Our View: Drunk driving alive and well in New Mexico

Kate Klein, Julian Martinez and Alyssa Trouw were just 16 and Rose Simmons 15 - all young and vibrant with a lifetime of unlimited possibilities ahead of them when they were plowed into Sunday by a suspected drunken driver heading the wrong way down the highway.

[Told You So First]

The DWI Resource Center show that in Dona Ana County, the DWI conviction rate has dropped 14% (72% to 59% )in 2008. The DWI Prosecution program financed by the city council hwo pays the DA to prosecute DWI's committed in the city if a big failre.

[oldnavy2001]

It is a tragedy that these TEENAGERS, all 15 or 16 years old, were killed.
Now, I am sure to be blasted for this, but the parents are at least partially to blame. What were these kids doing out AFTER midnight?
These CHILDREN would be alive and well if their parents had set a reasonable curfew for them to be home.
When I was a teenager back in the late 70s, my nights ended at 10pm on weekdays and 11pm on weekends. The ONLY reprieve I got was when I was working.
Parents these days are afraid to be parents. If we could insist on a little more parental responsibility, then maybe more teenagers would not have to die needlessly?

[Stacey Williams]

Blame the victims??!! Come on, you can do better than that. And that old scapegoat "when I was a teenager" is worthless hogwash. When I was a teenager (OK I'll say it--back in the forties) I stayed out as late as often as I could and I'll bet you did, too. Honestly? No, this is a case of a drunk driver killing kids who had every right to be on that road when they were.

[Bob]

Regarding OldNavy's comment - drunk driving accidents also happen at noon, 3:30pm, and 5:27pm. Had this accident occurred earlier in the day would you blame the teens for being out and about when they could be sitting at home studying? Dumb.

[The norm around here]

Americans want their "rights" and care about nothing or no one else.

E.g., a separated husband who has a restraining order against him can buy a gun...and nothing happens to him until he kills his wife...because his right to own a gun unweighs his wife's right to live.

[Thomas F Schraad]

The norm around here wrote:

Americans want their "rights" and care about nothing or no one else.
E.g., a separated husband who has a restraining order against him can buy a gun...and nothing happens to him until he kills his wife...because his right to own a gun unweighs his wife's right to live.

The norm around here, HUH? Let me re-phase your sentence. A separated husband rights to live are outweighed by his wife's right to kill him. This is nonsense and so is your post.

Would you rather have him or her use an axe, knife, baseball bat, etc.

[Thomas F Schraad]

Stacey Williams wrote:

No, this is a case of a drunk driver killing kids who had every right to be on that road when they were.

Have a question? Does NM have a law that states young drivers (16 year old) can only have one (1) passenger? Does NM have a law that says young teenagers must be home and off the road (street) by a certain time (unless they are working)?

Just curious.

[Luke Cortez]

oldnavy2001 wrote:

It is a tragedy that these TEENAGERS, all 15 or 16 years old, were killed.
Now, I am sure to be blasted for this, but the parents are at least partially to blame. What were these kids doing out AFTER midnight?
These CHILDREN would be alive and well if their parents had set a reasonable curfew for them to be home.
When I was a teenager back in the late 70s, my nights ended at 10pm on weekdays and 11pm on weekends. The ONLY reprieve I got was when I was working.
Parents these days are afraid to be parents. If we could insist on a little more parental responsibility, then maybe more teenagers would not have to die needlessly?

What would you say then if a drunk driver crashed into you at 9pm? You started off by saying that you knew you'd be blasted for your statement, and I think you know that it's because it's a ludricrous statement. This is no different than saying that had a rape victim worn a longer dress perhaps she never would have been raped. Don't blame these kids, or the parents in this case.

[oldnavy2001]

Bob wrote:

Regarding OldNavy's comment - drunk driving accidents also happen at noon, 3:30pm, and 5:27pm. Had this accident occurred earlier in the day would you blame the teens for being out and about when they could be sitting at home studying? Dumb.

*****

Check the stats Bob .... more drunk driving accidents occur after 11pm than ANY other time. Accidents involving alcohol are more likely to occur at night… about five times more likely

No, this is a shared responsibility tragedy. The drunk driver takes the most blame, but a responsible parent would not have allowed their 15 and 16 years old to be out that late.

[oldnavy2001]

Stacey Williams wrote:

Blame the victims??!! Come on, you can do better than that. And that old scapegoat "when I was a teenager" is worthless hogwash. When I was a teenager (OK I'll say it--back in the forties) I stayed out as late as often as I could and I'll bet you did, too. Honestly? No, this is a case of a drunk driver killing kids who had every right to be on that road when they were.

****

Never blamed the victims Stacey ... the victims are deceased. I do blame their parents in some small way for allowing their children, aged 15 and 16, to be out so late.

[oldnavy2001]

Luke Cortez wrote:

<quoted text>
What would you say then if a drunk driver crashed into you at 9pm? You started off by saying that you knew you'd be blasted for your statement, and I think you know that it's because it's a ludricrous statement. This is no different than saying that had a rape victim worn a longer dress perhaps she never would have been raped. Don't blame these kids, or the parents in this case.

