User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.1013 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I'd give him $20 if he'd let the children he orphaned punch him in the balls.
Drop me a line, Jim, we'll work something out.
I'm in for a fiver.
Seriously, why is this guy not in jail? And why is the media giving him a platform for his revolting sob story?
He's not in jail because the case is still in pre-trial phase, and presumably he was able to pay his bail amount. Leyritz needs to stop talking though, he killed somebody. If he's legally found to be not guilty of the crime, that's great for him, but his actions still lead to the direct death of another person.
Probably improper procedures.
Probably improper procedures.
Insanity.
The incident happened in Florida, where part of the statue is that the court must find how legally obligated the victim circumstances resulted in the death. In this case, the victim was also drunk and speeding. From what I remember from the last Leyritz's thread, his defense hinges on whether the victim ran a red light or not.
Also: Leyritz posed for $5 snapshots and charged $25 for a signed photo of his 1996 Game 4 home run against the Braves and up to $40 for an autographed baseball with a personalized message.
So does that mean I could get him to sign a ball "Jim Leyritz, Major #######\"?
There's an obvious solution here I can't believe no one has mentioned yet: he should have his children taken away.
Why stop there? Why has he not been executed? Why are they bothering even to have a trial, when RMc is the President of the United States is ready to mete out his own brand of punishment?
Why not sign the ball yourself? You're certainly qualified.
So? He ran the light.
Because we usually go with trial first, punishment second?
It's been two years, counselor. What happened to speedy trials?
And why is the media giving him a platform for his revolting sob story?
You read it, didn't you?
Actually, no. And that's hardly an excuse.
Please stop defending this man, Nieporent. You just make yourself look like more of an ambulance-chasing douche every time you comment on it.
Because Ichiro's only played 1,426 games?
If he's driving and another drunk runs a red light, then she's the one who caused herself to be killed.
I'm not saying his version is TRUE. I have no idea.
Associated Press:
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The woman who was killed when former World Series star Jim Leyritz crashed his SUV into her car had a blood-alcohol level more than twice the legal limit.
According to a toxicology report released Friday, 30-year-old Fredia Ann Veitch had a blood-alcohol level of 0.18. Florida's legal limit is 0.08. Leyritz's blood-alcohol content three hours after the crash was 0.14 percent.
Why? In terms of individual responsibility, it doesn't matter whether he drove into one drunk lady or a busload of nuns. DUI is DUI, and bad people aren't any less deserving of the protection of the law than good ones.
1) He may not be at fault. It may be reasonable to assume the dead woman was the one that caused the accident.
2) It is like gang violence. I'm not going to spend any of my time fretting about crooks killing other crooks.
That matters not to zealots like RMC and Vlad. He was drunk. He survived. He should be summarily executed regardless of fault.
I don't know anything about the case other than what's been posted here, but I don't think that's the issue. It may be that her being drunk in fact caused the accident.
Well, him being drunk also helped cause the accident.
That's an interesting question.
I can think of scenarios where being sober would allow you to prevent the accident in spite of her (let's assume for a monment) blunders, and others where the result was simply unavoidable in any scenario.
Is that true? It'd be highly unlikely considering he ran a red light, but it's possible that his drunkenness wasn't a cause.
1) He may not be at fault. It may be reasonable to assume the dead woman was the one that caused the accident.
2) It is like gang violence. I'm not going to spend any of my time fretting about crooks killing other crooks.
1) There were witnesses to the accident, and they all say that Leyritz blew through a red light.
2) That's an appalling point of view. I hope you've never done anything wrong in your entire life, to be throwing stones like that, lest someone rob or rape or murder you.
1) Even if being drunk didn't cause the accident. He displayed really poor judgement in driving drunk.
2) If he wasn't drunk, he might have been able to stop in time to avoid a crash.
3) If he wasn't drunk, there's a good chance that he wouldn't have been charged a crime.
4) The accident happened after hours, why was he driving? So he can go to bars and drink.
Drinking certainly helped played a role in the circumstances.
But if Leyritz is contemptible for driving drunk, isn't the other woman as well?
Yeah, you got me. I'm zealously against children being forced to watch their mother bleed out and die in front of them because some has-been rummy couldn't be bothered to call a taxi.
I don't know how to break it to you, Ray, but she's kind of out of our jurisdiction at this point.
