Wait, I think I hear something:
"She was only driving to the store to get juice for her children!"
Why no mention of Officer Morash's reason to be on that road on that day? I bet it was just as important as juice.
Journalists make me sick sometimes.
Posted on 07/08/2005 6:14:56 AM PDT by Pharmboy
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) - A woman who was forbidden from driving after pleading guilty in a fatal crash was sentenced to more than seven years in prison for violating probation when she took her children to school. To avoid jail time, Sonia Ortiz, 25, had accepted a plea deal in August for her involvement in a 2003 crash that killed West Palm Beach Police Officer Thomas Morash.
Ortiz, who did not have a license, pulled out in front of Morash, who was on a motorcycle, according to a Florida Highway Patrol report. She was charged with driving without a valid driver's license causing death.
She was arrested again April 15 after a Palm Beach County sheriff's deputy saw her driving alone after dropping off her children at their elementary school.
Ortiz said in court Thursday that she had no other way of getting the four children to school.
Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga said she would continue to flout the law and drive.
"It's now my duty to protect society," Labarga said.
No but vehicular homicide is. That was why she agreed not to drive in exchange for probation. She caused the death of another person. She defaulted on her agreement. Therefore, the original sentence stands.
There is no right to drive. It doesn't exist. Driving is inherently dangerous. That is why it is regulated. If I have to explain that to you, there is something wrong.
Like I said. Read the statutes.
But if you want to know the law in your state, look it up. I'll bet you a nice steak dinner those statutes say "PRIVELEDGE".Statutes don't generally talk about what is a right and what is a privilege. That kind of talk tends to be in judicial opinions, if at all. In any event, it's either a right or it's not. If it's not, the government can regulate or prohibit it. The argument between rights and privileges is not generally made as such. Thus, as the Supremes haven't yet eminated and penumbraed a right to drive, the act of driving can (and is) regulated by the states.
I'll take my steak medium well.
Sorry. No steak for you. You cited the reasons why driving is regulated by state statute.
EXACTLY!!! not only has killed someone but routinely puts her own children in danger. Appropriate sentence.
Yes there is!!!! How about politicians that use YOUR children to get what they want??
So how come she's in the slam for 7 years and Senator Jankow walks free? Because one victim was a cop and the other wasn't?
That privilege was not granted to her, as she failed to comply with the requirements necessary to receive it. She then abused it, TWICE.
I can sympathize with folks who are involved in a motor vehicle accident that results in a death. My sister was involved in one where a young boy died. Despite the fact that she was not at fault (won the DMV hearing, was cleared by a grand jury, and won the civil suit), she was utterly devastated and even more cautious whenever she found the strength to get behind the wheel.
For whatever reason, this woman took the plea bargain. She is obligated to adhere to the terms of it; she did not.
If she hadn't flouted the law, hadn't tried to skirt her responsibilities to operate her vehicle with the right training and licensing, she wouldn't be in the situation she's in now (I have no doubt that her driving without a license and insurance was a major factor in the decision to prosecute her). Further, if she thought about her kids more, she would have taken the steps necessary to keep her sorry butt out of jail now.
In her world, obviously, the rules were designed for someone else.
I should have read further in the thread before posting, Untrained. You said everything I wanted to say, but so much more succinctly!
If she had insurance, they would have defended her in a civil suit. Oh, wait, but she needed a LICENSE to get insurance (which she did not have).
A DMV hearing (which is needed to determine if a motor vehicle related death should result in the suspension or revocation of a license) is not a lengthy trial. You do not need a lawyer for a DMV hearing; you can represent yourself and are given considerable instructions and leeway by the Judge so that you can best present your side of the story. You can ask the Judge for advice, instructions, and question any of the other parties at your discretion. Further, a competent accident attorney would do this for a nominal fee and work out a pay plan with her (might even do it pro-bono). But in the end, she didn't need to even think about this cost, as she DIDN'T have a license to begin with!
She could have gotten a pro bono attorney to help her with the legal case, too, or stayed with her public defender. She avoided jail time for vehicular manslaughter. Under the terms, she would have been eligible to apply for a driver's license in under 3 years.
Less than a year later, she's tooling around again, ILLEGALY.
Violate probation, the original sentence kicks in.
No, for driving recklessly and causing a man's death.
There had to be some reason why this former high school dropout did not have a license in the first place. You willing to consider that it might be because she COULDN'T pass a drivers' test? Not at seventeen, not at eighteen, not at nineteen, not at twenty-one, "oh hell with the test, it's never stopped me from driving before"?
Wait, I think I hear something:
"She was only driving to the store to get juice for her children!"
Why no mention of Officer Morash's reason to be on that road on that day? I bet it was just as important as juice.
Journalists make me sick sometimes.
It just occurred to me that you may believe "accident" is the same thing as "faultless". I believe someone is nearly always at fault in an accident, and accordingly responsible.
This may be why we keep going around and around on this. It's an insurmountable difference.
Hypothetical question:
If an event is "maliciously caused", how can it be an accident?
Kindly point out the part of the law where her right to travel freely, by car is enumerated
I expect politicians to exploit other people, including kids. I don't expect parents to treat their own kids that way.
Certainly. It is right here:
Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Just because it is not SPECIFICALLY enumerated int he Constitution does not mean it doesn't exist. For example you have the right to get married (if you can find a compatable mate). You have the right to have children (if you and your mate are able). They are not in the Constitution yet no one with a grain of sense would argue that the right does not exist.
You are confusing fault with intent.
Point one: an insurance company does not defend YOU in a civil suit, they defend themselves. Besides this was a criminal trial. Point two: in many states you don't have to have a license to get insurance. My son lost his license for one year on points. He could have chosen to get a restricted license and high risk insurance. Instead he simply did without a license for the period. BEFORE he could get a license, he had to show proof of insurance. Yes, it is a stupid way to do it, but that is what the l;aw required.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.