Woman wrongfully put on 'Wall of Sham...

Woman wrongfully put on 'Wall of Shame' is suing

There are 22 comments on the Newsday.com story from Sep 12, 2008, titled Woman wrongfully put on 'Wall of Shame' is suing. In it, Newsday.com reports that:

The Bellerose woman whose name, photograph and hometown were featured on Nassau County's "Wall of Shame" after her May arrest -- though she was neither intoxicated nor drug-impaired -- is suing the county and ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jun 08

Brooklyn, NY

#1 Sep 13, 2008
" Seriously, I did nothing wrong," Andrea Sangermano, 50, of Bellerose, said"

Did nothing wrong? Kidding right? What do you call driving in such a condition that makes you crash. Couldn't pull over and take your insulin, no, just keep driving. Moron.

One of these cases was bound to happen, but really, this is nuts.
Tide Runner

Bridgeport, CT

#2 Sep 13, 2008
Why the hell was'nt her name withheld from the Wall until the resuls of her medical condition was disclosed ??? She's not a Doctor, and obviously a sick women who was put through a ton of stress... Should she just say... Oh Well !!!
She Does Not Care

Lakewood, NJ

#3 Sep 13, 2008
She has just as much culpability as a drunk. You have medical condition that can cause you loose consciousness, and that can be easily prevented. Yet you choose to get into your car, and not check your sugar, then get hypoglycemic. YOU COULD HAVE KILLED SOMEBODY!!

My offer would be that we remove your photo and info from the wall, but in return you surrender your license. You made just as poor a decision as a drunk by electing to drive. A drunk driver makes a poor decision that places the lives of others at risk by driving, you did the same. You were impaired, period. Maybe not by drugs or alcohol, but by a condition you knew of, that could strike without warning, and that could cause you to pass out, behind the wheel or behind the desk.

I am a diabetic. I know my limits, I test my sugar often, and I keep sugars at the ready so that if I get any feelings of hypoglycemia, I can eat some sugars or glucose immediately. You need some re-education in the management of your diabetes. You are lucky you did not kill somebody. You luck is not going to last if you keep up you risky behavior.
Tide Runner

Bridgeport, CT

#4 Sep 13, 2008
She Does Not Care wrote:
She has just as much culpability as a drunk. You have medical condition that can cause you loose consciousness, and that can be easily prevented. Yet you choose to get into your car, and not check your sugar, then get hypoglycemic. YOU COULD HAVE KILLED SOMEBODY!!
My offer would be that we remove your photo and info from the wall, but in return you surrender your license. You made just as poor a decision as a drunk by electing to drive. A drunk driver makes a poor decision that places the lives of others at risk by driving, you did the same. You were impaired, period. Maybe not by drugs or alcohol, but by a condition you knew of, that could strike without warning, and that could cause you to pass out, behind the wheel or behind the desk.
I am a diabetic. I know my limits, I test my sugar often, and I keep sugars at the ready so that if I get any feelings of hypoglycemia, I can eat some sugars or glucose immediately. You need some re-education in the management of your diabetes. You are lucky you did not kill somebody. You luck is not going to last if you keep up you risky behavior.
Should the Judge reverse his decision... Did he not put any thought into his decision ????
Vilhelm Black

Brooklyn, NY

#5 Sep 13, 2008
She Does Not Care wrote:
She has just as much culpability as a drunk. You have medical condition that can cause you loose consciousness, and that can be easily prevented. Yet you choose to get into your car, and not check your sugar, then get hypoglycemic. YOU COULD HAVE KILLED SOMEBODY!!
My offer would be that we remove your photo and info from the wall, but in return you surrender your license. You made just as poor a decision as a drunk by electing to drive. A drunk driver makes a poor decision that places the lives of others at risk by driving, you did the same. You were impaired, period. Maybe not by drugs or alcohol, but by a condition you knew of, that could strike without warning, and that could cause you to pass out, behind the wheel or behind the desk.
I am a diabetic. I know my limits, I test my sugar often, and I keep sugars at the ready so that if I get any feelings of hypoglycemia, I can eat some sugars or glucose immediately. You need some re-education in the management of your diabetes. You are lucky you did not kill somebody. You luck is not going to last if you keep up you risky behavior.
You are an IMBECILE. A drunk driver that makes the choice to drink and drive is willfully breaking the law. They are consciously inducing the impaired state, and then choosing to do something they know is illegal. A diabetic did not ask for their condition, and in this state, it is not illegal to forget to take medicine. What's next, arresting people who have strokes and heart attacks behind the wheel? Heck, they knew they had high cholesterol. String 'em up!
In any event, whether she made a poor decision or not, this is a PERFECT example of the recklessness associated with publicly displaying people *accused* of DWI crimes before they've had their day in court. This woman was not a drunk, but she has been portrayed as a drunk. The stigma associated with being a drunk driver is far worse than that of being a diabetic who didn't take their medication. The damage to her reputation may be unrepairable. I hope she wins a ton of money!

