Skip to comments.San Marcos woman gets life in prison after 6th DWI
Posted on 09/20/2013 8:37:09 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
A Hays County jury on Wednesday sentenced a San Marcos woman to life in prison after her sixth conviction of driving while intoxicated.
Rose Ann Davidson, 44, was arrested by a Kyle police officer in the early morning hours of July 27, 2012, on Interstate 35 after he observed her driving erratically. The officer concluded she was intoxicated and found an open container of beer in her vehicle.
Davidson had five prior convictions for driving while intoxicated dating back to 1996 and had only recently been released from prison, Hays County officials said.
The trial took place in front of Judge Jack Robison.
Too harsh? Or - Finally. Justice is served.
Should happen more often.
Thank you, Texas.
People that simply can’t control themselves in a way that is dangerous to others need to be permanently removed from civilization. It sucks to be her, but the odds of her eventually killing someone are absurdly high if she remains at large.
Whether it is too harsh or not, she made an informed decision by her actions. She knew that repeating her past behavior would lead to felony charges.
Should have happened sooner. 3 DWI’s should trigger an automatic life sentence
My neighbor has had about 10 arrests for DUI. More than that many PIs.
Never spent any time until he smacked his wife. Got 3 months.
They finally took his license but he has had 3 more public intox arrests since.
He has high medical costs so the county doesn’t want him in jail
they should put her picture on a billboard and place them all over Texas.
What about the people with 15 or 20 who are still out there?
If you are ever in an accident, make sure the coppers get a breathalyzer on the other guy. Don't know why breathalyzers all around are not standard.
Simple, really. One out of two drivers involved in accidents is drinking. If not you, it's gotta be the other guy.
He has high medical costs so the county doesnt want him in jail
There ya go. Many comments I was reading in my local rag pointed out the high expensive costs of locking up this woman. “Do we really wanna spend a million dollars just becaause some woman likes to drink a little too much?”
But of course when this woman drinks/drives/kills one of their loved ones - its a different story. “They should have locked her up after the second DWI.”
where is the proportionality?....if drunks are in jail for life, shouldn't murderers and rapists be there too?
After living in south Texas, if I spotted her driving a station wagon, drunk or sober wouldn’t make a difference, I’d head the other direction.
Rapist and murderers need more than life in prison. I am a firm believer in the death penalty.
it IS harsh but necessary. Hopefully a few sentences like this will encourage other people with this problem to get help or stop driving.
With a name like that I bet she wasnt an illegal alien..
Plus an illegal alien would walk...
guess she won’t be drinking or driving from now on
right up the street (Interstate) from here (New Braunfels)
God Bless Texas.
How did he get around the Antabuse, please?
Life = 45 years
Substract 1/3 for overcrowding = 15 years
Substract 1/3 for good time = 15 years
Substract X more on appeals and she’s looking at 10-15 years max.
I could agree to this if she was caught drive DRUNK 6 times.
But with the insane .05 standard of ‘drunk’ today fully half of everyone that has ever stopped for a beer after work would qualify as ‘drunk’.
In Michigan they invented a new classification of ‘drunk driving’ that requires no drug or alcohol content at all. If a cop says you were ‘acting’ drunk or impaired you are deemed guilty of said act and charged the same as a falling down drunk.
” Operating while visibly impaired (OWVI) means the drivers blood alcohol level was below 0.08, but an officer determined the driver appeared impaired.”
Be sure to click the link and read about those poor saps fined over $1000 and tossed in jail for 90 days for ‘OWVI’!
Everyone reading this that wouldn’t lose their job for spending 90 days in jail for a Bull$hit made up charge like this please raise your hand?
IF she appeals, I think that the sentence will be overturned as excessive. Child rapists get lighter sentences.
Disagree.. DUI/DWI is an overblown issue as a result of the whole MADD group like every other damn law we have. Should you do it? Hell no and when you get picked up pay one hell of a fine. You hurt, maim or kill someone then prison time as required.
What about texting and driving? People aren’t impaired so they no damn well what they’re doing and do it anyway. You going to put people away for life if they get caught 5 - 6 times? If not why not?
Why not do it for speeding? Speeding kills (actually it’s the mistakes you make while speeding). Get 5 - 6 tickets put em away for life.
Child rapist get 30 days in at least one state even when the girl commits suicide as a result.
Bingo! See post 24.
Spot on.. same here in Maryland.. it’s the opinion of the cop regardless of the BAC or no BAC if he thinks you’re impaired otherwise.
I disagree. More like 7 years max.
But I would bet the farm she will violate parole and drink and drive within 6 months and be back again.
Good. I’ve said for many years that after the first (I’ll give a mistake) DUI should be tried as attempted murder.
Are you saying its OK to drive with a .05 level? Would you reccomend it?
Click the link I posted, you don’t need any level of alcohol at all now! And to answer your question....05 isn’t drunk and would only impair a small child or someone who had never drank anything.
You’re probably closer.
She has never hurt anyone in her 6 convictions. I bet there are people who have had 6 actual accidents and aren’t in prison for life.
We just ended this woman’s life because she is deemed too big of a RISK of causing harm to others.
The noose tightens as the corporate insurance conglomerates collude with the leftist government powers to turn us all into criminals.