That's no way to speak of the dead woman.
That's fine buddy. You can spend your entire day mourning the death of people who die while driving drunk or those who get shot while working on a drug deal. I'll worry about little 6 year old boys who fall out of a UFO balloon. Fair enough?
2) If he wasn't drunk, he might have been able to stop in time to avoid a crash.
3) If he wasn't drunk, there's a good chance that he wouldn't have been charged a crime.
4) The accident happened after hours, why was he driving? So he can go to bars and drink.
I agree with all this - I was just pointing out that it's possible (though highly unlikely) his being sober wouldn't have changed anything.
Shouldn't that mother have already had her children taken away?
Seriously, I really, really don't get the zealotry. Yes, drunk driving is bad. Yes, it should be discouraged and punished when caught. But not the attachment of extra blame and punishment simply because the driver was drunk. It is possible for a driver to be drunk and yet not the cause of an accident and death of another. Yet to you and others, the mere fact that he was drunk (and had the gall to survive), is enough convict him without a trial.
So you have contempt for her until she dies, at which point you no longer have contempt -- only sympathy -- for her?
What I think of her has absolutely nothing to do with whether her killer deserves justice or not.
Even if she was a terrible mother and a terrible person, she still didn't deserve to die because of Leyritz's carelessness and irresponsibility. Her kids are going to have to grow up without her because of him, and he needs to pay for taking her away from them.
Yes, it's sometimes possible to behave with flagrant disregard for the welfare of the people around you without any negative consequences. That doesn't mean that it's OK to do so. If I took my Ithaca 37 out on the back deck and shot a half-dozen loads of buck into the darkness behind my house, I probably wouldn't hit anyone, but on what planet is that a reasonable or acceptable way to behave? If I did it, and I hit a kid who was cutting through my yard on the way home, wouldn't I deserve a worse punishment than someone who dropped a gun and accidentally shot a bystander?
I'm fine with Leyritz getting a trial, but all the evidence out there right now points to his guilt, and he's not exactly overflowing with sincere expressions of remorse and a desire to change. As such, I feel justified in feeling (and expressing) contempt for him.
This is America, and you're free to worry or not worry about whatever you want, as long as you're willing to put up with the consequences of those beliefs.
And I feel better knowing he doesn't have to be quite so drunk to run red lights and kill others.
(But do we have video that documents his pace of ETOH intake over the evening?)
That's pretty much my position. But I am open to the possibility that it was the other driver who ran the red light and caused the accident. My problem is with the people who say "It doesn't matter if the woman was the one who ran the red light and caused the accident. Leyritz was drunk, he should still be held accountable for her death because she died and he lived." If you are not in that camp, I apologize for lumping you in with those nuts.
How charitable of you.
Or not, which is exactly what a jury is supposed to decide.
Is this a jury room?
Go blow it out your ass.
You spelled "libertarian" wrong.
Commie.
I agree actually. The phone texting thing is out of hand. I've been in cars with friends who've done it and I've forcibly removed the phones from them.
The article that I read didn't say that the reporter got the information about witnesses from the police (though he may have, of course). It just said that multiple witnesses reported that Leyritz had a red light at the time of the accident.
I fail to understand how executing Leyritz will solve our Jimmy Carter problem.
Big of you to allow him a trial; however I doubt anyone posting here has any first-hand knowledge of the evidence but rather is merely relying on newspaper reports which in turn may be relying on whatever information the police and prosecutors have shared. That may in fact be the correct version but you don't know that until the evidence is presented and tested in court. That the other driver had the higher alcohol level and the police may have had the timeline wrong suggests that it is at least possible that the situation is not as clear as some of the zealots here have suggested.
There is only one way to know for sure...
Thank you for proving that you haven't given the evidence a serious look.
The problem is that people don't stop texting while driving.
No, the kids are going to grow up without a mommy because of mommy and Leyritz. Mommy was drunk as well and shouldn't have been driving.
Sad for the kids but I have no sympathy for drunk drivers that end up dead behind the wheel of their car. Leyritz did something terribly reckless and he should be held accountable but I'm not going to run around shouting mommy-killer! whenever I see him.
The other driver's alcohol level was from the moment of impact. Leyritz's level was tested twice, the first time two and a half hours after the crash, and he was still well over the legal limit. Typical alcohol metabolism rates mean that he was likely as drunk as she was at point of impact.