Since: Jun 08

Brooklyn, NY

#6 Sep 14, 2008
Vilhelm Black wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an IMBECILE. A drunk driver that makes the choice to drink and drive is willfully breaking the law. They are consciously inducing the impaired state, and then choosing to do something they know is illegal. A diabetic did not ask for their condition, and in this state, it is not illegal to forget to take medicine. What's next, arresting people who have strokes and heart attacks behind the wheel? Heck, they knew they had high cholesterol. String 'em up!
In any event, whether she made a poor decision or not, this is a PERFECT example of the recklessness associated with publicly displaying people *accused* of DWI crimes before they've had their day in court. This woman was not a drunk, but she has been portrayed as a drunk. The stigma associated with being a drunk driver is far worse than that of being a diabetic who didn't take their medication. The damage to her reputation may be unrepairable. I hope she wins a ton of money!
Although not drunk, she was impaired, knew it, and continued to drive. At least I know who cares so little about others that she couldn’t pull over and give herself an injection or have a piece of candy. You can feel the effects of hypoglycemic shock setting in and have enough time to pull over and stop driving. Her cavalier attitude and actions are not to be excused.
Good thing

Savannah, GA

#7 Sep 14, 2008
Vilhelm Black wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an IMBECILE. A drunk driver that makes the choice to drink and drive is willfully breaking the law. They are consciously inducing the impaired state, and then choosing to do something they know is illegal. A diabetic did not ask for their condition, and in this state, it is not illegal to forget to take medicine. What's next, arresting people who have strokes and heart attacks behind the wheel? Heck, they knew they had high cholesterol.****!
In any event, whether she made a poor decision or not, this is a PERFECT example of the recklessness associated with publicly displaying people *accused* of DWI crimes before they've had their day in court. This woman was not a drunk, but she has been portrayed as a drunk. The stigma associated with being a drunk driver is far worse than that of being a diabetic who didn't take their medication. The damage to her reputation may be unrepairable. I hope she wins a ton of money!
Good thing it wasn't you or a loved one walking on the sidewalk she drove on. You'd likely have a different opinion then. Bottom line - the I in DWI does not stand for inhebriated, it stands for impaired, and she was. Maybe we should change the rules of the FAA and allow diabetic pilots. You can fly with them and tell them how they deserve to be a pilot, and that having a medical condition that can place others at risk, without warning, and that if they are penalized, they can sue and get money.

Driving is a privledge, not a right. She needs to either show she accepts the responsibilities required to use that privledge, or give it up.

She deserves a public apology. Nothing more. If you feel otherwise, maybe you can lobby to be on her jury. She can pick you up everyday on the way to court and give you a ride home. Oh, not that brave huh?
Vilhelm Black

Brooklyn, NY

#8 Sep 16, 2008
Good thing wrote:
<quoted text>
Good thing it wasn't you or a loved one walking on the sidewalk she drove on. You'd likely have a different opinion then. Bottom line - the I in DWI does not stand for inhebriated, it stands for impaired, and she was. Maybe we should change the rules of the FAA and allow diabetic pilots. You can fly with them and tell them how they deserve to be a pilot, and that having a medical condition that can place others at risk, without warning, and that if they are penalized, they can sue and get money.
Driving is a privledge, not a right. She needs to either show she accepts the responsibilities required to use that privledge, or give it up.
She deserves a public apology. Nothing more. If you feel otherwise, maybe you can lobby to be on her jury. She can pick you up everyday on the way to court and give you a ride home. Oh, not that brave huh?
Oh look, another IMBECILE.

