So, how many times do you have to get caught driving drunk before they install the Intoxilizer? I think it should be one time! If you hurt someone while under the influence of ANYTHING, you should lose your license FOR GOOD! Why should I have to drive in fear because of some irresponsible idiot that's still on the road because our legal system has no back bone? Jail's too crowded? Build another story on the jail! I'm sure the money could be raised!

Of course it is a terrible thing for a intoxicated driver to kill an innocent victim.

But-Please explain to me why a fatal accudent caused by a cell phone user, a man or woman combing their hair, applying make-up, text messaging etc is any different.

They all are negligent.

wow ms_sassy, that would put you at 150 lbs!!

diamondback, it's the day in court that concerns me. He will probably get another little slap on the wrist and told not to do that again (and again, and again, and again, and again...and yet again).

cuz we all know how strict the judges are in Rock County with repeat drunk drivers...and how committed the judges are to protect our families, friends and small children from these drivers who already have had their licenses revoked, not to mention street signs, stop lights, empty vehicles and buildings

He will have his day in court...I'm sure he doesn't care one way or another the out come !But his family may... It's better to be JUDGED by 12 ,then to be CARRIED by 6. (I wish I could be 1 of 12)

Kudos to ms_sassy_wi!

It is really important in discussions such as these to keep things in perspective and factual. She did the homework, and hooray for both her sincerety and her eloquence!

ok, I concede that I may have been overly conservative with how many drinks I could have based on my weight. Here is a link to do a calculation to see how many drinks you can have and be under the .08 limit. Based on my personal experience, I believe that I could maintain complete control of my vehicle and my person at a BAC above .08, but I'm not willing to risk it.

I could have 3 drinks in an hour and still be under the .08 limit.

I apologize to folks for suggesting that the .08 limit is impossible to "adjust" to and still maintain your evening of fun safely.

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/safety/motori...

yipee

No question there, ms...sassy.

awww. thanks, gazettefan. I appreciate your stepping up to the plate to help me out!

(I think I did pretty well on my own, though, don't you?)

Hey, eetech, can't you at least pretend to have some manners?!

ms...sassy is one of the more polite and civilized posters here.

eetech, NO. STOP putting words in my mouth!!!!

Have you EVER, and I do mean EVER had a drink and then driven? In Wisconsin, going by the height/weight charts etc. I wouldn't be able to have ONE drink and drive within 2 hours of having said drink. I would NEVER EVER condone drinking or driving and I DON'T drive when "under the influence"...by the way, I wish I knew who you were, too, so I could do the V-8 smack to your forehead. Don't assume you know anything about me or what I stand for. (.08 is not much alcohol in your blood. People think they can have a few and still drive, when legally, they cannot.)

I repeat: DON'T TRY TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. THANKS.

So Janesville, it is ok to drive under the influence as long as nobody gets hurt????? I can't believe anybody would have the nerve to say that.

Why is everyone so upset by this. No one got hurt. Just like the old lady driving through Taco Bell. The comments there made light of it. And posters stated that it was funny cuz no one got hurt. Same here. No one was hurt. So I think it's kinda cute, too:-)

ms_sassy_wi: WHAT? ms_sassy said "To be fair, nearly anyone could have had one dui. Knock on wood, I never have..."

By that statement you must think it is OK to drive drunk once in awhile (as you apparently have and will continue to do so) but not all the time. It is ok to get caught once but not twice! What the heck kind of logic is this???? Are you sane? It only takes one time to kill someone. I would agree, statistically speaking, that the repeat offenders have a greater chance of injuring or killing someone but it could very well happen the first time someone does it. I wish we knew who you are since apprarently you think it is OK to do occasionally.

I definatly think we should put a mark on the vehicle of anyone who has ever offended!

I hope ms_sassy "knock on wood" that when you get stupid you don't kill anyone!

Build bigger jails and lock him up before he kills someone! He has no purpose being in society like this! Isn't there a country out there that shoots you on the spot for drunk driving???? I bet that would curb the issue here!

the beginning of a completely overhauled "bad news bears"-some remote island off the coast...then televise it-the latest and greatest reality show! better than American Idol. How about American Idiots?

Ship the repeat offenders to Cuba.....

copperguy, does time continue to toll when a car is still under warrenty? or does the tolling stop till the car the back is back on the street again?