Leyritz
- Was driving on a suspended license.
- Petitioned to have his interlock device removed after the accident, because he wasn't ahle to leave the car with valets or eat chicken marsala.
- Broke the rules of his release and admitted he continued to drink and drive after killing this woman. His interlock device malfunctioned once to get him out of jail, but he had to do 5 days for the admission.
- Was arrested for beating his wife. Judge let him go when she changed her story and his son testified that dad would never hit mom, but she had taken quite a beating. He claimed it was self inflicted.
- Was arrested for felony stalking his ex wife 2003.
The only thing in Jim's favor is that his wife appears to be an even worse parent and person than he is.
You read it, didn't you?
Actually, no. And that's hardly an excuse.
So you're criticizing the media for writing a story when you don't even know what it says?
I read the blurb at the top of the thread, dink. Try to keep up.
Please stop defending this man, Nieporent. You just make yourself look like more of an ambulance-chasing douche every time you comment on it.
Oh, yes, I forgot the wacko fringe of BBTF where any comment other than "Burn the witch!" is apostasy, where failing to get out the rope is "defending" drunk driving.
In other news, Nieporent continues to prove Shakespeare right about lawyers.
Geez, we've been arguing about this for two years now, and the vast majority of Primates agree with me (for once). Then Nieporent and DiPerna insist that Leyritz deserves little more than a slap on the wrist...and we're the zealots? Right. Sure.
Sure, but nearly all drunk drivers are, at least, looking at the road. Their reactions may be slower, but at least they're aware of what is going on that requires a reaction. Many texters will be looking at their phones.
No, but they paint a picture of someone who probably does deserve jail time for drunken vehicular manslaughter, rather than someone who could be given probation and community service for it.
The video shows the victim, Fredia Ann Veitch, 30, driving past a surveillance camera in Fort Lauderdale at 3:08 a.m. - 10 minutes before prosecutors believed the accident occurred.
Leyritz's lawyer, David Bogenschutz, said the evidence "changes everything."
Prosecutors said Leyritz was drunk and ran a red light in downtown Fort Lauderdale at about 3:19 a.m. on Dec. 28, 2007, killing the mother of two.
If the accident happened earlier, the alcohol would have had less time to take effect and Leyritz would have been less drunk than prosecutors claim, Bogenschutz said.
I'm the last person to blame an attorney for trying, but 'changes everything' is one of the most ridiculous ####### exaggerations of the year, given the stated reasoning. I think it is important in noting that the assured nature of the police/DA statements as to what happened belie the fact that they aren't anywhere near that certain. But the impact of the ten minutes on the absorption of alcohol he had already had to drink is so close to nil as to be indistinguishable.
What are you talking about? I never said any such thing.
My position is that we should learn all the facts before deciding what his punishment should be.
Er, no. Leyritz ran a red light and slammed into Veitch; if he were killed and not her, there'd be no charges. Maybe his family would have to pay for her injuries/damages, though.
You'd think she'd probably get charged with DUI.
Neither Nieporent nor DiPerna have made any such claim. Reading isn't your strong suit, is it? (And majority support, if you have it, is not a defense to a charge of zealotry, anyway.) What we've talked about is waiting for the trial - and maybe even the verdict! - before the sentence.
The fact that you don't like drunk driving does not constitute evidence that Leyritz is responsible for the woman's death. Only the yet-to-be-established physical facts of the accident can do that.
I don't even qualify as a pseudo-intellectual...maybe a pseudo-intellectual wannabe.
Hint: Shakespeare was saying exactly the opposite of what you think: that lawyers are a defense against tyranny.
Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? Yes, yes, I know. But there's a reason why the line "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" has become a very popular (albeit overused) phrase.
Oh, and you wanna talk tyranny? How about the endless parade of criminals who get off thanks to sharpie lawyers? You really want to throw in with that lot?
The fact that you don't like drunk driving does not constitute evidence that Leyritz is responsible for the woman's death.
And your misguided sense of "fairness" doesn't make him innocent, either. This is a bad horse you're backing, pal; I'd jump off now if I were you.
I was in a public restroom (no Larry Craig jokes please) the other night and a guy comes in texting, does his business at the urinal, and then exits having never stopped texting or even giving a glance to the sink. I've had it with cell phones. The next person who stops short in a doorway so they can read a ####### text message is getting my foot in their ass.
