no license, registration, insurance, or tags ?

[Doublebass73]

IG I figure I have been driving here in Arizona and soon to be Texas along time with people without Insurance. I do pay for underinsured or no insurance on my insurance and always have. That's why it keeps going up every 6 months. Either pay the piper or gamble on it.

Everybody in this country in every single state shares the road with unlicensed, unregistered and uninsured drivers on a daily basis. Who knew that criminals don't obey laws? I always buy uninsured coverage too.

[darkgael]

The beliefs about cars, insurance, etc. are just part of the package.
If you have some time, here is some interesting reading:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement

[Matt]

The beliefs about cars, insurance, etc. are just part of the package.
If you have some time, here is some interesting reading:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement

I still find it hilarious when folks put Sovereign and Citizen together, seeing as they are mutually exclusive of the other.

I do not personally subscribe to any of that nonsense as it just serves to further the divide between people, as it is meant to do.

Kings, Queens and the like pride themselves on being Sovereign, and their subjects are considered Citizens. So how can one be a Sovereign Citizen?

Matt

[Doublebass73]

Southern Poverty Law Center, now there's an organization you can trust.

[darkgael]

Southern Poverty Law Center, now there's an organization you can trust.

I am guessing that you are being sarcastic.
I have to admit that I know nothing about them. I was looking for a summary that I could link in addition to Wikipedia. That came up. It jives with what i have seen and read elsewhere.

[Mule 11]

Ya can’t get farther left than southern poverty law center even if ya try...

[Casull]

Well said Matt.

When it comes to car insurance most of our resident "conservatives" quickly become liberals. They want everyone punished (forced to carry car insurance) for the actions of a few. Sounds a lot like gun control to me, punish the masses for the actions of a few.

It's a much better solution to punish the few who drive uninsured and cause harm and keep the government out of the lives of those of us who cause no trouble.

Bull Crap.  Punishing them does nothing to make the injured party whole again.

[Ranger99]

. . . Either pay the piper or gamble on it.

Pretty much a necessary evil, especially
where you're headed
At least a lot of AZ has a buffer zone of
sorts of rugged terrain along the south.
(Or what little I've seen does)
We don't have the rough areas until you
get toward Big Bend and that region

[Doublebass73]

Well said Matt.

When it comes to car insurance most of our resident "conservatives" quickly become liberals. They want everyone punished (forced to carry car insurance) for the actions of a few. Sounds a lot like gun control to me, punish the masses for the actions of a few.

It's a much better solution to punish the few who drive uninsured and cause harm and keep the government out of the lives of those of us who cause no trouble.

Bull Crap.  Punishing them does nothing to make the injured party whole again.

Neither does the law that says people have to have a license, registration, insurance, etc.

Do you believe that gun control laws that supposedly prevent crimes by punishing the law abiding are more effective than laws that punish the criminals who committed the actual crime?

Do you believe that laws that supposedly prevent car accidents by forcing law abiding people to buy insurance are more effective than punishing the people people who actually cause the accidents?

It's funny how "conservatives" talk a big game about "small government" but the reality is most only want small government when it suits their agenda and prefer big government when it suits their agenda.

Government forces you to buy health insurance "That's unconstitutional!".
Government forces you to buy car insurance "We agree, we need the government to force everyone to buy car insurance. It's for the greater good".

There's no hypocrisy in that though.

[mcbammer]

IG I figure I have been driving here in Arizona and soon to be Texas along time with people without Insurance. I do pay for underinsured or no insurance on my insurance and always have. That's why it keeps going up every 6 months. Either pay the piper or gamble on it.

Everybody in this country in every single state shares the road with unlicensed, unregistered and uninsured drivers on a daily basis. Who knew that criminals don't obey laws? I always buy uninsured coverage too.

So true ,  an you'll be lucky if you   make it thru your driving life time unaffected , especially now  with all the illegals driving around . Recently I had a family member killed driving to work by a drunk illegal with no license , reg. or ins. .   

[ironglows]

Well said Matt.

When it comes to car insurance most of our resident "conservatives" quickly become liberals. They want everyone punished (forced to carry car insurance) for the actions of a few. Sounds a lot like gun control to me, punish the masses for the actions of a few.

It's a much better solution to punish the few who drive uninsured and cause harm and keep the government out of the lives of those of us who cause no trouble.

Bull Crap.  Punishing them does nothing to make the injured party whole again.

