UTMC

Posted: **Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:22 pm**

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but murder requires intent. Intent may be inferred by an act so wreckless that it equals a "depraved heart" (ie. shooting a gun into a crowd of people - so wreckless and the outcome so likely that it's murder). I gallingly submit for your consideration this murdering bastard:

Cops: Richmond motorcyclist killed by DUI driver

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, April 8, 2010

San Pablo Police Dept.
Juan Manuel Ruelas, 43, was booked on suspicion of three felonies: drunken driving, hit and run and vehicular manslaughter.

(04-08) 12:26 PDT SAN PABLO -- A Richmond man riding his motorcycle home from church was struck and killed by a truck driver who was not only intoxicated, but unlicensed in the wake of at least two past drunken driving convictions, police said today.

Anthony Hunter, 35, was pronounced dead late Wednesday at the crash scene in San Pablo. Juan Manuel Ruelas, 43, ran from his smashed pickup truck but was identified by a witness and arrested early this morning at his Richmond home, authorities said.

"It's senseless," said San Pablo police Lt. Jim Creekmore.

As Hunter's grief-stricken mother visited the Contra Costa County coroner's office this morning, Ruelas sat in a Martinez jail cell, booked on suspicion of three felonies: drunken driving, hit and run and vehicular manslaughter.

The tragedy unfolded at about 9:15 p.m. Wednesday as Hunter was riding his motorcycle on the 2500 block of Church Lane. He was trying to make a left turn into a trailer park, Creekmore said, when he was struck by Ruelas, who had failed to yield.

Ruelas, who was arrested at 3 a.m. today, has a 2005 conviction for driving with a suspended or revoked license stemming from a DUI, as well as a separate drunken driving conviction from February of this year, according to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. His bail was set at $200,000.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z0kXe3TYb9

I want this guy dead, castrated and stoned in the town square.

Posted: **Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:06 pm**

I would like to say it's murder, but I'm not sure that it meets the definition as presented. What about firing a gun, not into a a crowd, but blindly in a a direction where there may or may not be people? Firing into a crowd a hit is practically guaranteed, while a drunk driver, even with his record, could get somewhere without hitting someone.

BUT, regardless of what we call it, he is a danger to the population and should be treated accordingly.

Posted: **Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:25 pm**

rolly wrote:I would like to say it's murder, but I'm not sure that it meets the definition as presented. What about firing a gun, not into a a crowd, but blindly in a a direction where there may or may not be people? Firing into a crowd a hit is practically guaranteed, while a drunk driver, even with his record, could get somewhere without hitting someone.

BUT, regardless of what we call it, he is a danger to the population and should be treated accordingly.

precisely why i posed the question. Sadly, I agree. Probably not enough which is why he'll only do 3 years.

Posted: **Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:26 pm**

rolly wrote:BUT, regardless of what we call it, he is a danger to the population and should be treated accordingly.

+x

Lebenslange Sicherheitsverwahrung is what this fuck deserves.

Posted: **Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:09 pm**

To me it's easily manslaughter and not murder, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be crippled so bad he'll never drive again...

/RM

Posted: **Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:39 pm**

I don't understand why our system is so lenient with drunk drivers.

I had the pleasure of dating a classy guy who was on his 2nd DUI (I didn't find out about it until a few months into the relationship. Ultimately, it was the the issue that caused me to leave him). He managed to find a car to drive regardless of them taking his license. I am waiting for the day when I find out he killed somebody or was killed because he was driving drunk.

If you want to drink yourself silly or use drugs until you OD... fine. I don't give a shit what you do to yourself. However, the minute you get in a car and risk other people's lives, I think the book should be thrown at you.

The current law in Colorado is:
The maximum punishment for a DUI in Colorado is one year in jail, a $1000 fine, 96 hours of useful public service, an alcohol evaluation, an alcohol education course, and up to 86 hours of alcohol therapy. A BAC over .20 requires 10 days jail. Second and third offenses carry higher maximums and require jail. Typically, a first-offense DUI will include minimum punishments of unsupervised probation for 1 or 2 years, 48 hours of useful public service, an alcohol evaluation, an alcohol education course, and fines, fees, and court costs amounting to approximately $500. You must also abstain from drinking for 1 year.
With a decent lawyer, you can avoid or minimize the punishment.

Fuck that, I say first offense should be one year in jail, $5000 fine, 96 hours of useful public service, an alcohol evaluation, an alcohol education course, and up to 86 hours of alcohol therapy. Period.

Posted: **Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:10 pm**

erosvamp wrote:I don't understand why our system is so lenient with drunk drivers.

