'I am a drunken murderer'

'I am a drunken murderer'

There are 114 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Dec 28, 2008, titled 'I am a drunken murderer'. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

Last April, Thomas Postulka, 46, was sentenced to 12 years in prison for running over Francis and Helen Lilly, an elderly couple crossing the street on the way to their Brookfield church.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Tim

Alsip, IL

#108 Dec 31, 2008
Next time you write an article in the second person, be sure to sign your name so I can know who's giving me worthless proscriptive advice.

-Tim Nordberg
Delores

United States

#109 Dec 31, 2008
The anti-drinkers are the real LOSERS
Lisa Lilly

San Jose, CA

#110 Jan 1, 2009
My parents are Frank and Helen Lilly, who are referred to in the article and were killed by an intoxicated driver. Certainly some people whose loved ones were killed by impaired drivers may be motivated by a desire for vengeance, as someone suggested in a comment. My own motivation in seeking tougher DUI laws and higher public awareness is the hope that this type of tragedy, which is preventable, will not occur for anyone else. It is not only a tragedy for the people killed and their loved ones but for the offender and his or her family as well. The man who killed my parents is in prison and will be there for many years to come. I do not believe he is an evil person, nor did he mean to kill anyone, but he had prior DUIs and acted recklessly and without concern for his own safety or that of everyone else on the streets and sidsewalks. My guess is he would rather have had stronger sanctions earlier that might have changed his behavior rather than killing my parents and being imprisoned for it.

There are limits to what new laws can do and real privacy and other concerns about addressing intoxicated driving through law enforcement. For that reason, I would like to see an equal focus on increasing alternatives to driving. Many folks commenting have suggested people supporting stronger DUI laws are being hypocritical and probably have gotten repeat speeding tickets or driving after drinking themselves. So, for the record, I will note I have not ever gotten a speeding ticket and do not drive if I have been drinking. I'll also note that no drinking and driving has always been fairly easy for me, as I've always lived near good public transportion, as I preferred commuting that way to driving, and have never been much a drinker. Living near downtown Chicago, I can easily catch an L, take a taxi, or flag a cab. And while I enjoy a glass of wine, it matters little to me to skip it if I am driving. Many people, however, do not have easily accessible options for not driving, and people who are in the habit of drinking or are alcholics do regard it as difficult or close to impossible to forego drinking when out for a social event. Part of me wants to say they should just stop drinking when driving, but the evidence shows that's not very likely to happen for many people. For that reason, I hope all citizens, not just government leaders and activits, will keep thinking about ways to improve transportation alternatives and ways to make the designated driver concept more common and workable. For instance, clubs could offer free admission and free non-alcoholic drinks for designated drivers. People could lobby for better public transportation in their communities and make sure to use it as often as possible to support it. Establishments that offer packages, such as for New Year's Eve or other holidays, or that host wedding receptions, could include reduced rates at hotels or a reduced rate for a shuttle or car service to and from. Would any one of these things eliminate drinking and driving? No, but if each of us put our minds to ways to prevent impaired driving and reduce our culture's reliance on our vehicles, it could prevent many deaths (including deaths where things like cell phone use and speeding contribute) and have the added benefits of reducing our carbon emissions and dependence on oil.

“You're off!”

Since: Jan 08

Quito, Ecuador

#111 Jan 1, 2009
Julie wrote:
Nanny State. Rule by fear. I'd rather people die than lose our rights. People have died to protect our rights. The world will go on if 500 people die a year. The country will be destroyed if we allow such offenses against our rights to continue.
Which rights, precisely, are lost here? Please be clear.
jsd

Oswego, IL

#112 Jan 1, 2009
lisa lilly,
i have no doubt your parents must of been really wonderful people to have raised such a wise and genuine daughter.
thanks for sharing your story.
VETERAN OF FOREIGN WARS

