Tulsa Woman Pleads Guilty

Tulsa Woman Pleads Guilty

There are 89 comments on the News on 6 Tulsa story from Sep 13, 2010, titled Tulsa Woman Pleads Guilty. In it, News on 6 Tulsa reports that:

A Tulsa woman pleaded guilty Monday afternoon to two charges of first degree manslaughter and a charge of driving under the influence in the death of two bicyclists in 2009.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News on 6 Tulsa.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
private

Plainsboro, NJ

#83 Sep 16, 2010
Under current law, a drunk driver who causes an accident involving "great bodily injury" pursuant to 47 O.S.ß 11-904 cannot be considered a repeat offender if his or her prior conviction was pursuant to the regular DUI statute (47 O.S.ß 11-902).

"The current law allows someone who is a repeat drunk-driving offender to stay on the roads much longer based on a technicality," Wright said. "Thatís a risk we canít afford when lives are at stake."

Also, under current state law, a drunk driver who received a deferred sentence cannot have that offense counted as a prior conviction if arrested a second time for drunk driving. Marsee urged lawmakers to allow prosecutors to identify drunk drivers who received deferred sentences as repeat offenders, increasing the penalties facing those individuals.

That proposal would mirror existing state law regarding individuals with repeat drug offenses.

In addition, under current law, an individual must have a prior conviction within the past 10 years to be classified as a repeat offender for a second or subsequent offense. However, the clock for that 10-year window begins ticking on the sentencing date of the previous offense. Prosecutors believe the 10-year window should begin upon completion of a sentence.

"Obviously, people cannot drive drunk while they are in prison but if they are not imprisoned and are on probation or parole then there is a potential for the individual to be driving on our roads," Wright said. "Thatís why the 10-year window should begin at the end of the sentence in order to deter drunk driving by increasing the length of time that an individual can be considered a repeat offender."

This change would also conform the DUI statutory enhancement provision to other enhancement provisions in the criminal code.

Wright believes state law should specify a "zero tolerance" policy for those driving under the influence of "Schedule 1" drugs (highly addictive drugs with no accepted medical uses, such as heroin or methamphetamine).

Current law does not specifically state that drivers can be arrested for any amount of a Schedule 1 drug in their bloodstream, creating unnecessary bureaucratic headaches for police officers that arrest those individuals for impaired driving.
Jimbo

Pflugerville, TX

#85 Sep 16, 2010
Equals wrote:
Either way you get my point! Is that all you have to say? Put the bong down?
Let me see if I do get your point.
1) You don't like it when cyclists ride on the road because roads are for cars.
2) You don't like it when cyclists ride on the trails because trails are for people to walk on.
3) All cyclists are a bunch of rude, arrogant, self absorbed, spandex wearing freak shows and contribute nothing to society.
4) Your opinion reigns superior
5) This thread should have nothing to do with the fact that a woman got so drunk and stoned that she ran off the road, killed two cyclists who were far to the right on a 10ft shoulder, injured another, kept on driving until she immobilized her SUV by crashing it, was so drunk that she didn't even know she hit the cyclists, in fact, laughed when she found out she did, begged the driver that stopped at her car not to call the police because she had already had one DUI and couldn't afford another. No, in your reigning opinion, this thread is all about the cyclists being at fault because they decided to go for a bike ride on a road...a road with a VERY wide shoulder.

Did I get it right?
Stumped

Tulsa, OK

#86 Sep 16, 2010
Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Let me see if I do get your point.
1) You don't like it when cyclists ride on the road because roads are for cars.
2) You don't like it when cyclists ride on the trails because trails are for people to walk on.
3) All cyclists are a bunch of rude, arrogant, self absorbed, spandex wearing freak shows and contribute nothing to society.
4) Your opinion reigns superior
5) This thread should have nothing to do with the fact that a woman got so drunk and stoned that she ran off the road, killed two cyclists who were far to the right on a 10ft shoulder, injured another, kept on driving until she immobilized her SUV by crashing it, was so drunk that she didn't even know she hit the cyclists, in fact, laughed when she found out she did, begged the driver that stopped at her car not to call the police because she had already had one DUI and couldn't afford another. No, in your reigning opinion, this thread is all about the cyclists being at fault because they decided to go for a bike ride on a road...a road with a VERY wide shoulder.
Did I get it right?
Pretty much.
Jimbo

Pflugerville, TX

#87 Sep 16, 2010
Stumped wrote:
Pretty much.
Forgot which screen name you were logged in with again huh?
Stumped

Tulsa, OK

#88 Sep 16, 2010
Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Forgot which screen name you were logged in with again huh?
No.
Jimbo

Pflugerville, TX

#89 Sep 16, 2010
Stumped wrote:
No.
Whatever.
hometown friend

United States

#90 Sep 17, 2010
I am glad that they have taken her into custody. She should not have been allowed to roam around free, enjoying her booze and drugs the entire last yr. I hope the judge shows her no mercy. She can never pay the debt she owes to these families.
Equals

Tulsa, OK

#91 Sep 17, 2010
Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Let me see if I do get your point.
1) You don't like it when cyclists ride on the road because roads are for cars.
2) You don't like it when cyclists ride on the trails because trails are for people to walk on.
3) All cyclists are a bunch of rude, arrogant, self absorbed, spandex wearing freak shows and contribute nothing to society.
4) Your opinion reigns superior
5) This thread should have nothing to do with the fact that a woman got so drunk and stoned that she ran off the road, killed two cyclists who were far to the right on a 10ft shoulder, injured another, kept on driving until she immobilized her SUV by crashing it, was so drunk that she didn't even know she hit the cyclists, in fact, laughed when she found out she did, begged the driver that stopped at her car not to call the police because she had already had one DUI and couldn't afford another. No, in your reigning opinion, this thread is all about the cyclists being at fault because they decided to go for a bike ride on a road...a road with a VERY wide shoulder.
Did I get it right?
No you did'nt. But thanks for your time!
MhM

Owasso, OK

#92 Sep 17, 2010
MhM wrote:
Only 90-1 year for DUI? WOW!!!!!
So someone judged this as clueless, nuts and disagree....REALLY? I got it out of the story you idiots... I am shocked how can I be clueless?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
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.

Sand Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Carl Michael Ruth, Jr. (Aug '14) Tue justanswering 318
Jared Lepley a Docto? Jul 24 Jamie Dundee 22
Adultry is a felony, Ok law Jul 21 Tami 4
What police officer did you wrong? (Oct '15) Jul 20 Susan78wonderwoman 3
News Sapulpa Woman, Allegedly On Drugs, Strikes 3 Ca... Jul 16 Citizen 3
Prostitute Tiffany Friederich Jul 14 Jamie Dundee 24
News Tulsan Saves Nebraska Woman's Life Through Onli... (Aug '09) Jul 12 Victoria 231

Sand Springs Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Sand Springs Mortgages