Bad driver thuggery. It’s so simple—be a good person, take the snow off your car, and then the state can’t take your money. Oh, and more people get to live.

I’ve seen this occasionally. They have the spotlight (seen on the left of the car, at the base of the windshield) pointed across the roadway, into car windows.

I assume it’s so they can see inside the cars that go by. Looking for drunks, people texting, etc.

True, and they’ll punish you more if they find out you improved the place.

Not that it should be perfect, but there’s a lot of junk out there going for half a million dollars. You’d think the seller might have at least done basic upkeep, but often they do the bare minimum.

While I wish property taxes were lower, you make many good points otherwise. Taking good care of your house is both fun and usually a great investment.

Not sure if these fit your definition of “restaurant,” but there’s a closed Burger King on Route 1 Portsmouth by Advance Auto Parts, and a Papa Gino’s in Seabrook on Route 1 a little north of where the Walmart is.

I’m not in favor of torture, but yes, there should be big consequences to the person or people who did this.

How old? Repairable and/or have collector value?

Wow, these judges do get it right once in a while. WMUR failed to name the judge, and his name can't be seen in the video, but he deserves a medal.

I think everything you said is reasonable and valid, and even if there's a thing or two I disagree with, I wasn't trying to invalidate your opinion. I was just trying to frame the discussion a bit.

1: Should the law allow terminally ill, but mentally sound, people to take their lives? (Doctor assisted suicide.)

2: Should the law allow us to end someone else's life, someone with an unsound mind, if the person doesn't express any wish to die, but is suffering from a terminal mental illness like dementia, with no cure, because the person's spouse or children think it would be for the best if they die today instead of letting the illness play out until the end?

#1 seems to have a fair amount of support from lots of people.

#2 is something most of us have agreed is a reasonable thing to do with our pets. I think it's going to be very, very difficult to get the average citizen and/or many lawmakers on board with allowing it for humans.

In any event, I do agree with you that dementia is a messy and difficult problem, and unless a cure is found, we're going to get more and more of it, as people start to live for more years than they used to in the past. It's both costly and torturous to go through.

Thank you. That does change my opinion on this situation. I don't think he made the right decision, but I can understand it. I want to be a little bit vague to protect the privacy of my loved one, but I saw the disease first hand and I saw the terrible things it does.

PS People tend to use the words Alzheimer's and dementia interchangeably. Dementia describes the various diseases that attack the brain and damage memory, personality, and decision making. Alzheimer's is the most common type of dementia.

Interviewing someone with dementia, and looking at their medical history, can give you a pretty good idea of what kind of dementia they have. But currently, the only way to definitively diagnose Alzheimer's is by doing a brain biopsy after death.

So, not to nitpick, but just to inform.

That's a reasonable opinion to have and a reasonable thing to debate, but I don't think it would apply in cases like that. I'm not sure if you've ever been around with someone in the later stages of Alzheimer's or dementia, but their mind is so far gone that they're incapable of making basic decisions (such as whether or not to wear a warm coat today), let alone make a decision about their own life. Someone with cancer could be listened to regarding this; someone with dementia cannot.

I did start to wonder that. I recently lost a loved one to dementia, and while I never considered killing the person, I could see how that might cross someone's mind. It's a terrible disease that greatly affects not only the sick person, but everyone around them.

But where did you get this information? We don't want to spread rumors without being sure.

Exactly. I'm not sure how many chances we should give people who repeatedly behave violently. Perhaps more than zero, but certainly less than ten.

Or we could try doing this crazy thing called keeping criminals in jail.

Unfortunately, it appears he was also an asshole who believed in recreationally murdering his wife.

Thankfully, most gun owners manage to make it all the way through their lives without being assholes or murdering their wives.

You might not want to state what town you live in… but I’d love to hear more about the fire roads there.

I’m sure all of us, at one point or another, have worked hard at our jobs, and then a co worker comes along and undoes our hard work.

I imagine that’s every day for the cops. Must be very frustrating.

Sadly, you and me. We don’t have forced labor in prison here. It’s a tax I’m willing to pay, to keep you and me and our neighbors safe from monsters like him. As I said above, I sure wish this person would stop imposing these costs on us.

Same here. I wish these violent people would stop imposing these unnecessary costs on us, but I’m gladly willing to pay taxes to keep them locked up.

Agreed. The car theft is a minor crime, but Google her. She not only tried to attack police officers, but she tried to interfere into the investigation of a man who was beaten to death. (And it seems that his murder is still unsolved.) If she’d been kept locked up, she wouldn’t have been able to steal the car.

I might be misinformed, but I imagine that people only plead if they think it’s a good deal for them, like any other negotiation.

“If we go to trial and convict you, you’ll get 10 years. But if you plead guilty today, we’ll agree to give you 5 years.”

I can’t imagine anyone would plead guilty and accept the whole 10 years. That’s just not logical.

Good deal for the suspect. And the prosecutor gets to do less work. But not a good deal for society.

If there’s enough evidence for a conviction, maybe it’s about time we start getting convictions and some real sentences.

Exactly. Maybe the courts wouldn’t be so overwhelmed and busy if they’d stop letting the bad guys loose so they can commit more crimes.

If he plead guilty, it’s likely because the court gave him a really good deal. Not quite the same as a soft judge letting him off, but it’s still another case of soft judges/courts.

I do agree that if the person has served their time, of course it’s time for them to be free. But see my comment above—perhaps repeat offenders should be on a special list where one more crime and they’re done.