DC driver with $12k in tickets flees US Park police, kills 3 people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me think...
Yes, she has a driver license that has not expired. Therefore, she has a valid license. Remember folks, some driver licenses are good for 7-yr, 8-yr or even 10-yr.

Even DMV has revoked her license, DMV will not send someone to take away her "current", un-expired license.

Anonymous wrote:The D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles has long declined to address whether Walker had a valid license, though a defense attorney asserted in court that she did.

This is confounding to me. Either she did, or she didn't.

Even if your license facially looks valid, all it takes is for the police to look it up to know that it has been revoked, and this is something the police definitely do during traffic stops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me think...
Yes, she has a driver license that has not expired. Therefore, she has a valid license. Remember folks, some driver licenses are good for 7-yr, 8-yr or even 10-yr.

Even DMV has revoked her license, DMV will not send someone to take away her "current", un-expired license.

Anonymous wrote:The D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles has long declined to address whether Walker had a valid license, though a defense attorney asserted in court that she did.

This is confounding to me. Either she did, or she didn't.

Even if your license facially looks valid, all it takes is for the police to look it up to know that it has been revoked, and this is something the police definitely do during traffic stops.

Police?

Traffic stops?

What do you think we are, Nazi Germany? Florida?

[Anonymous]

They would do that after an accident.

[Anonymous]

“A fiery crash earlier this year that involved a driver with a history of DUI convictions and a valid D.C. driver’s license inspired legislation that aims to resolve failures in the city’s enforcement processes, targeting drivers with long records of dangerous on-road behavior.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“A fiery crash earlier this year that involved a driver with a history of DUI convictions and a valid D.C. driver’s license inspired legislation that aims to resolve failures in the city’s enforcement processes, targeting drivers with long records of dangerous on-road behavior.”

This is a nice gesture I suppose, but I’m not convinced someone who was drunk, high, and going 100 mph on rock creek parkway after, what, 5? DUIs and reckless driving charge, is really going to care that their license was suspended. She should have been in prison already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“A fiery crash earlier this year that involved a driver with a history of DUI convictions and a valid D.C. driver’s license inspired legislation that aims to resolve failures in the city’s enforcement processes, targeting drivers with long records of dangerous on-road behavior.”

This is a nice gesture I suppose, but I’m not convinced someone who was drunk, high, and going 100 mph on rock creek parkway after, what, 5? DUIs and reckless driving charge, is really going to care that their license was suspended. She should have been in prison already.

+1. Too little, too late.

[Anonymous]

Yeah this solution is a joke. Anyone with three DUIs is a danger to society and should be locked up for a long time—that’s the only way to keep them off the roads.

I’m all for second chances and even third chances, but at some point enough is enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah this solution is a joke. Anyone with three DUIs is a danger to society and should be locked up for a long time—that’s the only way to keep them off the roads.

I’m all for second chances and even third chances, but at some point enough is enough.

Three DUIs? I'm going with your 2nd. At your 2nd, your vehicle should be impounded. A revoked license isn't going to do anything for repeat criminals.

1st should be a very heavy fine and home confinement for several months minimum.

[Anonymous]

So avoid that third DUI over a rolling 5-year period.

[Anonymous]

Performative legislation?

From *this* Council??

Let me sit down.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, that legislation is waaay too light. Also, we know that people already ignore their 8 hundred tickets, so why would they care that their drivers license was revoked?

We need DC police to be actively scanning license plates and impounding vehicles on a daily basis in addition to the boot crews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, that legislation is waaay too light. Also, we know that people already ignore their 8 hundred tickets, so why would they care that their drivers license was revoked?

We need DC police to be actively scanning license plates and impounding vehicles on a daily basis in addition to the boot crews.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, that legislation is waaay too light. Also, we know that people already ignore their 8 hundred tickets, so why would they care that their drivers license was revoked?

We need DC police to be actively scanning license plates and impounding vehicles on a daily basis in addition to the boot crews.

Lol sure. Like dc is not doing this already. Try posting about something you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah this solution is a joke. Anyone with three DUIs is a danger to society and should be locked up for a long time—that’s the only way to keep them off the roads.

I’m all for second chances and even third chances, but at some point enough is enough.

Three DUIs? I'm going with your 2nd. At your 2nd, your vehicle should be impounded. A revoked license isn't going to do anything for repeat criminals.

1st should be a very heavy fine and home confinement for several months minimum.

+1

What is the public policy reason for not punishing DUIs more severely? Nobody needs to drink alcohol let alone drive. We’re not talking about taking away some fundamental right here. Maybe a first DUI is a whoops learning experience, but the second is egregious. Third is just straight up malice and not caring at all if you kill people because at that point it’s only a matter of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah this solution is a joke. Anyone with three DUIs is a danger to society and should be locked up for a long time—that’s the only way to keep them off the roads.

I’m all for second chances and even third chances, but at some point enough is enough.

Three DUIs? I'm going with your 2nd. At your 2nd, your vehicle should be impounded. A revoked license isn't going to do anything for repeat criminals.

1st should be a very heavy fine and home confinement for several months minimum.

+1

What is the public policy reason for not punishing DUIs more severely? Nobody needs to drink alcohol let alone drive. We’re not talking about taking away some fundamental right here. Maybe a first DUI is a whoops learning experience, but the second is egregious. Third is just straight up malice and not caring at all if you kill people because at that point it’s only a matter of time.

To clarify, I meant nobody needs to drive after drinking. I get people need to drive places, but they don’t need to do it drunk. This is avoidable.