Drunken driver who snapped photo going 141 mph before deadly collision imprisoned for 17 years
Drunken driver who snapped photo going 141 mph before deadly collision imprisoned for 17 years
A drunken driver who snapped a photo showing he was speeding at 141 mph before a deadly crash in England has been sentenced to 17 years in prison
Darryl Anderson was drunk behind the wheel of his Audi SUV, had his accelerator pressed to the floor and was barreling toward a car ahead of him when he snapped a photo of his speedometer. The picture showed a car in the foreground, a collision warning light on his dashboard and a speed of 141 mph (227 kph).
An instant later, he slammed into the car in the photo. The driver, Shalorna Warner, was not seriously injured but her 8-month-old son and her sister were killed instantly, authorities said. Evidence showed Anderson never braked.
Anderson, 38, was sentenced Tuesday to 17 years in prison for the May 31 crash in northern England that killed little Zackary Blades and Karlene Warner. Anderson pleaded guilty last week in Durham Crown Court to two counts of causing death by dangerous driving.
You're viewing part of a thread.
No,not death sentence,but i noticed people here are worryingly apologetic for murder. It is murder,not in the 1st degree off,but still murder.
25 years with no parole and that's that. I'm sorry,I just can't find excuses for drunk driving murders like some people do. It's my belief system,not a standard.
It's my belief system
Thought terminator detected.
Do you base all your thought system on what the internet says? Poor kid...
THAT'S HIS OPINION. Don't attack someone else's beliefs, bro.
You're gonna debate the encyclopedia? C'mon now...
Some people are just that irresponsible. Also the human brain is notoriously bad at risk assessment, so some people truly don't realize how likely they are to cause suffering and death when they do shit like this. Harsh punishments won't change that because this guy probably didn't think he was gonna accidentally murder 2 people that night
This was no accident.
He drove while drunk. He made a decision to become impaired. While impaired, he decided to get behind the wheel of a vehicle. He made a decision to drive unreasonably fast, beyond the speed limit and beyond his ability to safely operate the vehicle. He further made a decision to take a photo while operating his vehicle.
All were his choice to make, and thus the repercussions of his choices were no accident.
Does society want a person inclined to make such decisions roaming about freely? How many years of incarceration are likely to eliminate his continuation of such behavior?
I'm not saying that 17 years behind bars is too much here, I'm saying it's definitely not too little. Unless it can be proven that this idiot actually thought he was likely to get in an accident by acting the way he did
What person, arguing in good faith, could state that they believe driving while drunk, at high speeds, while operating a cell phone, would likely not result in an accident? I'd love to see the train of thought laid out for that argument.
A pretty stupid and/or egotistical person, which is not illegal. I have literally met people who think like that. Also that's arguably the most dangerous part of drunk driving: impaired judgement makes you think you've got everything under control, and you're not that drunk anyway, and you're a good driver... Combine that with someone whose brain isn't exactly firing up on all cylinders when they're sober and you've got a deadly cocktail, and also probably someone who is more likely to get too drunk to legally drive (and not give up on driving home after that line is crossed)
Right,let's release all murderers on purely the fact they didn't think they were going to kill someone. Jeez and I thought Lemmy would be a better place...
You keep using the word "murderer" to describe someone who kills another person in a car accident. This is rarely murder. This is almost always manslaughter, even when people were reckless and stupid.
You seem to be using the word "murderer" because you want to sensationalize things. You're deliberately using a word more severe than the actual situation warrants because you think you will earn sympathy for your position by being hyperbolic.
Unfortunately for you, Lemmy et al is generally a community of critical thinkers, and we don't fall for that shit so easily.
Justice requires clarity and understanding, and so insisting that anyone who kills someone in a car should be treated as though they did it in purpose absolutely does not serve the interests of justice.
You're also never going to win people over with this scorched earth strategy against drunk driving. Over 100 million Americans admit to have driven drunk at least once in their lives. That's nearly a third of the population. Way too many people empathize with people who have made this very bad decision, and understand that the only difference was whether or not a fatal accident occurred.
Consequences are deserved, but I don't see the value is demanding maximum suffering.