If you ever run for office, you've got my vote.
I'm not a lawyer, but sign me up. And I'm no bleeding heart. If Leyritz is proven to be responsible for this woman's death, lock him up and throw away the key.
But more than that, I'm for an aggressive defense which acts as a check on the tyranny of the state and of the mob. For all those who rail against "technicalities", I suggest you read John Grisham's The Innocent Man.
What I think can be usefully distinguished, though, are (1) the necessity and justice of a heavily regulated, heavily ritualized criminal law system, and (2) the reasonable ability of observers to make factual and moral judgments without going through a heavily regulated, heavily ritualized process.
The reason we have a heavily ritualized, heavily regulated legal system isn't because that's the only way in which knowledge can be produced. Knowledge can be produced in many other ways. Rather, it's a method for producing knowledge that we as a society feel confident in making effective - that is, knowledge gained in this way leads inexorably to legal punishment or acquittal. For knowledge that will be put to other uses - talking about Jim Leyritz on the internet for instance - I see no equivalent need for regulation and ritual.
So it's certainly right that Leyritz gets a fair trial. (Leyritz is getting a much fairer trial than other folks with less money or future earning potential.) And it's most certainly right that Leyritz should only be punished by the state through a heavily ritualized, heavily regulated process like a criminal trial. But I don't think it follows from those two points that people who talk about Jim Leyritz on the internet can't make a reasonable judgment that he appears to be a terrible person, and that he appears to have actually run a red light while driving drunk and killed a woman.
Trying to remember what I was doing when I got the TXT my niece had been born safely to see if I would have gotten kicked.
I never claimed he was innocent. I claimed he was innocent-until-proven-guilty, a very different thing. If you think that's "misguided," that says a lot more about you than it does about me.
EDIT: It occurs to me that the whole slap-on-the-wrist thing may be a reference to the fact that I made the outrageous claim that, if convicted, he ought to be sentenced just as any other person who recklessly caused someone's death by any other means, rather than as an intentional murderer.
Speaking of which, my nephew just got bsuted by my brother for downloading $500 worth of porn onto his phone. I'm saying a prayer now for all you guys teaching junior high school boys. Good luck with that.
That's my position as well.
Is he busted because he downloaded porn, or is he busted because he paid $500 for porn?
Knowing my brother...it's definitely the money.
As a former Prosecutor AND Defense Attorney (the later for a much shorter time), I'm sensitive to this sort of thing, and can't help but constantly think of the Duke LaCrosse team tragedy. Probably the most dispicable example of a drive-by conviction I have ever wittnessed.
I don't say this to suggest that the Leyritz case is like this, but this is why we have investigations, preliminary hearings, montions in limine, motions, objections, appeals, juries and trials. The public is often irrational and wrong from time to time.
I thought there was some question as to whether the other driver ran a red light as well. If she did, then I would think the exact same charges would be brought against her.
However, I'm also often irrational and wrong about whether the Red Sox should sign a 37-year-old with a spotty health history as their 5th starter, and I'm often irrational and wrong about whether and to what degree libertarian positions on health care betray a failure of moral reasoning, but I debate those things on the internet. The Duke case seems to me less like the zenith of evil prosecutorial behavior and rather an example of far too common prosecutorial behavior that happened to get leveled against a group of people with more than enough resources to fight the case.
The case of Cameron Todd Willingham looks far worse, and far more damaging in actual effects, to pick one.
One of the hottest telecommunications companies in Japan is a company that provides pornography for cell phones.
Edit: Pictures, chatting, livestreaming, the works! We are a doomed species.
People put porn on everything. Ask around, and you'll hear all sorts of stories from travellers about the person next to them on a plane/train/bus/whatever watching porn on their laptop/iPod/phone and so on.
Except for the hardly insignificant number (88) of Duke Faculty that so recklessly made their own hasty judgment in advance and did so in such a public fashion. Invevitably, their completely indefensible actions created a tidal wave of anti-faculty behavior which was unsavory as well.
What's outrageous is that 14 year olds can download the stuff without permission. Of course, I think it's outrageous 14 year olds get phones advanced enough to download porn, but that's a rant for another day. Spoiled little #######.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main