Westchester, IL

#113 Jan 2, 2009
Julie wrote:
Nanny State. Rule by fear. I'd rather people die than lose our rights. People have died to protect our rights. The world will go on if 500 people die a year. The country will be destroyed if we allow such offenses against our rights to continue.
DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE IS NOT A RIGHT, IT IS A PRIVILEGE. A privilege that must be earned and honored. The 500 deaths to which you selfishly refer; did those people not have the RIGHT of protection from those engaging in criminal action? Why be in fear of laws protecting society from selfish, criminal actions? Your convoluted post denies rights to the innocent, and encourages protection of criminal activity. Lose your self-absorption, and become a functioning member of our social world. Until then, you will only be denying rights, not protecting them!
Danno

United States

#115 Jan 2, 2009
The best way to prevent DUI's is to license more taverns. If we had a tavern every several blocks, there would be no need for people to drive to taverns. Everyone would walk to the tavern, like they do in Ireland and England. And the tavern would become the social focal point of the neighborhood.
Dustin Lilly

Saint Louis, MO

#117 Jan 6, 2009
Julie wrote:
Nanny State. Rule by fear. I'd rather people die than lose our rights. People have died to protect our rights. The world will go on if 500 people die a year. The country will be destroyed if we allow such offenses against our rights to continue.
One of my best friends and both of my grandparents are dead because irresponsible selfish drug abusers (yes alcohol)who don't want to be inconvenienced by calling a friend or a cab, or sleeping in their car. It was 7:00pm on a MONDAY night when they killed. he did even put on his brakes, he actually sped up after hitting they. My friend on the other hand was the drunk driver and thank god he didn't kill anyone else.

What right do you have to endanger others lives because of your selfish desires?
You keep looking out for yourself Julie, thanks for your ignorant comment of the day.
Dustin Lilly

Saint Louis, MO

#118 Jan 6, 2009
Julie wrote:
Nanny State. Rule by fear. I'd rather people die than lose our rights. People have died to protect our rights. The world will go on if 500 people die a year. The country will be destroyed if we allow such offenses against our rights to continue.
...and 500? try around 16,000 a year.
Nancy Mortonthal

Westchester, IL

#119 Jan 7, 2009
Danno wrote:
The best way to prevent DUI's is to license more taverns. If we had a tavern every several blocks, there would be no need for people to drive to taverns. Everyone would walk to the tavern, like they do in Ireland and England. And the tavern would become the social focal point of the neighborhood.
More than likely the drug addicts would still drive. These are selfish, uncaring people. Nice idea , though, for the social aspect.
Keith Lilly

Minneapolis, MN

#120 Jan 7, 2009
Please keep the issue simple and to the point, politics aside. This device will make it more difficult for a person under the influence of alcohol to drive their vehicle. Not permanently but while impaired and a risk to the public. This reduces that risk and the chance for repeat offense. The likely alternative would be more offenders facing loss or suspension of their drivers licenses.
The potential to save lives resonates after losing two very special people.
Dr Phil

United States

#121 Jan 7, 2009
Way deep down inside, we're all drunken murderers.
Lisa

Channahon, IL

#122 Jan 14, 2009
Drug "users" aren't bad, it is the drug "dealers".
Mallory

Westchester, IL

#123 Jan 14, 2009
Lisa wrote:
Drug "users" aren't bad, it is the drug "dealers".
Your are totally delusional.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
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.

Brookfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
lyons, il politics (Mar '07) 7 hr Memory Lane 8,877
Bridgeview IL. Gang Graffiti from blacks and m... (Dec '13) 18 hr trump 38
berwyn gang shooting (Aug '08) 20 hr Grant Works LAs 258
why are the cops who were granted immunity in m... (Aug '10) 22 hr WILDBILL 26
Next mayor 22 hr WILDBILL 3
Emmanuel Dominguez missing?! (Nov '13) Sat Remembrance 1,586
Growing up in Countryside (Dec '11) Sat Otis 15

Brookfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brookfield Mortgages