Driving is NOT a privilege (learn how to spell when making a fool of yourself, okay?) as long as public tax dollars are used to build and maintain the highways. We the people own the roads, therefore we the people have the right to use them, as long as we obey the laws which we have all agreed to. You might want to brush up on your knowledge of how a democratic society functions, or at least learn what the legal concept of privilege means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege

I am not saying you should get behind the wheel if you know you are prone to blackouts or seizures, but there are millions of people driving everyday who suffer from occasional dizzy spells or lightheadedness. Dizziness is the number two most common complaint in doctor's offices. Should we bar every person whose ever stood up fast and gotten dizzy from driving? Nobody INTENDS to pass out behind the wheel, but sometimes it happens. Driving a car is inherently risky for EVERYONE. That's why auto manufacturers invented seat belts and airbags.

That said, if you took some time to actually read about the events of this case, you would find that the prosecutors spoke with Sangermano's doctor, who confirmed that she likely suffered from "hypoglycemia unawareness" at the time of her arrest, "which is a numbness to the initial signs and symptoms that your sugars are dropping," Phillips said. Sangermano's doctor told prosecutors that the episode could have caused behavioral change, confusion, loss of consciousness and seizure.

So, it is entirely possible for a person to unexpectedly become impaired without being irresponsible or cavalier towards their medical condition. The judge dropped all the charges, which means according to the State of New York, she was INNOCENT of Driving While Impaired.

This woman's face was inappropriately plastered on Suozzi's website with hundreds of people arrested for DRUNK DRIVING. She was made to appear guilty by association, and was publicly humiliated for over a month after the charges were dropped. Why was this done??? Explain to me how an apology restores this woman's reputation?

If this ass Suozzi decided to do something like this "Wall of Shame" with, say, accused child molesters, lives could be destroyed.

There is a REASON we have something called DUE PROCESS in this Country, but seeing as how you can't even spell privilege, my guess is that comprehending Constitutional law is miles above your head.

Stick to watching NASCAR, and stay away from the courts, Okay Georgia?

Since: Jun 08

Brooklyn, NY

#9 Sep 16, 2008
Vilhelm Black wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look, another IMBECILE.
Driving is NOT a privilege (learn how to spell when making a fool of yourself, okay?) as long as public tax dollars are used to build and maintain the highways. We the people own the roads, therefore we the people have the right to use them, as long as we obey the laws which we have all agreed to. You might want to brush up on your knowledge of how a democratic society functions, or at least learn what the legal concept of privilege means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege
I am not saying you should get behind the wheel if you know you are prone to blackouts or seizures, but there are millions of people driving everyday who suffer from occasional dizzy spells or lightheadedness. Dizziness is the number two most common complaint in doctor's offices. Should we bar every person whose ever stood up fast and gotten dizzy from driving? Nobody INTENDS to pass out behind the wheel, but sometimes it happens. Driving a car is inherently risky for EVERYONE. That's why auto manufacturers invented seat belts and airbags.
That said, if you took some time to actually read about the events of this case, you would find that the prosecutors spoke with Sangermano's doctor, who confirmed that she likely suffered from "hypoglycemia unawareness" at the time of her arrest, "which is a numbness to the initial signs and symptoms that your sugars are dropping," Phillips said. Sangermano's doctor told prosecutors that the episode could have caused behavioral change, confusion, loss of consciousness and seizure.
So, it is entirely possible for a person to unexpectedly become impaired without being irresponsible or cavalier towards their medical condition. The judge dropped all the charges, which means according to the State of New York, she was INNOCENT of Driving While Impaired.
This woman's face was inappropriately plastered on Suozzi's website with hundreds of people arrested for DRUNK DRIVING. She was made to appear guilty by association, and was publicly humiliated for over a month after the charges were dropped. Why was this done??? Explain to me how an apology restores this woman's reputation?
If this ass Suozzi decided to do something like this "Wall of Shame" with, say, accused child molesters, lives could be destroyed.
There is a REASON we have something called DUE PROCESS in this Country, but seeing as how you can't even spell privilege, my guess is that comprehending Constitutional law is miles above your head.
Stick to watching NASCAR, and stay away from the courts, Okay Georgia?
Driving in New York is a privilege and not a right as you imply. The NYSDMV calls it a privilege http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter0... . Nobody is granted the right to drive, it is a privilege that is earned and can be taken away whether or not you pay taxes. If it were as you say,“public tax dollars are used to build and maintain the highways”, then only those who pay property taxes to maintain the roads and pay to build them should be allowed to drive.
Driving is a privilege for which we are accountable for our actions.
While legally she was not intoxicated, she was impaired and should have pulled over and taken care of herself. Diabetics do know when they are crashing and I firmly believe she thought she could make it to where she was going. I hope she learned from this.

