I love this game of GTA

Fun as fark

Demitrios Matsoukatidis, 67, pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter today for the death of 89-year-old Aldama Lizardo, who was innocently crossing the street in his Astoria neighborhood on Feb 7.

He's Greek and over the age of 60. While he's culturally obligated to be somewhat drunk 24/7, in NY he really shouldn't have to drive anywhere.

Anyone have better information about the accident? Was there another reason he got off easy? Was the old man crossing in the middle of a block?

Eh, killing someone at age 89 is doing 'em a favor in most cases.

phrawgh: As the cars roar into Pennsylvania, the cradle of liberty, it seems apparent that our citizens are staying off the streets, which may make scoring particularly difficult, even with this year's rule changes. To recap those revisions: women are still worth 10 points more than men in all age brackets, but teenagers now rack up 40 points, and toddlers under 12 now rate a big 70 points. The big score: anyone, any sex, over 75 years old has been upped to 100 points.

Heh!

Whelp, I smell vigilante justice.

/don't look at me. I live quite far from there.

I was expecting an actual lawn mower was involved.

talkertopc: FTA: "A boozed-up Queens man accused of mowing down an elderly pedestrian earlier this year will only serve five years probation and attend a slew of court-ordered programs." ... "Family members of Lizardo are expected to give victim impact statements at sentencing."

How do we know that he was sentenced to 5 years of probations + court ordered programs if the sentencing has yet to occur?

It's the New York Post. You think they even read the articles?

Mega Steve: If the driver had been carrying a quarter bag of weed, he would have gotten 10 years.

Came in here to say this.

Happy Hours: But wait, here's the confusing part. It says he will be sentenced on March 8, but the farking article says what his sentence will be. Really? Why even hold court for his sentence if it's already been decided?

Because that gives him time to complete the community service, the booze classes, and have the interlock in effect for enough to time to show he's using it (in KS, you have to have it checked monthly to show the interlock works AND that the vehicle is being used, so you don't just drive a different car).

Still, I think this is a light sentence - the kind of thing you would give to somebody who DIDN'T kill somebody. He ought to pay a monstrous fine and spend 6-12 months in jail.

talkertopc: How do we know that he was sentenced to 5 years of probations + court ordered programs if the sentencing has yet to occur?

This sentence was agreed to as a plea deal with the prosecutor, contingent on his completion of the court programs, interlock, etc. If he doesn't complete them, the prosecutor withdraws the plea deal and the guy gets smacked down with real jail time. So this sentence isn't "official" until the court enters it into the record in March, IF he's a good boy until then.

Death Race 2012! People, we're talking about points here.

Probably the driver:
1) was a first time offender of any kind, not just DUI
2) was a successful business owner (owns a Mercedes SUV in NYC!!)
3) paid a metric shiatload of money for a DUI lawyer (who knows all the traffic prosecutors)
4) knows somebody who knows somebody...

and the victim was OLD and going to die soon, which shouldn't matter but I bet it does.

He should do time. He will probably get a civil suit from the victim's family, which is only to the good. It was a monumental farkup, no doubt, and he'll pay for it in insurance, a civil suit, bad press in his community for his business, installation and removal of the interlock ($350 each here in KS), and probably some stuff I haven't thought of. But still, he killed a guy and he should do time.

Loren: Lsherm: Anyone have better information about the accident? Was there another reason he got off easy? Was the old man crossing in the middle of a block?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking also. When you see very low punishments for DUI fatalities it normally means that a sober driver probably would have nailed the guy anyway.

89 year old men do tend to move with blistering speed. God forbid one ever jumps in front of your car!

Well, this is the weird-ass system we've got, and you all might remember it the next time we have one of our interminable arguments about why DUI checkpoints are not a violation of your rights.

Currently as our laws stand, voluntary intoxication (i.e. when you go out and get falling-down drunk) is an affirmative defense when it comes to crimes of general intent, like homicide. That is, being drunk negates the element of intent necessary to prove malice when you get in your car or pull out your gun and kill someone because you're too drunk to appreciate what you're doing. Because after all, your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this man is a decent, honest person, and he would NEVER kill someone if he was in his right mind, and we've all had a few too many; surely you can appreciate that he was not fully responsible for his actions when he drove down the street? Clearly he didn't INTEND to mow down that elderly man and if he hadn't had those 18 gin&tonics, he never would have done it.

And I'm sure he didn't. Just as everyone here who has biatched about sobriety checkpoints and people getting pulled over for being a few over the legal limit and cops aggressively enforcing DWI laws wouldn't mean to either. But the law says that if you kill someone and you're drunk--assuming you didn't get drunk for the purpose of lowering your inhibitions to kill someone (cf. Jeffrey Dahmer)--then you were not fully responsible for your actions. QED. This is why MADD is so, well, mad. Because honest, decent people get so peeved that they can't have a few drinks and then drive when it's obvious they're okay. And because when they do hit the courts, the laws have agreed with you: You were okay. You weren't totally responsible.

Jedekai: BigLuca: Demitrios Matsoukatidis, 67, pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter today for the death of 89-year-old Aldama Lizardo...

I wish my last name was Lizardo... :-(

[www.toptenz.net image 400x273]

Laugh'a while you can, monkey boy

Mock26: Sentencing for murder should be based on the remaining life expectancy of the victim. So, kill newborn baby boy, get 75.6 years in prison. Kill a 75 year old man, get 0.6 years in freedom. Anyone over the life expectancy is a freebie.

:-D

OK....but what if you kill a 97-year old man? You have some extra time you can cash in if you commit other crimes?

phrawgh: As the cars roar into Pennsylvania, the cradle of liberty, it seems apparent that our citizens are staying off the streets, which may make scoring particularly difficult, even with this year's rule changes. To recap those revisions: women are still worth 10 points more than men in all age brackets, but teenagers now rack up 40 points, and toddlers under 12 now rate a big 70 points. The big score: anyone, any sex, over 75 years old has been upped to 100 points.

My favorite movie.