Posted on 12/16/2004 10:04:32 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
The man nicknamed “Mister DWI” is in trouble again. 63–year–old Jerry Zeller was arrested Saturday by police for failure to appear in court for an October drunk driving charge.
This is Zeller's 34th DWI arrest. Prosecutors have not been able to charge Zeller as an habitual offender in the past, since a former state law would restart the DWI conviction count after five years.
Zeller's last DWI conviction was in June of 1997, therefore Zeller only faces a misdemeanor for his recent arrest with a maximum sentence of one year in jail.
The state law was changed in July of 2001 to extend the time frame to ten years, instead of five.
Hey, give the poor guy a break. Anybody can make a mistake...the same mistake...34 times...
Well, alright, maybe not.
Thirty-four convictions?
Man, that's hardcore.
Actually, that is his 34th arrest. How many times has the guy being drunk driving and not been caught? Probably hundreds of times.
DWI ain't funny. People get killed.
Please see #3.
Strictly gallows humor, I assure you. In my town, an officer would be checking up on this guy every time he went out, nail him, and get him off the streets for good.
Aw, c'mon. This is the last time. The guy just had a bad day and it will never happen again. It won't. I promise.
Don't be such a red stater and guy this guy a chance.
Well, he has gotten a lot better... ;~D
This scumbag should be in prison, w/ Kennedy.
"Actually, that is his 34th arrest. How many times has the guy being drunk driving and not been caught? Probably hundreds of times.
DWI ain't funny. People get killed."
You know, people get killed doing a lot of things, speeding, improper turns, talking on a cell phone, putting on makeup, etc. The possibilities are endless, and probably cause far more deaths/injuries.
No, the big difference is that none of those can compare to the revenue raised by DUIs that goes to government, lawyers, insurance companies, etc.
A pet peeve of mine is when stories are posted with no indication of the city or state in which they took place. Now I've got to click on the source link and wait for it to load on my slow connection, just to find out where in the heck this happened.
Yea. Sure. Insurance companies want their insureds to drink & drive.
Some mornings, I'm maddest at our governments' endless stategy of pitting one group of Americans against another so that they can step in and be heroes.
The next morning, I'm maddest at dipsh*ts like you who believe that crap and mindlessly repeat it ad-nauseum.
So who is worse? Corrupt lieing government officials, or their sheep that allow the corruption?
Before you use the wild-assed guess method for your "probably", perhaps you should check some facts.
In 2002, alcohol-related traffic fatalities accounted for 41% of the total. It was a factor in 7% of all accidents.
A empty beer can in the bed of your truck would be reported as alcohol related.
Bzzt. Wrong answer. You can see the whole chart for 2000 here, but to break it down, 9% of the fatalities involved people having between .01 and .09 blood alcohol content and 30.8% .10+ BAC.
Another alcohol related death.
I was being sarcastic. Now, if a sober man walks out in front of a car and gets killed and the driver had just consumed two beers, yes alcohol was involved but was it a true factor in the death of the pedestrian, probably not.
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.