Because most people drive cars, most people drink alcohol, a shocking number of people think nothing about driving after having a beer or two, and next to no people have even the slightest ability to judge their ability to drive under the influence, usually grossly overestimating it even when sober. Hey, it's the other fuckers who can't drive, how dare some granola eating nanny-fascist tell me wether I'm fit to drive or not? I may have had a few, but I'm not drunk!
Consequently, a shocking number of people will steadfastly announce they don't drive drunk, since four beers or two martinis with lunch don count as drunk.
Consequently, while most people would agree that something must be done about drunk drivers mowing people over, it's always the other guy, never them themselves.
Which leads directly to any effective alcohol limit being considered an unjust violation of their freedom to do what they damn well please. After all, just because some idiot can't drive after three beers, etc, etc.

So even when a reasonable BAC is put into law, lawmakers often find themselves desiring lukewarm punishment. Hey, everyone does it, it's not that bad, right? Driving with one too much in the tank isn't any sort of wrongdoing in most people's view anyway, so they will see any punishment that's actually effective as draconion bullshit.

I think fines for drunk driving should be doubled, the world over, and all the proceeds pooled to develop an instant-sober pill. Breathalyzer-locked-ignition is just impractical and too-easy to fool or manipulate (the third time you can't get home from the pub, are you going to stop drinking or start looking on ebay for some after-market gizmo that can be installed to override the breathalyzer? It's not meant for you, anyway, it's for drunk drivers, etc...), prohibition (of cars or alcohol) is stupid for the obvious reasons, so the sober-up pill (they could put one into each bottle cap or tape them into the bases of beer-cans/wine-bottles/etc. is the only practical solution. Maybe a sobering breath-spray.

Posted: **Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:17 pm**

Was fuckface even in the country legally?
I don't really care what happens to him, as long as it invovles a long prison stay, and then deportation to someplace nice, Darfur sounds good, or maybe just shoot him, whatever.

Posted: **Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:42 pm**

piccini9 wrote:Was fuckface even in the country legally?

I know a guy who's here illegally. And his last name is Bauer. If he was the subject of this story, would you ask that question?

Posted: **Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:26 pm**

The real reason we don't jail everyone for DUI? Jails are too full of drug offenders

/RM

Posted: **Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:46 am**

Sisyphus wrote:
piccini9 wrote:Was fuckface even in the country legally?
I know a guy who's here illegally. And his last name is Bauer. If he was the subject of this story, would you ask that question?

Yeah, I know. I was going to preface it with some kind of "I hate to even ask this question, but..."
I just didn't feel like being polite.

Posted: **Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:51 am**

rolly wrote: What about firing a gun, not into a a crowd, but blindly in a a direction where there may or may not be people?

Being on the road is essentially being inside a people tube. It's not exactly a random direction, more like firing into a mall in mid-day, someone is going to be around.

This is California, yes?

Relevant California Penal Code wrote:191.5. (a) Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, in the driving of a vehicle, where the driving was in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and the killing was either the proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, and with gross negligence, or the proximate result of the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence.

(b) Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, in the driving of a vehicle, where the driving was in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and the killing was either the proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, but without gross negligence, or the proximate result of the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.

(c) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (d), gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 4, 6, or 10 years.

(2) Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in violation of subdivision (b) is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or 2 or 4 years.

(d) a person convicted of violating subdivision (a) who has one or more prior convictions of this section or of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 192, subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 192.5 of this code, or of violating Section 23152 punishable under Sections 23540, 23542, 23546, 23548, 23550, or 23552 of, or convicted of Section 23153 of, the Vehicle Code, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 15 years to life. Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall apply to reduce the term imposed pursuant to this subdivision.

(e) This section shall not be construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon facts showing malice consistent with the holding of the California Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.

(f) This section shall not be construed as making any homicide in the driving of a vehicle or the operation of a vessel punishable which is not a proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, or of the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner.

(g) For the penalties in subdivision (d) to apply, the existence of any fact required under subdivision (d) shall be alleged in the information or indictment and either admitted by the defendant in open court or found to be true by the trier of fact.

So, if they prove gross, max 10 years. If they get the lesser then a max of 4 years.

More likely less than a year in county.

Posted: **Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:43 am**

I think in Sweden your first offense DUI is a year in the clink.

Posted: **Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:05 am**

KS supposedly has a one year license suspension that is supposedly mandatory. Trick is it seems is almost any lawyer can get you a "diversion" for enough cash. One local lawyer charges a set amount for your first, then tacks on $2k for each one after that to try for a "diversion".
So a guy here at work gets a DUI and it's like it never happened, only punished him in the wallet.Same guy gets another within a year and it's just more cash out of pocket and it "goes away".
Pisses me off.

Posted: **Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:41 am**

Sisyphus wrote:I think in Sweden your first offense DUI is a year in the clink.

If it's the minor offense (very small, almost trace amounts of alcohol in your blood) you risk multi thousands in fines, up to six months in jail and three to twelve months revocation on your license. If you go the big one (closer to DUI here in the states) you automatically lose your license for one to three years, get hit with even larger fines and risk up to two years in jail. Apparently these laws are quite effective, but there are cultural factors that contribute to keeping drunk driving to a minimum as well.