Neither does the law that says people have to have a license, registration, insurance, etc.

Do you believe that gun control laws that supposedly prevent crimes by punishing the law abiding are more effective than laws that punish the criminals who committed the actual crime?

Do you believe that laws that supposedly prevent car accidents by forcing law abiding people to buy insurance are more effective than punishing the people people who actually cause the accidents?

It's funny how "conservatives" talk a big game about "small government" but the reality is most only want small government when it suits their agenda and prefer big government when it suits their agenda.

Government forces you to buy health insurance "That's unconstitutional!".
Government forces you to buy car insurance "We agree, we need the government to force everyone to buy car insurance. It's for the greater good".

There's no hypocrisy in that though.

  You're the only one talking government edict.  Most here seem to be talking common sense and consideration for others.
  Most who are  found to be driving without insurance, seem to be the type who "don't have a pot to p$$ in, nor a window to throw it out"!  Often they would rather spend what money they have, on booze or dope.

  If they are involved in an accident of their own making, such as a a DUI, how will they pay the bills for the innocent who are injured or killed?

  Are you pleased with the idea that we thoughtful people must pay for an extra insurance policy, to cover those who refuse to  buy insurance for themselves?
Are you OK with the idea that anybody can just jump into a driver's seat, whether they have learned to drive or not?

  We do have such a thing as "civilization"..or at least we did have, prior to the advent of current administration in Washington.
  Civilization demands "Law & Order" in order to continue, and preventing a nationwide demolition derby on the nation's highways, is the very embodiment of keeping "order"..

[Casull]

Well said Matt.

When it comes to car insurance most of our resident "conservatives" quickly become liberals. They want everyone punished (forced to carry car insurance) for the actions of a few. Sounds a lot like gun control to me, punish the masses for the actions of a few.

It's a much better solution to punish the few who drive uninsured and cause harm and keep the government out of the lives of those of us who cause no trouble.

Bull Crap.  Punishing them does nothing to make the injured party whole again.

Neither does the law that says people have to have a license, registration, insurance, etc. That makes no sense.  Laws requiring license, registration and insurance means at the very least that they will know how to drive, can be found and have at least some means to make the victim whole.

Do you believe that gun control laws that supposedly prevent crimes by punishing the law abiding are more effective than laws that punish the criminals who committed the actual crime?  Absolutely not.  And your analogy makes no sense again.  We're not talking about gun control laws.

Do you believe that laws that supposedly prevent car accidents by forcing law abiding people to buy insurance are more effective than punishing the people people who actually cause the accidents?  No one ever said that laws requiring insurance prevent accidents.  Do you read this stuff before posting?  And, I don't necessarily think that people should be punished for causing an accident (unless of course they're drunk, stoned or very reckless).  But, these laws aren't about punishing, they're about financially covering the damages.

It's funny how "conservatives" talk a big game about "small government" but the reality is most only want small government when it suits their agenda and prefer big government when it suits their agenda.

Government forces you to buy health insurance "That's unconstitutional!".  If I get injured or sick, I'm not hurting anyone else.
Government forces you to buy car insurance "We agree, we need the government to force everyone to buy car insurance. It's for the greater good".  If I hit somebody with my car, I AM hurting someone else.

There's no hypocrisy in that though.  There is no sense in your analogy.

[Doublebass73]

Well said Matt.

When it comes to car insurance most of our resident "conservatives" quickly become liberals. They want everyone punished (forced to carry car insurance) for the actions of a few. Sounds a lot like gun control to me, punish the masses for the actions of a few.

It's a much better solution to punish the few who drive uninsured and cause harm and keep the government out of the lives of those of us who cause no trouble.

Bull Crap.  Punishing them does nothing to make the injured party whole again.

Neither does the law that says people have to have a license, registration, insurance, etc. That makes no sense.  Laws requiring license, registration and insurance means at the very least that they will know how to drive, can be found and have at least some means to make the victim whole.

Do you believe that gun control laws that supposedly prevent crimes by punishing the law abiding are more effective than laws that punish the criminals who committed the actual crime?  Absolutely not.  And your analogy makes no sense again.  We're not talking about gun control laws.

Do you believe that laws that supposedly prevent car accidents by forcing law abiding people to buy insurance are more effective than punishing the people people who actually cause the accidents?  No one ever said that laws requiring insurance prevent accidents.  Do you read this stuff before posting?  And, I don't necessarily think that people should be punished for causing an accident (unless of course they're drunk, stoned or very reckless).  But, these laws aren't about punishing, they're about financially covering the damages.