There is a statute that allows a court (judge) to impound a car if the driver is revoked AND the driver is the owner. It ONLY allows for impoundment, not forfeiture of the vehicle. A judge can order the vehicle impounded for a certain length of time, and the owner/driver then must pay the impound fees or they become a lien on the vehicle.

I have never heard of that statute being used, however. Perhaps others have.

I agree with whoever said there should be a mark on the vehicle to alert us that the person is deemed a driving hazard.

whew. that was a close one.

but seriously, what CAN be done to keep the people who make streets unsafe off of them?

or at least out of vehicles that can kill small children...if they are staggering down the sidewalks, that's one thing, but driving is another thing altogether.

sassy, you've been banned from blogging for one minute since your last post, but time's up, so don't worry about it.

yeah. I didn't think that through completely. sorry to be so emphatic prematurely.

A lot of elderly people own vehicles but do not have a driver's license. They have others with a license do the driving for them. They supply the vehicle.

hmmm. well thanks for the answer. I don't like it, but oh well. I think if parents waited until kids got their licenses to buy them a car it would be more effective in training them that it CAN be taken away if they are driving recklessly or getting stopped for violations.

sassy, I think it goes back to when young people were old enough to drive but the parents would buy the cars. Or something along those lines.

can anyone explain WHY you don't need a valid license to register a vehicle? That is ONE law I would totally support enacting!

And yes, you can be convicted of OWI even if your impairment is caused by a lawfully prescribed and administered medication. If you're on prescription painkillers, anti-anxiety drugs, muscle relaxants, etc., and you are too impaired to drive, you can be arrested and convicted for OWI.

The statute for Operating Under Influence of Alcohol or Other Drug states that "No person may drive or operate a motor vehicle..."

(a) Under the influence of an intoxicant, a controlled substance, a controlled substance analog or any combination of an intoxicant, a controlled substance and a controlled substance analog, under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving, or under the combined influence of an intoxicant and any other drug to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving...

One statute section that covers all. There are further subsections that delineate whether the person had a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration, "detectable amount" of drugs, etc., but those are charged as separate offenses in ADDITION to the OWI charge.

Secondly, there is no law probiting a revoked or suspended driver from registering a vehicle.

what about also holding the person who bailed him out responsible, If you have ever bailed someone on a owi out of jail you sign a release stating thet they will not drive for a certain amount of time usually 24-36 hours.

ms sassy - Yes, "buckle up" is their solution to EVERYTHING.
*
That way, they don't have to put in any effort whatsoever.
*
Don't you wish you could go to work and just utter some short phrase and not have to actually DO anything?
*

then keep your kids off the streets, cuz here comes the sponge driving on the terraces and running down little kids. someone is going to get killed by this lunatic or another one like him. And people think the roundabout is going to be a problem locally...

Now....if he had a little bit of marijuana with him they would've arrested him and not let him go. Funny how that works. localboy got it right - they should've charged him with OUI instead of OWI since he wasn't intoxicated. Needless to say, I'll bet he's out driving again.

hollynpat - I am sure glad that I don't have you as one of my friends making libelous comments like that!

Mike's lucky to have a friend who'll speak up for him.

I know Mike. he's a drunk, but it sounds like they dont have a case against him. and knowing Mike he may seem drunk when he's not. he is more normal when he is drunk than when hes sober.

maybe brand a DD on their forehead,,, sort of like the scarlet "A" in the old stories,,,

well, perhaps one must have a valid driver's license to register a car. perhaps that will be one way to avoid the "driving after revocation 7th offense" charges that we see consistently.

To be fair, nearly anyone could have had one dui. Knock on wood, I never have, but it's the repeat offenders 4th, 5th 6th + offenses that help me arrive at the conclusion that if someone wants to drive drunk badly enough, they will. Maybe we can have guards at the doors of local bars. If someone staggers out and gets into the driver's seat...BAM!!...shot dead. Anything short of that apparently won't work.

How can one be charged with "intoxicated" driving without the presence of alcohol? The definition of intoxicated is reserved for alcohol only. If he had been charged with OUI operating under the influence, it could cover alcohol, or drugs (illegal or legal). Any legal eagles out there to help define? Of course don't take my question as to minimize his offense if he was in fact intoxicated.

ms...sassy, I think one-time offenders are allowed to drive under certain circumstances: to and from work etc. Some kind of marker on the car would be in order.

