Hilton gets 45 days

[jon lynn]

I hate this little tart, I seldom say I hate anything, fore hate is wrong, but I do hate this...this.....thing, right up there with Rosie & Ellen. She only got 45 days in the can for probation violations. How long would a non-spoiled not rich b%#@h get for the same violations?



I do think it is a (very) small step foreward, the famous almost never go to jail, like that coke head Robert Downy, who got the usual "REHAB" gig. And you know the list goes on and on with them.



All over the US, why don't judges just slam these people? Because in jail Hilton will get passed around like currency:rolleyes: And that may switch her from a 'Simple Life' to 'Real Life' And the little tramp can use it too, as with the rest of spoiled society..........Hollywood are you listening?

[Swift]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Classicvette63]

I'm stuck in the middle on this one. It's nice to see someone famous finally be held accountable, but I have a big problem with the way states look at driving licenses. I don't need a license to drive, it is a right not a privledge. I know states think otherwise, well screw them. In New York city or Chicago you may not need a car to get around, but everywhere else you do. Driving is a neccessity, not a want. That's enough before I really start to rant.:D

[jon lynn]

C'mon Vette, this little huzzy don't need to drive anyway, daddy can pay for a driver. A license, in the US is a pain in the patootey, when I moved from Oklahoma to Texas, I couldn't start to work legally until I got a Texas license.

Here in Germany the license is good for life. The one I got when I got out of the ARMY in '92 was good enough for me to not to deal with the USAEUR license. All they did was make a cope of my German license and gave me a USAREUR license on the spot.


But they do need to make a revamp of the license system in America today. No car no job 99% of the time. But the State dorkenheimers who make the laws don't have to worry that an average slobs job is in the next county.

But for Hilton it's a DWI fact, she shouldn't have been driving, no excuise.............and she is a dipstick anyway, and will be eating beans and weenies served by some (install Imus word here) who ate her last boyfriend.

[fabsroman]

Okay, 45 days in the slammer for a violation of probation on a reckless driving charge/DUI charge is about standard. Here, the standard is 30 days if it is the first or second DUI. She also has the right to appeal it because the judge didn't make the sentence effective imemdiately.

A previous client of mine just plead guilty to his 3rd DUI and the judge gave him one year with all but 3 months of it suspended. So, he will be serving 3 months, but the sentence doesn't begin until 6/30/2007. The Judge told him to attend a DUI program and that he would review the sentence come June 30 and see if he would reduce it. This is the guy's 3rd DUI in 10 years. In his second one, he ran over his girlfriend's leg and broke it and hit a tree across the street. In his 3rd one, he ran through a red light and a stop sign. He has also been charged with driving on a revoked license 4 times as the result of having it suspended from the DUI's. I know that this guy continues to drive even though he doesn't have a license. He has the ability to have one of his employees drive him to job sites and to have his girlfriend pick him up and drop him off at work, but he chooses not to.

In another case I had, a drunk driver almost kill my client. He put my client in a coma for 4 days and the ICU for a week. She had just had her first child too. This was his 4th DUI conviction and the judge gave him 3 years with everything suspended but 10 months and authorized him for work release after the first 4 months.

So, I think this sentence is plenty fair for Hilton. If you listen to her excuses, I fully agree with the Judge on this one. She had plenty of opportunities to obey the law and not drive.


Classic,

As far as I am concerned, driving is a privilege, and if you value it so much and need it so much for your job, then you should obey the traffic laws. I am willing to bet that more people are killed in auto accidents in a year than are killed by guns; however, drunk driving and aggressive driving are not political issues and I think they should be. A couple of months ago, two women were killed right by me on I-270 when an aggressive pickup truck driver got in front of them and jammed on the brakes. They swerved off the road to avoid hitting him and they hit a tree and died.

Driving is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right, like the 2nd Amendment. If you want to keep your license, drive according to the laws in place. If somebody accumulates enough points, I don't want them on the road endangering my wife, my baby, or my life, or anybody else's life for that matter. If people cannot drive civily, they just shouldn't be on the road.

Last but not least, driving is not entirely needed for a job. If you are a professional driver and you lose your license you can still get another job doing something else. If you live far from work and need to drive to work, you can still move closer to work and ride a bicycle.

I hear the same thing about the gas prices from people that chose to live an hour drive or more from work. Wait until gas hits $4+ a gallon. Then, very few people will be driving much.

[Classicvette63]

Jon, you're right about her not needed to drive. She has the money for a chaueffer. That was pretty dumb on her part. Heck, if I had her money I probably would drive myself that much.

Fabs, so what's the difference between a right and a priveledge? Driving isn't protected under the constitution, true, they didn't have cars back then. But you can't use that logic. The anti's tried that with the 2nd amendement. Remeber the argument that the founding fathers never meant to protect semi automatics and such?

I'm not saying that the highway should be "Death Race 2000". On the other hand penndot shouldn't act like they are doing me a fricking favor by "allowing" me to drive, cause they ain't.