It's funny how "conservatives" talk a big game about "small government" but the reality is most only want small government when it suits their agenda and prefer big government when it suits their agenda.

Government forces you to buy health insurance "That's unconstitutional!".  If I get injured or sick, I'm not hurting anyone else.
Government forces you to buy car insurance "We agree, we need the government to force everyone to buy car insurance. It's for the greater good".  If I hit somebody with my car, I AM hurting someone else.

There's no hypocrisy in that though.  There is no sense in your analogy.

We already have laws that say if you hit someone and hurt someone you are responsible for their medical costs. Again, why are you in favor of the government punishing the drivers who didn't hit someone and hurt them? You are the first to complain when the government punishes all law abiding gun owners when someone kills someone rather than the person who actually pulled the trigger yet here you are advocating for the government to do the exact same thing if someone kills or hurts someone with a car. Should the government force all gun owners to pay for insurance in case someone kills someone with a gun? It's the exact same thing, it's amazing you can't see your own hypocrisy.

[Mule 11]

I believe Doublebass makes sense just not what some want to hear or consider. I also would bet the guy that was pulled over has a license, insurance, and the vehicle is registered and is challenging the premise of these ordinances and statutes. That is my opinion...

[Casull]

Well said Matt.

When it comes to car insurance most of our resident "conservatives" quickly become liberals. They want everyone punished (forced to carry car insurance) for the actions of a few. Sounds a lot like gun control to me, punish the masses for the actions of a few.

It's a much better solution to punish the few who drive uninsured and cause harm and keep the government out of the lives of those of us who cause no trouble.

Bull Crap.  Punishing them does nothing to make the injured party whole again.

Neither does the law that says people have to have a license, registration, insurance, etc. That makes no sense.  Laws requiring license, registration and insurance means at the very least that they will know how to drive, can be found and have at least some means to make the victim whole.

Do you believe that gun control laws that supposedly prevent crimes by punishing the law abiding are more effective than laws that punish the criminals who committed the actual crime?  Absolutely not.  And your analogy makes no sense again.  We're not talking about gun control laws.

Do you believe that laws that supposedly prevent car accidents by forcing law abiding people to buy insurance are more effective than punishing the people people who actually cause the accidents?  No one ever said that laws requiring insurance prevent accidents.  Do you read this stuff before posting?  And, I don't necessarily think that people should be punished for causing an accident (unless of course they're drunk, stoned or very reckless).  But, these laws aren't about punishing, they're about financially covering the damages.

It's funny how "conservatives" talk a big game about "small government" but the reality is most only want small government when it suits their agenda and prefer big government when it suits their agenda.

Government forces you to buy health insurance "That's unconstitutional!".  If I get injured or sick, I'm not hurting anyone else.
Government forces you to buy car insurance "We agree, we need the government to force everyone to buy car insurance. It's for the greater good".  If I hit somebody with my car, I AM hurting someone else.

There's no hypocrisy in that though.  There is no sense in your analogy.

We already have laws that say if you hit someone and hurt someone you are responsible for their medical costs. Again, why are you in favor of the government punishing the drivers who didn't hit someone and hurt them? You are the first to complain when the government punishes all law abiding gun owners when someone kills someone rather than the person who actually pulled the trigger yet here you are advocating for the government to do the exact same thing if someone kills or hurts someone with a car. Should the government force all gun owners to pay for insurance in case someone kills someone with a gun? It's the exact same thing, it's amazing you can't see your own hypocrisy.

Wow!  Speaking of hypocrisy.  How can you say it's the "exact same thing" and keep a straight face?  One is punishing law abiding citizens trying to engage in a Constitutional right, where the other is requiring individuals to be financially responsible when engaging in an activity that puts the population at risk and is not a Constitutional right. 

[Doublebass73]

You're the only one talking government edict.  Most here seem to be talking common sense and consideration for others.

News flash! The law that states you have to carry car insurance comes from the government, therefore you are the one advocating for government edict, not me.

  Most who are  found to be driving without insurance, seem to be the type who "don't have a pot to p$$ in, nor a window to throw it out"!  Often they would rather spend what money they have, on booze or dope.

Correct, most of them are criminals. A criminal, by definition is someone who doesn't follow laws (where have we heard that saying before). So please explain to us how a law that says you have to buy car insurance is going to affect anyone other than the law abiding
 
 

If they are involved in an accident of their own making, such as a a DUI, how will they pay the bills for the innocent who are injured or killed?