Someone without a drivers license can own a car. I haven't heard of law that prevents someone with a revoked license from owning one.

Understand we as a society need to get these people off the road. My idea was kind of going towards public humiliation along with a court punishment. Make fun of it all you want. I just think it would be nice to easy identify these careless losers

anom, I don't see drunk driving as a joke. I have had two family members killed by drunk drivers, so to me this is no laughing matter!!

Hey Irishgirl, I think that was the point of my joke!! DUH

anom- give me a break........ he was driving to help him fall asleep.... That is even more of a reason NOT to be driving!! Here's your sign!!

Its not the law enforcements fault. I am sure he wasnt allowed to drive. He was doing it illegally.
He was probably just driving around to help him fall asleep!!

yes that one works but im warning you if you havent heard the story it is very sad.

ok that did not work i will try again
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Bukosky/pe...

if you havent already go to this site and sign. and pray that they listen and do something!!
www.petitiononline.com/bukosky/petition....

ahhhhhhhhhh, Gallagher, now there was a man with a unique way of solving problems. Just beat the heck out of a watermelon and everything is good.

The decal idea reminded me of one of Gallagher's comedy routines. He thought every driver should be armed with a toy pistol that shoots suction-cup flags saying, "Stupid". Cut off in traffic? Shoot the offender's vehicle with the dart. Anyone with three or more "Stupid" flags loses their license. ;p

I agree with the suggestion of some type of decal. The problem, like gazettefan alluded to, is that drunk drivers aren't supposed to be driving in the first place, so abiding by one more stipulation won't change their behavior.

I'm curious. Can a person with a revoked or suspended license register a car? Can the registration be revoked? Can the DMV require tags be turned in? If a drunk driver was driving someone else's vehicle, can that vehicle owner be required to also post bond or have some stipulation that they will not knowingly provide a vehicle to the drunk driver?

I don't want my children, mother or other family members and friends on the roads knowing that Wisconsin doesn't do anything to keep them safe. The latest is to "buckle up". Yes, but before they go on a mission for buckling up, I think they need to get the drunks off the streets...or is "buckle up" Wisconsin's answer to drunk drivers?

Mirandadee, you hit the nail on the head! Why are these repeat offenders allowed back on the street? Time after time when I read the police reports, I see people that are on their 3rd, 4th, 5th offence. I know for a fact that in Indiana, for a first offence, the driver goes to jail for 30 yes, THIRTY days without huber privilages. They also lose the privilage to drive for a year. If they drive and get caught, it is back to jail. All we do in Janesville if someone is driving while suspended or revoked is write them another ticket. Let's put some teeth into our laws and attach jail time to these offences. Maybe that would wise some of these drunks up. I know they have a 'disease', but the County closed the hospital for them to save money, so now they are back on the street. Put the criminals in jail where they belong

If this is his 5th offense, then he should not even be let out to drive again, sober or drunk. Next time he could kill someone, and then all hell is going to break loose, because he was set free each and everytime. I realize that our jail's and prison's are over crowded, but something has to be done to stop repeat offenders. I don't have the answer, but instead of people worrying about having Wisconsin smoke free, let's start a campaign for stiffer penalties for these repeat offenders.

Good idea, Opinion...., but a car might have multiple drivers. And a DD might drive a car someone else owns.

Maybe instead of a decal, something that has to be attached to what ever car the DD is driving. And a DD caught out of compliance gets ticket for a moving violation.

I think courts should make the repeat offenders put an easy to identifiable decal on their car so the public can identify (s)he as a repeat drunk driver. that’s if they(the court) can't keep them off the road we should at least be able to point at someone’s car and easy identify them as a DD or not. Just an idea I am sure more will follow.

preliminary results did not indicate the presence of alcohol...

I wonder what he was taking. I also wonder if he has a medical condition, where the medication makes your body resemble being intoxicated...is that a medication for diabetes? I don't recall.

I'm not saying this guy is innocent.

13 hrs? He probably was suffering from a bad hangover. Even Andy and Barney kept Otis in the cell until he sobered up.

so why was this man released after the fifth time? if this is a felony should he have been out on the streets 13 hours later? this is getting to be really ridiculous. i cant even believe the stupidity of people including the court system for putting people like this back out on our streets.