A repeat DWI offender was sentenced to life in prison Wednesday.Bobby Joe Stovall, 52, was convicted in July 2010 of felony driving while intoxicated. Tuesday, Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield sentenced him to life in prison.
In early July 2009, Stovall crossed several lanes of traffic on East Palm Valley Boulevard in Round Rock without yielding. Another driver hit his truck, and his female passenger was taken to the hospital.
According to police, Stovall’s blood alcohol level of .32 and his passenger’s level was .38. The legal blood alcohol limit is .08.Stovall had eight previous DWI convictions from several different counties.
Previously, he served time in prison for burglary and credit card abuse.
What's wrong with those people in Texas who support this kind of excess? Is there no other way? Considering what it's going to cost to keep him in prison for life, is there nothing else that can be done?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Compare this to the gangland gun possession case where the woman will likely walk, I'd say Texas has a strong advantage.
ReplyDeleteIf he had shot at people 9 times, and injured others in at least a couple of these incidents, then what would your opinion of a life sentence be?
ReplyDeleteChances are, in TX, that if he'd been drunk and shot a couple of folks--he'd probably get probation.
ReplyDelete"Chances are, in TX, that if he'd been drunk and shot a couple of folks--he'd probably get probation."
ReplyDeleteOr had his last name been Kennedy, he'd be considered a liberal hero.
Now you're upset because they're putting a guy away for life, after he has repeatedly shown that he cannot act like an adult in the "big boy" world?
ReplyDeleteI just don't get you, man. A person screws up ONCE with a firearm (injuring themselves, or no one) and you want them to be stripped of their right to own a firearm FOREVER.
But a drunk driver, 4 times the legal limit, with EIGHT prior convictions, plus credit card abuse and burglarly convictions, sends a woman to the hospital because of his stupidity, and you want to find a way to not punish him so harshly?
And you want to punish the first more harshly than the second.
I don't even know what to say to that.
Using Jade philosophy: Most Democratic Senators are usually guilty of this same crime and often brag abut it.
ReplyDeleteMost anti-gun bloggers are guilty of gun crimes and brag about it.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, Sorry if you don't know what to say to it, but maybe I can help you by fleshing it out a bit. The gun offender is not always doing his bad actions due to addiction. He does them for any number of reasons and I say one strike you're out.
ReplyDeleteThe drunk driver who commits other crimes is acting badly due to addiction. Jail doesn't cure that. If he's hard headed like a lot of alcoholics and addicts are, he needs to be supervised closely enough that he is prevented from acting out with cars and other dangerous things. Rehab, Treatment programs, mental hospitals, these are the solutions for addicts, not locking him up and throwing away the key.
Does that help you find you voice?
No, because your thought-process still sounds goofy.
ReplyDeleteYou're blaming his addiction? So, if this guy got drunk, and used a gun instead of a car, shot a woman instead of causing a crash, you'd be in favor of not stripping him of his right to firearms forever, correct? Because his addiction would be the causal factor, and not his own actions, and not the gun?
Am I understanding you correctly on this?
"Because his addiction would be the causal factor, and not his own actions, and not the gun?"
ReplyDeleteAnon, you are missing the whole point. It is always the gun that is to blame.
But according to Jade, "gunloons" can't function without their firearms. That sounds like an addiction to me... Would you advocate rehab for that?
ReplyDeleteOr are the "gunloon" claims BS?
All right, let's call it an addiction what you guys have. Treatment center, recovery program and COMPLETE ABSTINENCE, that's the answer.
ReplyDeleteHypothetically speaking then, what is the line before one would be put into "Gunloons Anonymous"?
ReplyDeleteI'm still curious about what your thoughts are on my previous question. If this individual had gotten drunk and used a different tool (a gun instead of a car), and injured the same amount of people is 9 separate instances, would you think a life sentence is too harsh?
ReplyDeleteI don't see why the object used makes the difference in sentencing. The individual is obviously a menace to society and apparently will not stop his bad behavior. While I think a life sentence is too harsh, I would certainly support a 20-30 year sentence, which would be a good chunk of this person's life anyway.
RR, it's a good question. If someone shot at people 9 times, I guess my first reaction would be that he got a fair sentence. But if it became clear during the trial, lets say that he'd been suffering from addictions, I'd go back to my other idea which is that addictions need to be treated not punished.
ReplyDeleteI admit the repeat offender presents us with a dilemma. But with the cost of incarcerating the guy for life, don't you think they could come up with another solution. Strict supervision, frequent home inspections, daily medical and psychological treatment, all would cost less and be more effective.