They don't, you just said they don't have a pot to piss in. They're also criminals, see above.

  Are you pleased with the idea that we thoughtful people must pay for an extra insurance policy, to cover those who refuse to  buy insurance for themselves?

No, I'm not pleased with that but I'd be an idiot if I didn't carry that insurance because of the sheer volume of dirtbags and illegal aliens driving around with no car insurance. Most states have laws that say you have to carry car insurance yet here we are with millions of uninsured drivers still driving around. Who knew that criminals don't obey laws?

Are you OK with the idea that anybody can just jump into a driver's seat, whether they have learned to drive or not?

Driver's tests are a joke. My son took his road test a couple years ago, he made a few mistakes and still passed. I have a CDL license which has much stricter rules and I went on a road test with a new driver years ago. He had no idea what he was doing. The tester asked him how to check slack adjusters, guy didn't know what a slack adjuster even was and he still passed. Sorry if I have no faith in government

 

We do have such a thing as "civilization"..or at least we did have, prior to the advent of current administration in Washington.
  Civilization demands "Law & Order" in order to continue, and preventing a nationwide on the nation's highways, is the very embodiment of keeping "order"..

Liberals use that exact same reasoning to justify gun control. Like I said, "conservatives" only want small government when it suits their agenda.

[Doublebass73]

Well said Matt.

When it comes to car insurance most of our resident "conservatives" quickly become liberals. They want everyone punished (forced to carry car insurance) for the actions of a few. Sounds a lot like gun control to me, punish the masses for the actions of a few.

It's a much better solution to punish the few who drive uninsured and cause harm and keep the government out of the lives of those of us who cause no trouble.

Bull Crap.  Punishing them does nothing to make the injured party whole again.

Neither does the law that says people have to have a license, registration, insurance, etc. That makes no sense.  Laws requiring license, registration and insurance means at the very least that they will know how to drive, can be found and have at least some means to make the victim whole.

Do you believe that gun control laws that supposedly prevent crimes by punishing the law abiding are more effective than laws that punish the criminals who committed the actual crime?  Absolutely not.  And your analogy makes no sense again.  We're not talking about gun control laws.

Do you believe that laws that supposedly prevent car accidents by forcing law abiding people to buy insurance are more effective than punishing the people people who actually cause the accidents?  No one ever said that laws requiring insurance prevent accidents.  Do you read this stuff before posting?  And, I don't necessarily think that people should be punished for causing an accident (unless of course they're drunk, stoned or very reckless).  But, these laws aren't about punishing, they're about financially covering the damages.

It's funny how "conservatives" talk a big game about "small government" but the reality is most only want small government when it suits their agenda and prefer big government when it suits their agenda.

Government forces you to buy health insurance "That's unconstitutional!".  If I get injured or sick, I'm not hurting anyone else.
Government forces you to buy car insurance "We agree, we need the government to force everyone to buy car insurance. It's for the greater good".  If I hit somebody with my car, I AM hurting someone else.

There's no hypocrisy in that though.  There is no sense in your analogy.

We already have laws that say if you hit someone and hurt someone you are responsible for their medical costs. Again, why are you in favor of the government punishing the drivers who didn't hit someone and hurt them? You are the first to complain when the government punishes all law abiding gun owners when someone kills someone rather than the person who actually pulled the trigger yet here you are advocating for the government to do the exact same thing if someone kills or hurts someone with a car. Should the government force all gun owners to pay for insurance in case someone kills someone with a gun? It's the exact same thing, it's amazing you can't see your own hypocrisy.

Wow!  Speaking of hypocrisy.  How can you say it's the "exact same thing" and keep a straight face?  One is punishing law abiding citizens trying to engage in a Constitutional right, where the other is requiring individuals to be financially responsible when engaging in an activity that puts the population at risk and is not a Constitutional right.

Like I said before:

Government forces you to buy health insurance "That's unconstitutional!".
Government forces you to buy car insurance "We agree, we need the government to force everyone to buy car insurance. It's for the greater good".

My point is it's not "conservative" to advocate for bigger government and a government that forces you to buy a product. You're sitting here as someone who considers himself conservative advocating for a government which forces you to buy a product. If you don't buy that product you can't legally drive to your employer and earn a living. That's not a free country and it's super hypocritical for people who say they believe in small government to advocate for the government to force you to buy anything.