******

Sorry Luke, but the reason I knew I would be blasted is because this community and New Mexico in general has a preponderance of unresponsible parents.

A responsible parent would have ensured their child was back at home not later than midnight.

As for your comment about rape ... you must be out of your tree. There is NO comparison.

[oldnavy2001]

Thomas F Schraad wrote:

<quoted text>
Have a question? Does NM have a law that states young drivers (16 year old) can only have one (1) passenger? Does NM have a law that says young teenagers must be home and off the road (street) by a certain time (unless they are working)?
Just curious.

*****
http://www.dmv.org/nm-new-mexico/drivers-trai...

There is a graduated license provision in the NM code.

You can only drive without supervision between 5 a.m. and midnight unless you meet the necessary exemptions (such as medical emergency, work, or school).

Only one other person under the age of 21 (minus immediate family members) can tag along for a ride.

You will need to have this license for at least one year.

So I guess the kids REALLY should not have been out past midnight and there should NOT have been that many teenagers in the car.

[Thomas F Schraad]

oldnavy2001 wrote:

<quoted text>
*****
http://www.dmv.org/nm-new-mexico/drivers-trai...
There is a graduated license provision in the NM code.
You can only drive without supervision between 5 a.m. and midnight unless you meet the necessary exemptions (such as medical emergency, work, or school).
Only one other person under the age of 21 (minus immediate family members) can tag along for a ride.
You will need to have this license for at least one year.
So I guess the kids REALLY should not have been out past midnight and there should NOT have been that many teenagers in the car.

Thanks for the reply. I did not know NM laws regarding drivers license, but the ages and time of day caught my attention.

As normal, other factors come into play. The sad part is that 4 teenagers, disregarding the law, are killed by a young man who will be spending a long time staring at some blank walls. What a waste.

[Luke Cortez]

oldnavy2001 wrote:

<quoted text>
******
Sorry Luke, but the reason I knew I would be blasted is because this community and New Mexico in general has a preponderance of unresponsible parents.
A responsible parent would have ensured their child was back at home not later than midnight.
As for your comment about rape ... you must be out of your tree. There is NO comparison.

Who's comparing? I'm talking against even partially blaming the victims for the sole act of the criminal. What you're insinuating is that the parents, or the kids were tempting fate. Do you actually think that they wanted to cross paths with this criminal?? You need to think about what you're defending.

[Stacey Williams]

Now this is a healthy discussion!!!

[oldnavy2001]

Luke Cortez wrote:

<quoted text>
Who's comparing? I'm talking against even partially blaming the victims for the sole act of the criminal. What you're insinuating is that the parents, or the kids were tempting fate. Do you actually think that they wanted to cross paths with this criminal?? You need to think about what you're defending.

****

I guess had the kids not been apparently violating the terms of their provisional drivers' license and if the parents had taken some responsibility .... then this tragedy might not have happened.

This does not free the DUI driver, but he was NOT the only cause. I know everyone thinks the kids did nothing wrong, but they should NOT have been in that place, at that time with so many teens in the car.

The parents and the kids were not tempting fate, they were violating the law.

[oldnavy2001]

Stacey Williams wrote:

Now this is a healthy discussion!!!

******

Yes, because it shows that parents need to take more responsibility for their kids. They need to know what they are doing all day. They need to ensure the kids are not placed in dangerous situations.

This is a very healthy discussion

[JLG]

Are they any statistics out there to show how many of these folks were either repeat offenders already or went on to more dwi convictions after the program? What boggles my mind (beside the obvious) is how can these people afford to have multiple convictions? I have heard the first one costs approximately $5000 out of the felon's pocket.

"The story showed that 829 offenders participated in the county's misdemeanor DWI program in 2007."

[Luke Cortez]

oldnavy2001 wrote:

<quoted text>
****
I guess had the kids not been apparently violating the terms of their provisional drivers' license and if the parents had taken some responsibility .... then this tragedy might not have happened.
This does not free the DUI driver, but he was NOT the only cause. I know everyone thinks the kids did nothing wrong, but they should NOT have been in that place, at that time with so many teens in the car.
The parents and the kids were not tempting fate, they were violating the law.

Any laws these kids/parents were violating does not justify there violent death. I do understand where you're coming from. But, if it hadn't been these kids it would have been someone else...someone else's kids, mother, father, spouse, etc. The point I'm trying to make is that as long as people keep thinking along the lines of what you are pointing out, we will be hard pressed in getting harsher punishments against these criminals.

[Rev Richard Man of Faith]

In NM driving while intoxicated is a right of passage... here in LC, with a ethnically biased Police Chief..and thus it's officers... "cholos" do not get charged .. as if we "gringos" deserve to be hit by a drunken "cholo" as if it's out fault for getting their way.
bring this issue to City Manager.. and he'll call a meeting and invite "Cholo" Chief Romero who will tell the "gringo" it was his fault,. not the perpetrator.
Scum city!