[fabsroman]

Classic,

Driving is a privilege just like owning a house, having health insurance, having money, etc. You DO NOT need to drive. Yes, driving makes life easier, but so do a lot of other things like money, education, health, etc. Everybody that passes the driving test is given the privilege of a driver's license. You are allowed to continue driving until you demonstrate that you are no longer fit to drive. Very few Americans actually NEED to drive to live, we just choose to drive. My sister lives about 2 miles from where she works and could just ride a bike there or walk, but she decides to drive anyway. She lives the same distance from a Metro stop that would take her to Central Station in DC where she could pick up Amtrak to New York to visit her boyfriend in Manhattan, but she drives anyway. What most people fail to understand about driving is that more people die in the US in auto accidents each year than are killed in Iraq. In 2004, there were 42,636 auto accident deaths in the US and the statistics are close to that for the previous three years. Now, those are deaths. Who knows how many other people are injured, how many are paralyzed, etc.

Personally, I think auto laws are some of the most disobeyed laws I have ever seen. I drive by cross after cross in my area adorned with flowers for people that have been killed at that spot in the road. It is sad. Yesterday, I saw a guy driving an F-250 crew cab not even stop when he made a left turn at a 4 way stop. At the same intersection I was nearly creamed twice by cars that did not stop for the stop sign. Luckily, I could tell that they weren't going to stop so I didn't proceed out into the intersection. The speed limit on this road is 35, but when I am doing 40 people still pass me. Best of all, this is the road right outside of my townhouse. I am an avid cyclist, and if I told you about all the horror stories that I have experienced on the bike, it would take me days.

Simply put, drivers that continually break the law are a pet peeve of mine. I think the fines should be increased and the enforcement should be increased. If we save 10% of the lives lost in 2004, that would be 4,000+ lives saved.

[skeeter@ccia.com]

10-4 fabs......and anyone driving left of center around bends esp...should get a huge fine and maybe loss of license for a few days .....now to get the local policeman to stop watching for you to go 5 miles over the limit and watch out for the serious stuff out there for driving violations.....I hold a CDL still even after retirement and have seen about every stupid move out there and where are the locals when they happen?....watching a line on the road somewhere for the 5mph violator.......and...what about the tailgaters?....This has grown to a problem around my area...so close behind me at times I can't even see the top of their head in my mirror.....grrrrrrr.......and that is with me 'speeding' 5mph over...

[Classicvette63]

Fabs, What is the legal difference between a right and a priviledge? Owning a house isn't a priviledge. If I have the money, I'm owning a house. I do have the right not to freeze to death.

Yep, 40,000+ people die every year, year in and year out, in car crashes. Why stop at a 10% reduction in deaths? Set a speed limit of 5mph. Why not do away with cars altogether? Think of how many lives that would save. Sort of like getting rid of a ll the guns, how many lives would that save? See how it goes down that slope?

Your sister might live 2 miles from work, but most people do not. It would be impractical for the vast majority of people to get to work any other way.

My point wasn't that a person should never get their license taken away. Heck, voting is a right and you can screw up bad enough to have that taken away. My point is that they can take your license for little things and things that aren't associated with driving.

The only time that driving is a right is when you reach 65. Then the jerks at penndot won't take your license not matter how bad you drive.

[fabsroman]

Classic,

The whole argument that there would be no deaths if we didn't have cars is a stupid one. Kind of like there would be no deaths from medical malpractice if we didn't have doctors.

Yes, the car is a great convenience, but it is just that. If I had to, I could get almost everywhere I need to via my bicycle and public transportation. Yes, it would suck, but such is life. Of course, I bet I am one of the few Americans that actually rides a bicycle to get anywhere. Before I had my driver's license (i.e., before I was 16), I used to ride 5+ miles each way to my friend's house. It takes about 15 to 20 minutes depending on how hard I wanted to push it, but it isn't impossible.

Most people could live closer to work, but they do not want to because they could not buy as much house as they could if they lived closer. With me and my wife, we have the opposite situation. If we moved right by where she works, we could buy a huge house, but I would be further away from my client base. Granted, I could get my Virginia license and start a Virginia client base, but I am straying from the topic at hand.

With all that said, it isn't very hard to obey the traffic laws. I obey them to a pretty good extent. I stop at red lights and even stop at red lights before making a right turn. I stop at stop signs, and when I say stop, I mean my wheels have come to a complete stop and I have looked each way twice before going through the intersection. I don't tailgate often. I drive 5 mph over the speed limit on city streets and 8 mph over the limit on the interstate.

What "little" things can a person lose his license over that are not driving related in PA? I cannot think of any off the top of my head where a person can lose their license in Maryland except for driving related violations or being too old to drive.

As far as the difference between a right and a privilege, owning a house is not a right. Rights are things granted to the people through the Constitution (i.e., the Bill of Rights). Nowhere does the Constitution say that everybody has the Right to a house. Otherwise, the government would have to provide a house to everybody. The Constitution gives you the right to pursue the purchase of a house by working for the house.

[petey]

Originally posted by fabsroman

Very few Americans actually NEED to drive to live, we just choose to drive.