/RM

Posted: **Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:44 am**

[sarcasm]

The man who died was riding a motorcycle, which is inherently more dangerous than being in a car. If he had been in a car, his injuries would have been less severe. AND he was making a left turn, which is also dangerous. So it's partly his fault.

[/sarcasm]

Posted: **Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:39 am**

Yeah, and besides, at least the dump-truck driver wasn't doing something *really* dangerous... like a wheelie or something...

(/sarcasm)

Posted: **Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:39 am**

Zim wrote:[sarcasm]

The man who died was riding a motorcycle, which is inherently more dangerous than being in a car. If he had been in a car, his injuries would have been less severe. AND he was making a left turn, which is also dangerous. So it's partly his fault.

[/sarcasm]

Not so ironically, that is the very argument that is being made in my case. Except that he was making the left turn.

Posted: **Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:03 am**

roadmissile wrote:
Sisyphus wrote:I think in Sweden your first offense DUI is a year in the clink.
If it's the minor offense (very small, almost trace amounts of alcohol in your blood) you risk multi thousands in fines, up to six months in jail and three to twelve months revocation on your license. If you go the big one (closer to DUI here in the states) you automatically lose your license for one to three years, get hit with even larger fines and risk up to two years in jail. Apparently these laws are quite effective, but there are cultural factors that contribute to keeping drunk driving to a minimum as well.

/RM

It's the same in Norway. Highly effective. The family friend I like to schweel with won't even entertain the thought of a sip until he's in for the night or there is no possibility of him driving. I'm all for the freedom of exercising free will, but million pound shit hammer when you fuck-up.

Posted: **Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:37 pm**

I've been feeling like a racist asshole all day. Been giving it a lot of thought, there have been a number of repeat offender, illegal immigrant,DUI cases around here lately.
There is also a town near me with a huge population of illegal Irish immigrants.
So, apologies.
And if it happened in Pearl River NY, and the guy's name was Sheamus O'Connor, I probably would have asked that question.

Posted: **Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:32 pm**

Pete, I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks of you that way.

Posted: **Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:51 pm**

guitargeek wrote:Pete, I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks of you that way.

He told me he wouldn't buy my bike because he would never give his money to a Jew.

Posted: **Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:45 pm**

causef0rconcern wrote:He told me he wouldn't buy my bike because he would never give his money to a Jew.

You're Jewish?!?

/RM

Posted: **Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:30 pm**

Yeah, and I guess I'll just brace for more ridicule, persecution, and social isolation!

By the way I'm making everyone participate in Shabbat rituals at Ragnarok. That's right folks, no motorcycles after sundown on Friday!

Posted: **Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:44 pm**

causef0rconcern wrote:Yeah, and I guess I'll just brace for more ridicule, persecution, and social isolation!

Well if you were looking for that I'd just ask how you're getting along with the staple gun?

Wait, you're one of the people talking about shooting at Ragnarok aren't you? Everyone watch your feet!

(I'm assuming your foot healed up fine, if you're still limping I'm sorry for the jokes

)

/RM

Posted: **Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:06 pm**

Haha I actually totally forgot about that incident...But, I realized the staple I removed from my foot is around the pin marking my house on the map behind the bar I'm sitting at. The pin real far off the map to the East is still proudly standing alone, representing the Denver cell.

Posted: **Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:40 pm**

causef0rconcern wrote:Haha I actually totally forgot about that incident...But, I realized the staple I removed from my foot is around the pin marking my house on the map behind the bar I'm sitting at. The pin real far off the map to the East is still proudly standing alone, representing the Denver cell.

Hot, one of these days we'll have to organize a larger Denver outing...

/RM

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm**

Looks like the DA shares my contempt for this guy. I don't know if he'll be able to convict, but it's nice to see him try . . .

Man accused of murder for alleged drunken crash

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

(04-13) 08:56 PDT RICHMOND --

A Richmond man with a history of drunken-driving convictions has been charged with murder for allegedly being intoxicated when he crashed into and killed a motorcyclist in San Pablo, authorities said.

Juan Ruelas, 43, was charged by Contra Costa County prosecutors Monday with murder, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, hit and run, drunken driving and driving with a suspended or revoked license in connection with the death of Anthony Walker, 35, of Richmond.

Walker was riding his motorcycle on the 2500 block of Church Lane in San Pablo after leaving a Bible study class at Rock Harbor Christian Fellowship about 9:15 p.m. Wednesday when Ruelas, driving a pickup truck, failed to yield to the victim while making a turn, police said.

The two crashed, and Ruelas fled the scene, police said. A witness to the collision led police to Ruelas' home.

Ruelas was convicted in 2005 of driving with a license that had been suspended because he was caught drunk behind the wheel, and was found guilty of drunken driving in February of this year, according to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. He is being held at Contra Costa County Jail in Martinez in lieu of $1.2 million bail.

E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z0l1PMMhs3

UTMC

Is this murder?

Is this murder?