“Trying is...”

Since: Feb 08

the first step towards failure

#10 Sep 16, 2008
Man you guys are harsh. Either way, Nassau is setting themselves up for potential lawsuits by the rapid posting of these pictures. There's plenty of DWIs prosecuted everyday, maybe wait for a guilty verdict. Any defamation awards ain't coming out of Suozzi's pocket, its coming out of yours.
Jim

New York, NY

#11 Sep 16, 2008
Vilhelm Black wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look, another IMBECILE.
Driving is NOT a privilege (learn how to spell when making a fool of yourself, okay?) as long as public tax dollars are used to build and maintain the highways. We the people own the roads, therefore we the people have the right to use them, as long as we obey the laws which we have all agreed to. You might want to brush up on your knowledge of how a democratic society functions, or at least learn what the legal concept of privilege means.
If driving were a right, why are licenses needed to practice it? We don't need licenses for free speech or to practice religion...those are rights. If driving were a right, everyone would be able to drive, no questions asked. My tax dollars subsidize airports and baseball stadiums, but that doesn't mean I have a right to be a pilot or a baseball player.
Kris

Matawan, NJ

#12 Sep 16, 2008
The bottom line is that Nassau should wait until conviction to post pictures of those convicted. As we all know, names and pictures of people who get arrested for certain crimes are posted on web sites and printed in newspapers all the time. However it only states that they were arrested for the crime and most always states arrested for "suspicion" of the crime as it always does for DWI. The problem with posting these pictures on the "Wall of Shame" is that you are shaming these people (as Suozzi has admitted he wants to do) before they are convicted in a court.
The last time I checked this was still the USA. You still have the right to due process.
This Women will win the lawsuit and she deserves to win. Other's will follow and Nassau will have to take it down because it will become too much of a financial burden.
What's the big deal anyway. Just wait to they are convicted. Then no one can come back and Sue.
liner

Bronx, NY

#13 Sep 16, 2008
Vilhelm Black wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look, another IMBECILE.
Driving is NOT a privilege (learn how to spell when making a fool of yourself, okay?) as long as public tax dollars are used to build and maintain the highways. We the people own the roads, therefore we the people have the right to use them, as long as we obey the laws which we have all agreed to. You might want to brush up on your knowledge of how a democratic society functions, or at least learn what the legal concept of privilege means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege
I am not saying you should get behind the wheel if you know you are prone to blackouts or seizures, but there are millions of people driving everyday who suffer from occasional dizzy spells or lightheadedness. Dizziness is the number two most common complaint in doctor's offices. Should we bar every person whose ever stood up fast and gotten dizzy from driving? Nobody INTENDS to pass out behind the wheel, but sometimes it happens. Driving a car is inherently risky for EVERYONE. That's why auto manufacturers invented seat belts and airbags.
That said, if you took some time to actually read about the events of this case, you would find that the prosecutors spoke with Sangermano's doctor, who confirmed that she likely suffered from "hypoglycemia unawareness" at the time of her arrest, "which is a numbness to the initial signs and symptoms that your sugars are dropping," Phillips said. Sangermano's doctor told prosecutors that the episode could have caused behavioral change, confusion, loss of consciousness and seizure.
So, it is entirely possible for a person to unexpectedly become impaired without being irresponsible or cavalier towards their medical condition. The judge dropped all the charges, which means according to the State of New York, she was INNOCENT of Driving While Impaired.
This woman's face was inappropriately plastered on Suozzi's website with hundreds of people arrested for DRUNK DRIVING. She was made to appear guilty by association, and was publicly humiliated for over a month after the charges were dropped. Why was this done??? Explain to me how an apology restores this woman's reputation?
If this **** Suozzi decided to do something like this "Wall of Shame" with, say, accused child molesters, lives could be destroyed.
There is a REASON we have something called DUE PROCESS in this Country, but seeing as how you can't even spell privilege, my guess is that comprehending Constitutional law is miles above your head.
Stick to watching NASCAR, and stay away from the courts, Okay Georgia?
Another internet PHD who loves to bestow the title "imbecile" on everyone who dares to disagree with his fantasy views of how the world should be, not how it really is. I think all 50 states have by now pretty much settled the "is driving a privilege or a right" question. Some other posters have covered that nicely. Please go away.

