Jaqui(victim of a drunk driver) donation thread

[rickcorso]

I spent some time trying to alter a picture in adobe photoshop...basically I tried to create a picture which could possibly be Jacqui in the future after future surgeries and medical treatments...if someone wants me to post, lemme know.

 

[Lumberg]

The only one who is making an issue about "dissociating her from her sexuality" is you. No one on here said how they would not have sex with her because of her appearance. It was inappropriate to joke about it since the thread was meant to let people know about this tragedy and offer a way to help the family out. No one is saying that this girl should not have a sex life or that it should not be talked about. Don't try to turn this around into something that it is not. Sex was not the topic nor was her sex life even mentioned until someone did it for a laugh. That's simply not the issue at hand. Defending immoral and offensive comments on the basis of theoreticals does not validate it nor deserve further discussion.

Comment as you like but I'm dropping this part of the issue because it is a diversion from the real importance of the topic.

hey i only brought it up because of some of the responses to poyeboy's post.

i agree that poyeboy's post was inappropriate. if no one had responded to it i would have felt that it was rightfully ignored and never thought if it again.

you're right, there was no need for me to bring up the issue either.

dropped.

jc

 

[litig8r]

The legal system and propaganda machine need to shift focus. Criminalize the action, not the substance, and use any detected substance as evidence. As it stands now, if you blow a number, you are fucked. If you are fucked up on something that does not show up in a standard urine/blood screen, you cannot be convicted of a dui. (It is practically impossible, check the stats).

If we eliminate the DUI as a criminal offense, and prosecute all offenders who are reckless under the umbrella of reckless driving, we avoid that pitfall. We raise the maximum sentence for that offence, too. Now, you may say this change would not substantively alter the way the formerly charged as dui cases would be prosecuted, and that it is in fact cosmetic. But, i think a shit in the general attitude would occur as a result.

At the very least, it aids in shifting culpability away for the chemical and towards the individual. Jesus, our whole fucking society is bent on finding ways to avoid culpability, so we get a fucked up legal system...

In DUI/DWI cases, it IS the conduct that is criminal. Just drinking and, at least in Texas, drinking then driving are not illegal. It is drinking until the point of impairment then driving that is illeagal. Most State's pick an alcohol level that, based on research, shows all persons are impaired. Most State's use .08. This, even though most studys show measurable impairement at .05. Additionally, one can commit DWI/DUI under the infuance of anynarcotic, drug (legal or illeagal) or any combination of chemicals. I just recently sent a 4th offender to prison for taking Hydrocodone and washing it down with Jim Baem. His blood alcohol was .07 but the Trooper, Draug Recognition Expert, reconized the signs of drug intoxication and drew blood which showed the elevated level of Codine.

As for the idea that you could simply make a reckless driving law, most states already have on, however proving "recklessness" in most States is very difficult. Additionally, most States have some lesser form of Homocide involving reckless or grossly negligent acts. The intoxication manslaughter cases simply give us the presumption that one is reckless/criminally negligent in the accident.

The law and the system work well in these cases and do not demonize alcohol use, only stupidity and ignorance that cases many innocent peaple tremendous pain

hasta

litig8r

 

[Puc]

In DUI/DWI cases, it IS the conduct that is criminal. Just drinking and, at least in Texas, drinking then driving are not illegal. It is drinking until the point of impairment then driving that is illeagal. Most State's pick an alcohol level that, based on research, shows all persons are impaired. Most State's use .08. This, even though most studys show measurable impairement at .05. Additionally, one can commit DWI/DUI under the infuance of anynarcotic, drug (legal or illeagal) or any combination of chemicals. I just recently sent a 4th offender to prison for taking Hydrocodone and washing it down with Jim Baem. His blood alcohol was .07 but the Trooper, Draug Recognition Expert, reconized the signs of drug intoxication and drew blood which showed the elevated level of Codine.

As for the idea that you could simply make a reckless driving law, most states already have on, however proving "recklessness" in most States is very difficult. Additionally, most States have some lesser form of Homocide involving reckless or grossly negligent acts. The intoxication manslaughter cases simply give us the presumption that one is reckless/criminally negligent in the accident.

The law and the system work well in these cases and do not demonize alcohol use, only stupidity and ignorance that cases many innocent peaple tremendous pain

hasta

litig8r

I could list about 2 dozen drugs that would not show up on a standard blood or urine test, mostly because no accurate test has yet been developed. And, another dozen which would have to specifically tested for.

Did you happen to read about Sebastian janikowski being pulled over for driving recklessly and let go half a dozen times? Hmmm... a noted ghb user... Hmmm.... Yeah, that shows up on blood tests! Oh, wait...

From my experience, police are only equipped to handle situations involving the minescule list of drugs that they have a specific procedure for. Meaning, crack, mj, heroin, etc.

And, additionally, i did not mean to imply that the legal system was overly targeting drinkers. It is the organizations like M.A.D.D. that inundate us with propaganda. However, I believe a change in the attitude of law enforcement and da's would trickle down to these areas.

And, you are not accounting for the fact that i listed BAC levels as evidence towards reckless driving. Reckless driving is difficult to prove because without the use of video you have only witness testimony to go on. Cases of reckless driving involving alcohol would not suddenly become harder to prosecute because of the change in designation.

 

[Citruscide]

I could list about 2 dozen drugs that would not show up on a standard blood or urine test, mostly because no accurate test has yet been developed. And, another dozen which would have to specifically tested for.

Did you happen to read about Sebastian janikowski being pulled over for driving recklessly and let go half a dozen times? Hmmm... a noted ghb user... Hmmm.... Yeah, that shows up on blood tests! Oh, wait...

From my experience, police are only equipped to handle situations involving the minescule list of drugs that they have a specific procedure for. Meaning, crack, mj, heroin, etc.

And, additionally, i did not mean to imply that the legal system was overly targeting drinkers. It is the organizations like M.A.D.D. that inundate us with propaganda. However, I believe a change in the attitude of law enforcement and da's would trickle down to these areas.

And, you are not accounting for the fact that i listed BAC levels as evidence towards reckless driving. Reckless driving is difficult to prove because without the use of video you have only witness testimony to go on. Cases of reckless driving involving alcohol would not suddenly become harder to prosecute because of the change in designation.

Puc, Have you ever thought of drafting legislation that says what you are trying to say? I could be submitted to various congressmen/women who have strong feelings on these types of issues. I have written practice legislation before, but nothing for the real deal... if you could come up with all of the "input" and such... I could draft it... most likely...

C-ditty

 

[circusgirl]

D'you think if I posted an international money order to this address it would go into the fund to help her? Or is that for bank transfers only?

 

[Citruscide]

D'you think if I posted an international money order to this address it would go into the fund to help her? Or is that for bank transfers only?

I think that any sort of contributions would work... it is the Frist Bank of America... I'm sure that if you call them and ask, they can take any amount... it gets deposited into the account directly... so I imagine it would work.

C-ditty

 

[Lumberg]

OK didn't someone already post that Jacqui has already won a settlement of tens of millions of dollars?

So WHY are we donating $$ again?

JC

 

[nclifter6feet6]

may god bless her

 

[chesty]

I would kill myself. She has got more guts than I! I also can feel her fathers pain as I have three daughters the oldest who is 18 and doesn't understand these things yet.