding themselves out like lemming-brained dinosaurs into oblivion, the forgotten, we will sweep them away like yesterday’s garbage from the days when a greatless America was in a dark age because we are a beautifully browned educated elite that is stronger together!-)

Dan A
Subscriber
Dan A

I’ll have what he’s having.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

Yeah, uhm—I’ll take the ego with hubris, extra arrogance please. Oh, and if you’re not too stupid to remember, could I get some condescension on the side? Oh, and hold the experience, if ya’ could.