Since: Jun 08

Brooklyn, NY

#14 Sep 16, 2008
Vilhelm Black wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look, another IMBECILE.
?
That should have been the first clue that you’re clueless.
KEVIN CAMELOT

Brooklyn, NY

#15 Sep 16, 2008
doctor : i am sorry to tell you your son was stuck by a car and he will not make it

parent; was the sonavabitch drunk?

doctor ; no , she just didnt take her medication

parent; oh O.K.

Since: Jun 08

Brooklyn, NY

#16 Sep 16, 2008
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
My tax dollars subsidize airports and baseball stadiums, but that doesn't mean I have a right to be a pilot or a baseball player.
Yes, it does. You have your rights. In fact, I want to be a high school student again. I’m going to start school tomorrow.- my right, I paid taxes.
Amazing

Englishtown, NJ

#17 Sep 16, 2008
Actually recently a NY state trooper arrested a woman with MS and refused her medical treatment instead he processed her as a DWI based on his observations,even after talking to her doctor. The case gets even murkier as Das Fuhrer Rice refused to drop charges or even consider reducing them.... Its a long detailed story with a very sad ending .....
Death Race wrote:
<quoted text>
Although not drunk, she was impaired, knew it, and continued to drive. At least I know who cares so little about others that she couldn’t pull over and give herself an injection or have a piece of candy. You can feel the effects of hypoglycemic shock setting in and have enough time to pull over and stop driving. Her cavalier attitude and actions are not to be excused.
Vilhelm Black

Brooklyn, NY

#18 Oct 1, 2008
Is driving on my own private property a privilege?
No. As long as there is no public access (i.e. I put up fences) I can drive all I want on my own property without a license or registration, or inspection, and the State can't say or do a damn thing about it.

Driving a car is my RIGHT.

The only contestable part is whether it is a privilege to drive on a public road. According to some court decisions it is NOT.

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.- Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction,(license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court
decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

The roads are collectively owned by WE THE PEOPLE, and while drivers should be REGULATED by laws, and licensed for the safety of all, the State has no right to dole out driving like its some sort of gift for being a good citizen. You and I OWN the public system of roads, and therefore you and I have a RIGHT to use them.

You soft spined weaklings have gotten so used to government telling you what you can and can't do. You make me sick. Go look up the definition of liberty.
mike

Bayside, NY

#19 Oct 1, 2008
In this country we say it's not a right to drive, but a privilege.

Then we build a nation of suburbs and make it impossible to survive without a car.

Finally, when there are no public transportation options available, we put people on the pillory for being suspected of driving drunk.

Good government PR but not very effective. For real results, why not regulate the taxi companies, and help these drunks with an alternative way to get home?

It will work better, and is much less gestapo-esque.

Since: Jun 08

Brooklyn, NY

#20 Oct 2, 2008
Vilhelm Black wrote:
Is driving on my own private property a privilege?
No. As long as there is no public access (i.e. I put up fences) I can drive all I want on my own property without a license or registration, or inspection, and the State can't say or do a damn thing about it.
Driving a car is my RIGHT.
The only contestable part is whether it is a privilege to drive on a public road. According to some court decisions it is NOT.
Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.- Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction,(license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court
decisions that expound the same facts:
Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
The roads are collectively owned by WE THE PEOPLE, and while drivers should be REGULATED by laws, and licensed for the safety of all, the State has no right to dole out driving like its some sort of gift for being a good citizen. You and I OWN the public system of roads, and therefore you and I have a RIGHT to use them.
You soft spined weaklings have gotten so used to government telling you what you can and can't do. You make me sick. Go look up the definition of liberty.
You make me laugh.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bellerose Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Twin Flames are Satanic (Sep '12) 3 hr Previously stricken 7
News Aging New York Immigrants Confront Shortage of ... 15 hr spud 6
News Long Island wife Kelly Forbes charged with stra... (Dec '07) Wed MLohan 92
News Sperm Counts Continue to Decline in Western Nat... Wed Peter Cheeks 2
Woman screaming for help at 1am. What happened? Jul 25 VeggieBex 1
News LI's worst offenders (Jan '07) Jul 25 Frank Lehmann 44
Fast boy Jul 24 Code library 1

Bellerose Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bellerose Mortgages