[Mule 11]

We must drive. That is a given and you know it... To survive in today’s world unless you live in a Amish community or on welfare. You must drive to survive... period. You and the courts know it so why BS?

[Mule 11]

I pay for insurance, tags, and registration. I just dispute the bs behind it... Also. Driving in today’s world is hardly optional if ya have not noticed. It is a prerequisite for survival especially in a family unit and you know this to be true. If anyone has an argument against unregistered and uninsured or underinsured aholes, it is you, and I respect you and your opinion. Not kissing your ass, just stating a differing opinion. There is no cut and dry answer. I may be wrong, butt, maybe I’m right,.,

[Matt]

THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT DRIVING IS AN OCCUPATION. What part of that is so hard to understand?

I agree 100% with Doublebass73.

As to the Making whole again, Please tell me how the hell one can be made whole again if a love one is lost in an accident, period no matter who's fault it is it will only get better with time, not money or insurance.

I will give an example seeing as I can speak first hand. Jan 20, 2006 at 6:23 am A women I loved very dearly was ran off the road by a stalker, she was trying to out run him in her Dodge Stealth when he bumped her car and she lost control hitting a 200 + year old oak tree on the side of the road. She hit on the drivers side and was killed instantly. Her passenger was ejected from the car and was in critical condition for months.

The man who hit her, Had a drivers license, a tag, and insurance. Guess what, none of that crap has made any of us whole again, not her twin sister, or other sisters or father or brother. We can't be made whole again. Only time will lessen the hurt but nothing will ever fill the whole.

Here is the deal folks, I really wish some of you would stop and consider this. Not one single one of us asked to be here, none of us picked the body, parents, country or the like that we would be born into. Everything else in life is a choice, with with each one of those choices comes consequences, We choose to drive on the roads, well there is risks and consequences that if we are not willing to accept then we should stay home. Today it matters not where you are you are libel to find yourself in a bad situation. Laws mean nothing to the criminals, they really do not care what the law is they are going to do what they want, that is their choice, with that choice comes consequences, they hurt some one they may find themselves hurt or dead or in jail or any number of other things.

To say that a Law is the answer to a criminal act is an exercise in futility and insanity. It is kind of like a lock, they only work to keep honest people out, not criminals.

The LAW says that we are free to travel, we are free to move our property on the public road ways. If any of you had watched the video I posted to start this thread then you would see that the police let him go on his way, and once they figured out that he was not going to contract with them they completely changed their attitude and showed him the respect that EVERY MAN is entitled to  from those who are there to serve them.


Also if any of you would like to see the result of the case where "Jessica Lockridge" "Jess" Lost her life on Jan, 20 2006 in Piedmont,  AL while traveling on Possum-trot Road you can google her.

[Ranger99]

. .  In fact, those that kill people with weaponized vehicles or are intoxicated drivers or repeat offenders should probably lose their driving privileges permanently. . .

.TM7

IMO if you are impaired by either drugs or
alcohol or both, you should be tried for
first degree murder.
Everybody that's loose and on the streets
knows unequivocally that drugs and alcohol
impair your judgment, so there's zero excuses
for piloting a vehicle with a buzz on.
I've yet to see or meet anybody that got
drunk or high under duress, so there's no excuse

[Matt]

Driving is not a right, its a privilege if you qualify. If you don t drive you don't need to get an nsurance policy.
I lived a number years without a car. There's about 145 million people living in US cities and such that don't want a car. Only 17% of 7.7 billion people on earth own a vehicle.
You can get along without  car if you're willing to change you lifestyle  and live near work . In fact, those that kill people with weaponized vehicles or are intoxicated drivers or repeat offenders should probably lose their driving privileges permanently.

Why society caters to repeat offenders, drunks and dopers, and other losers to allow them to drive without or canceled insurance is some kind of libber pity idea.
.
.TM7

Are you ****  kidding me.... You and I talked so I understand your logic, but for you to demand that others cater to "your idea of right" is the most "libber" thing that I have heard. FREEDOM AND LIBERTY Not RULES AND REGULATIONS is what the country is supposed to be about.

So just out of curiosity how many of you folks are in favor of the following:
Full Auto Ban/Licensing
Bump Stock Ban
Handgun Registration
Concealed Carry Permits
Silencer bans

Just curious  ...
 