We will all be guilty.
I’m not sure how he got around the antabuse, he supposedly had to take it in front of a pharmacist but every time I saw him he was drinking wine from a soda bottle. A real shame, he was a great carpenter with movie star good looks - the girls would swarm around for him for a while but he would get too intoxicated and pass out or crash his car.
It’s mad mothers and insurance companies teamed up with nanny statists that are pushing this bull$hit.
It took a while, but finally the pro-drunk driving FReepers have arrived.
Complete with their lame arguments and “yes, but...” excuses.
agreed. Nothing like leftist do gooders.
You’re right on this one. In less enlightened times, people understood what was meant by the word “drunk.” Now it means nothing.
What is “drunk driving”? Legally, it is a precise percentage of alcohol in the bloodstream, measured by various error-prone methods none of which can tell you exactly what the real measurement was at the time the person was stopped.
And that precise value does not represent a clear line between “safe” driving and “unsafe” driving. A person with a BAL of 0.069% is indistinguishable from one with a 0.071%. But you have to make a cutoff somewhere.
Worse, a person who is a regular drinker will be a much better driver at a given BAL than a person who rarely drinks with the same measurement. But the person who drinks regularly will be more likely to have a record of getting caught.
Also, the effects of a specific level varies widely between individuals, so that some are dangerous at much lower levels than people who are actually getting convicted.
AND, even sober driving skills vary widely. An interesting but not collected statistic would be how many people are pulled over for suspicion but have not been drinking. There are people who never drink who are more at risk for an accident than a person convicted of driving under the influence (the lesser charge).
Sleep deprivation is a major factor in bad driving, but almost nobody gets arrested for it unless they actually CAUSE an accident. If you are driving at 3am, and weaving around, the cop will pull you over and do a DUI test. If you pass, they will likely warn you. But they SAW that you were as big a risk as a drunk driver. Why isn’t the crime “weaving all over” instead of “driving while intoxicated”.
I am not a fan of the “make drunk driving illegal” crowd. There is just too much evidence that drinking significantly increases the chance of causing harm to others. But it is one of the few cases where we are so universally wedded to pre-crime.
Meaning: being drunk itself is a personal choice. It isn’t itself illegal, because we don’t really care what you do to yourself. And driving is not illegal. And as most everybody occasionally crosses that yellow line, we haven’t generally made that act itself illegal.
But in this case, we combine those perfectly legal acts, and decide that you MIGHT hurt someone, so we convict you of a crime — the crime of “possibility that you could hurt someone”. This is what happens in a risk-averse society, more and more things become crimes.
BTW, the argument for drunk driving being illegal is really the same as the argument for banning handguns (the argument AGAINST is not the same at all, since owning handguns is a constitutional right and driving is not). The people who want to ban guns argue that the presence of a gun increases the risk that a person who gets violent could actually kill someone. We argue that unless someone actually COMMITS a violent act, they should be left alone.
But we are willing to entertain taking guns away from people for other perfectly LEGAL things, like seeing a mental health professional, because we are trying to measure the “probability” that a person might get violent, and then deny people their rights based on the “chance” that they might commit an actual crime. We simply choose a different “percent probability”. The gun-grabbers will take a 0.001% probability and say “ban it”, we come back with “only if it is a 0.01% probability”.
Anyway, I should have just said no, I’m not pro drunk driving. I’m not even pro-drinking. But the entire drinking laws are hilarious to me, and I do oppose the idea of banning drinking for 18 year olds so they can’t give beer to 16-year-olds, while looking away when the 21-year-olds give beer to the 18-year-olds. We teach people that laws are made to be broken.
Not at all too harsh. Trauma room surgeon in Seattle recently revealed that more than half of their patients were in alcohol related incidents. He was treating the almost-dead wife and ten day old son of Dan Schulte, whose parents, newly retired schoolteachers, were killed instantly in a drunk-driver accident that almost killed the wife and child too.
Driver had several DUI convictions.
Dan’s son, revived from death, had severe brain injuries, no one knows how well his brain will develop as he grows up. His wife, a Children’s Hospital nurse, will never be the same, still having surgeries and in a rehab facility months after the accident. Can now say a few words. And then there’s the millions of dollars in medical bills and lifetime care Dan is faced with. A very nice young man, with a decent but not particularly rewarding job in a PR agency.
So yes, throw these idiot drunk drivers in jail, sooner rather than later, and keep them there. How many families have to go through this agony?
I’d’ve liked to know - I’m a pharmacy student.
I’m very sorry for the loss of your friend.
While this woman was being sentenced (she’d never injured nor killed anyone while driving), another woman was released from the Travis county jail after serving 180 days.
The second woman had been given probation after drunkenly running over, and killing a woman...she said that she thought she hit a deer.
“We just ended this womans life because... “
No, “we” didn’t end anything. This woman made the choices knowing full well what the penalty could be.
What ever happened to personal responsibility in this life?
SHE just ended this woman’s life, because she’s a dumbass.
Absolutely need the same sort of penalties for texting/driving. What you suggest is to penalize after the fact. How many times is too many? Its inevitable this woman would hurt someone if not kill them. Tough for her but she needs to be made an example of. So do others. just enough to scare others into not doing this sort of behavior.
Definitely a 2 bagger.