Posted: Sunday, April 15, 2007 7:00 pm
“I don’t think I should be put away for it,” he said. “‘Cause technically I didn’t kill anybody.” This is what Ricky Turco said in the April 7 story about the death of a passenger in his car when he was driving negligently. The young man does not have a driver’s license, repeatedly breaks the law, admits to driving too fast for conditions with passengers in the car but yet: “I slowed down a little bit before I jumped it. I jumped the hill and there was this truck in front of me that I would have crashed into … but I swerved out of the way.”
He doesn’t remember what happened next. “I mean, no one wanted it to happen. It wasn’t something that someone saw coming. But when you do things like that you put your own life in your hands.
“I don’t like hurting people or anything like that. Nobody knew it was going to happen.” If he is going to drive like an idiot, he should be doing it alone, not endangering the lives of innocent people, both those in the car and on the street.
Maybe because I knew Megan as a little girl, this makes me even more angry. But that person driving the truck that caused him to swerve, could have been injured or killed, too. Or innocent children playing in the front yard. This young man needs to be punished, and something needs to be done to assure the citizens where he lives after jail time, that he will not drive a car. Not for a long time. Turco tallied a point for each of nine convictions for driving without a license between October and this week. He was also picked up for various other violations for a total of 17 since October, among other things. Absolutely ridiculous!
Cindy M. Hodge, Lincoln2 kinds of DUI offenders
The recent public discussion of DUI law suggests that the enthusiasm for punishing drunk drivers has overcome any ability to reflect carefully on how the ham-fisted way DUls are handled can produce bad results for everyone, not the least of which are the families and children of DUI defendants.
Everyone is against drunk driving. The dangers are obvious. DUI law means to protect the public from the notorious drunk driver. But is that what it does?
There are two kinds of persons picked up for DUI. First is the “notorious drunk driver” who is the real menace to society that the harshness of DUI law is properly meant for.
But a large portion of DUI arrests are for people who are not ordinarily drunk drivers. These are the folks who unwittingly cross the line on an unusual occasion in which they probably did not even know that they were over the .08 limit. If they have a CDL license, the limit is .04! These good folks get arrested once, and they will never drive after drinking even a single beer again.
But what does the law do? The day these harmless people are arrested, the law treats them the same as the notorious drunk driver. The law immediately suspends their license for 90 days. And here is the brutality of it: If they have a job that requires a license, they lose their job. Their lives are changed and their families are devastated. And what for?
It is the notorious drunk driver that is the real problem. The law suspends his license, too. But for the person that is willing to repeatedly drive drunk, no license is needed to drive. And as soon as they bond out of jail, they are driving back to the bar. I say: Put these people in jail and keep them there.
Vengeance is not a just motivation for punishment. The zeal to punish the real offenders does not provide us with license to overlook the brutality and the needless devastation that DUI law works on the spouses and children of those who have simply made a once-in-a-lifetime mistake with no consequences to others.
Melvin Moore, Lincoln
Enough is enough
In response to Jeffrey Sanley’s letter, April 2: According to Sanley there is too much whining over the placement of a drag strip along U.S. 77 and Branched Oak and Davey roads. These people are the very people who chose to live in the quiet of the country. The trains, sirens, Memorial Stadium, church bells, traffic, airplanes, tractor pulls and high school bands are all a part of the city of Lincoln living. Most of these noisemakers have been there for decades! If you choose to live in the city then you choose to listen to the city noise. It all comes down to the freedom this country gives its citizens — the freedom to choose where you live.
I prefer quiet and everyone in this country community chose the quiet over the noise of the city. North Lincoln has gotten the short end of the stick for the last 20 years. The land fill, the wind turbines, the huge electrical plants, mining of good farm ground across from the land fill. And now the motocross. This is a small sampling. Enough is enough!
The perfect place for the drag strip would be where there is already noise. By the airport. But our city officials don’t want to use industrial land because of potential jobs that may be added to the community. But Sanford claims he will be adding as many as 300 new jobs.
Being close to retirement we bought our home 20 years ago and built a backyard pool to entertain family and friends. Can you imagine listening to dragsters Thursday-Sunday from 8 a.m. until after midnight, April through November?
If this proposal goes and the drag strip is built along U.S. 77 and Branched Oak Road, several properties will go up for sale. Are the supporters of this noise pollution willing to put their money where their mouth is and live out here next to the noise?
Karen K. Grant, Lincoln
Undue criticism
Gov. Heineman got undue criticism from Donald C. George (letter, April 7) regarding state employee wages being negotiated via the Nebraska Association of Public Employees.
George complained about the lack of wage increases, while the health insurance increased
40 percent during the last six years, and claims wages have lagged behind those of neighboring states.
George and his negotiator should also consider the cost of the benefit package as part of the compensation. That insurance package is richer in benefit than a majority of privately employed workers here in Nebraska, so its excess cost should then be part of the total compensation package open for discussion. He clearly is a victim of the cruel fact that medical costs, and so insurance, is increasing faster than the cost of living index. If he wants higher wages, he then should consider a lower cost insurance package, more like the average privately employed worker, and then be in a position to negotiate a better salary. He shouldn’t have both high wages and very expensive insurance, since most private industry doesn’t do that.
Thank you, Gov. Heineman for taking a stand against higher cost of government. It is high time the state employees have wages and benefits parallel with private industry. The cost to the taxpayer should be a sensible balance of benefits and earnings.
Tom Hanthorn, LincolnBeyond words
I am appalled at the callous decision by some area nursing homes to evict their elderly Medicaid waiver residents. It would be bad enough if these homes said that from this point forward they were no longer going to accept waiver residents, but to force those already living there to move is beyond words.
I realize that Medicaid, along with the patients share of cost, is not able to cover the ever-increasing cost of health care and I agree it is not fair for the private pay residents to make up that cost. However, those reasons should not constitute homes leaving Nebraskans who qualify for government assistance without care.
Giving a few months notice of eviction in some cases will not be enough. I know from personal experience that homes that accept Medicaid waiver are far and few between, usually only have a handful of waiver rooms and most have lengthy waiting lists. Luckily for my family we were able to get my mother who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease into a wonderful facility that accepts waiver. My heart goes out to the residents and families affected by the evictions. The stress and frustration they must be feeling is heartbreaking.
For these homes to say they are doing what is best for residents … is laughable. They are turning their backs on some of the residents who need them the most and they are uprooting people at the most fragile time of their lives. The people who made these decisions should literally be ashamed of themselves.
Leslie A. Galloway, