Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

zorioneku t1_iwnoe4e wrote

Reply to comment by Super_C_Complex in Chester County man convicted of 12th DUI: Lancaster DA by sintactacle

>The DA’s office stated that a State Trooper observed Caraballo driving a red 2002 Dodge Ram southbound on State Route 472. He was observed crossing the center line and fog line multiple times and nearly struck an oncoming vehicle,

So it wasn’t just “oh he had some THC in his system muahahaha we got him” this guy was a clear and present danger to himself and others.

8

thunderGunXprezz t1_iwofpys wrote

I mean he was driving under a suspension anyway so the dui at that point is kinda tertiary. I feel like driving under a suspension should be a lifetime ban anyway regardless of the circumstances. You're knowingly breaking a law and thus should be forced to give up that privilege for life.

6

Super_C_Complex t1_iwohau1 wrote

Here's a fun fact.

Cops lie. A lot Specially during trials

1

zorioneku t1_iwqg0wi wrote

A) there should be dash cam footage to support this

B) cops do lie, a lot

C) which is more likely- the cops have lied about this one guy 12 times, or he’s a habitual drunk driver who should never be allowed behind the wheel again.

3

Super_C_Complex t1_iwrdvob wrote

> which is more likely- the cops have lied about this one guy 12 times, or he’s a habitual drunk driver who should never be allowed behind the wheel again

That the cops saw that he was suspended for DUI and used that....

0

zorioneku t1_iwrft1s wrote

I am as skeptical of the police as the next guy, but really have a hard time believing there is a vast conspiracy targeting this guy.

If his license was already suspended, he shouldn’t have been driving in the first place- let alone driving impaired again.

This jerk is lucky he didn’t kill someone!

1

Super_C_Complex t1_iwrgk1h wrote

It's not about just this guy

Police are notoriously shit about being honest about why they pull someone over.

As a defense attorney, I routinely see people pulled over for de minimis infractions.

And I don't see the people pulled over for de minimis infractions for the wrong reason that aren't ultimately charged with anything

1

zorioneku t1_iwrlbpm wrote

Thank you for your work, defense attorneys are a critical part of the justice system.

In this particular scenario though, I think it’s fair to focus on this individual rather than a systemic issue.

There’s no reason he should have been driving at all. He deserves a fair trial and a vigorous defense, but if he’s convicted I fully believe he should be incarcerated.

1

Super_C_Complex t1_iws88lt wrote

Fun fact. If he were to be pulled over now with marijuana in his system. He would be charged with a second degree felony with a maximum of ten years, which by state is required to be imposed. He would also be looking at, I believe but I'm not 100% sure since it's a new last, that it would be a 2 year mandatory minimum which would, again by law, have to be served consecutive to any other sentence he is currently serving or that would be imposed

2

zorioneku t1_iws8w8d wrote

If he’s pulled over NOW ?!? For a Baker’s dozen of DUIs?

My guy should never be allowed to drive again.

1

SilentHunter7 t1_iwproq2 wrote

So do addicts. If you were on the jury, who would you believe? A guy who got suspended for DUI 12 times insisting he's innocent, or the officer with dash cam footage?

2