Maybe in the city. Try living somewhere that you can't ride the "Metro" or take a cab to work and we'll see what you say then. Even running a business out of your home in Nowhereville, USA..someone's gotta drive to you to give you the dough. Unless you're business is Internet based, I'd like to see you make that statement in ANY state 100 miles from a city. Travel 8 hours to the West where you have to drive 40 mins to get to a town that actually has a gas station.

I don't choose to live 35 miles from work, a good job that'll pay me for my education is 35 miles from home. Real Estate close by work?? Yeah right. There's nowhere close enough to where I live that I can walk or ride a bike. I'd like to hear that comment said to a farmer in the MidWest! Oh yeah, how they supposed to make a buck without fuel for the equiptment?? Go back to horse and plow? That's pretty efficent. You won't have enough milk and bread for the next big 1" snow storm that comes through.

The only thing I do choose, is not to live in the populous cities. Been there, done that. Too many idiots...plain and simple. I guess when you make a statement of Very few Americans, you must be talking about the ones that aren't in the cities, since we are the lesser population? Believe me when I say MANY Americans need fuel and have to drive to make a living and provide those that don't need to drive with the proper supplies to live.

Not arguing on the right vs priviledge matter, just don't comment with the blinders on. The world doesn't revolve around Metro D.C., and if it doesn't happen there then it can't be true attitude is a bit prejudiced. There is another world out there you know, and it streches beyond the beltway.

Not to Hi-Jack the thread either...Hilton is an idiot too. Gee hope I don't get in trouble for slander. :rolleyes:

[skeet]

Petey is correct in some ways. I Choose to live where I do. It is 25 minutes to a real gas station. and stores etc. BUT the key word is CHOOSE. Petey and I choose to live away from the population centers of the country...and he is right...there are too many idiots there. The Privilege of driving is given to us contingent upon the fact that we obey the LAW. BTW the driving regulations were exactly that...regulations until the powers that be decided they could regulate the people a little more by making the regulations laws...more control is more power. I worked with the Md State Police quite a bit when I worked in the fire dept. The people training them were really brainwashing the recruits into believing that they were BETTER than the average person on the street. I saw in real life that they were really no better...or no worse... than everyone else. But many believed they were. The few small dealings I have had with the police here in Wyoming is kind of refreshing. Police work as it should be. I was even offered a job with a police agency(another story). Carrying a gun for work purposes isn't my idea of fun work.
Fabs ...here thay can take your license if you drive off without paying for gas..oh and non payment of child support I think. BUT after all is said and done you are right. Driving is a privilege granted by the govenment as is owning a home(and you won't own a house long if you don't pay the taxes on it). You do have the right to pursue the goals you seek. Retaining the reached goals is another story.

And a question for you Fabs? What is the difference between malfeasance in office and misfeasance??...Oh and is it legal for board members of a corporation to raise the salaries of family members in a publicly owned corporation? At least in Md! Those questions will fix ya!!

[fabsroman]

Petey,

I didn't have blinders on when I wrote that one above. Is there really no place closer to work than where you live? Do you mean to tell me that on your drive to work you don't pass any other homes? If you pass other homes on your way to work, guess what, you could live closer to work. However, you choose to live where you are living because it is the life style you want. Many people further from the city when gas was in the dollar range because they wanted a different lifestyle. Heck, my dad used to work at the Smithsonian in DC with a guy that drove down from PA every day. He spent hours and hours on the road each day so that he could afford a nice house out in the country. He was willing to make that sacrifice. Now, he clearly CHOSE to live out there. My wife and I chose to live where we do, even though it is an hour drive for her each way to get to work. With that said, we are choosing to move a lot closer to her work as soon as possible, not because of the price of gas but because of the amount of time she spends in the car.

Now, as far as my comment goes, I don't think I ever said anything about farmers and their need for fuel. I think it was centered on having to drive somewhere, not on not using any fossil fuel at all.

Seems like I hit a nerve about the not needing to drive issue. People that want to live in the country, as I would love to do, need to understand that their disposable income is directly related to the price of gas if they want to live far away from work. Why do you think homes cost so much less in the middle of the country? That is because most of the work is further away which requires more time in the car and more money spent in fuel. People's mortgage payments are usually pretty consistant over the years, but the price of gas can fluctuate plenty, as we have seen.

Now, lets put some assumptions in here. My comment applies to people that work at the same job site day in and day out. It doesn't apply to people that have to move to different job sites every day (e.g., construction workers, plumbers, repair men).

Also, I mentioned my wife's situation above, but where we live is also a decent distance from most of my clients. Granted, it is pretty close to some of them, but the majority are further away. Our move will end up helping out both my wife and I, even though I don't drive very much anyway.

Skeet,

The difference between malfeasance and misfeasance is that while both of them have bad outcomes, malfeasance includes the performance of an illegal act and misfeasance is just a screw up. An example of misfeasance would be if I were to file a Motion that was untimely. Filing the Motion isn't illegal, but it is a screw up. Malfeasance would be something along the lines of sexual harassment.

As far as the publicly traded company's board members raising the salaries of family members, you could have a stockholder's derivitive lawsuit if there was no justification for the increase in salary. However, if the family members document good reasons for the increase, you are SOL.

[Swift]

All this banter over a little richy. :D