[Matt]

. .  In fact, those that kill people with weaponized vehicles or are intoxicated drivers or repeat offenders should probably lose their driving privileges permanently. . .

.TM7

IMO if you are impaired by either drugs or
alcohol or both, you should be tried for
first degree murder.
Everybody that's loose and on the streets
knows unequivocally that drugs and alcohol
impair your judgment, so there's zero excuses
for piloting a vehicle with a buzz on.
I've yet to see or meet anybody that got
drunk or high under duress, so there's no excuse

Absolutely..... Consequences for "Choices" made.

[Mule 11]

Driving is not a right, its a privilege if you qualify. If you don t drive you don't need to get an nsurance policy.
I lived a number years without a car. There's about 145 million people living in US cities and such that don't want a car. Only 17% of 7.7 billion people on earth own a vehicle.
You can get along without  car if you're willing to change you lifestyle  and live near work . In fact, those that kill people with weaponized vehicles or are intoxicated drivers or repeat offenders should probably lose their driving privileges permanently.

Why society caters to repeat offenders, drunks and dopers, and other losers to allow them to drive without or canceled insurance is some kind of libber pity idea.
.
.TM7

So. We all need to live in a city... Also. That 6.5 billion includes babies, nursing homes and aborigines amongst others... I wonder what the percentage of bush people in Africa is that own automobiles is?

[Ranger99]

We've got one here in jail now
that had multiple DWI's in the state
where he's from, then he comes
here and gets many more.
He ran into a family and severely injured
the young boy, and permanently
damaged all his motor and cognitive
skills, and the boy lingered for a
good while and finally died.
Needs a 22 behind the ear instead
of a lifetime of beds and meals

[Matt]

Also so that there is no confusion on where I stand on "Driving" Yes it is a Privilege, because it is an occupation not a right. You are paid to drive and thus are using the public roads to make a profit and as such are subject to the rules regulations and policy in the area where you are driving.

If you are going to the store or visiting another area other than home, you are "traveling" not "Driving". It really is a simple distinction, one you're making money and the other you are not.

[Matt]

We've got one here in jail now
that had multiple DWI's in the state
where he's from, then he comes
here and gets many more.
He ran into a family and severely injured
the young boy, and permanently
damaged all his motor and cognitive
skills, and the boy lingered for a
good while and finally died.
Needs a 22 behind the ear instead
of a lifetime of beds and meals

In a "Just" world he would already be dead.....

[Matt]

Here is one to make you scratch your head:

U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION:
"All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities ONLY, not human/Creators in accordance with God's Law's. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process.."Rodrigues vs. Ray Donovan 769 F2d 1344, 1348 (1985)

If anyone  wants to read it for themselves:
https://casetext.com/case/rodrigues-v-donovan/case-details

further research on the topic:
https://casetext.com/case/rodrigues-v-donovan/how-cited?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=PDF-emails&citingPage=1&sort=relevance#

[Ranger99]

We've got one here in jail now
that had multiple DWI's in the state
where he's from, then he comes
here and gets many more.
He ran into a family and severely injured
the young boy, and permanently
damaged all his motor and cognitive
skills, and the boy lingered for a
good while and finally died.
Needs a 22 behind the ear instead
of a lifetime of beds and meals

In a "Just" world he would already be dead.....

Should have been potting soil years ago
20+ DWI offenses,  served 40 or 50 days
for those before coming here.
He'll be out in 19 years or so 
The boy will always be dead.
Unfortunately, I can't remember the
poor child's name. The scummy
$%^tard's name was Stewart Richardson 
Looks like a stereotypical dirtbag

[Matt]

We've got one here in jail now
that had multiple DWI's in the state
where he's from, then he comes
here and gets many more.
He ran into a family and severely injured
the young boy, and permanently
damaged all his motor and cognitive
skills, and the boy lingered for a
good while and finally died.
Needs a 22 behind the ear instead
of a lifetime of beds and meals

In a "Just" world he would already be dead.....

Should have been potting soil years ago
20+ DWI offenses,  served 40 or 50 days
for those before coming here.
He'll be out in 19 years or so 
The boy will always be dead.
Unfortunately, I can't remember the
poor child's name. The scummy
$%^tard's name was Stewart Richardson 
Looks like a stereotypical dirtbag

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/07/28/court-sees-video-of-admitted-drunk-driver-after-deadly-crash/

Yeah, he for sure looks like a winner, though I will admit looks can be deceiving I don't feel that's the case here.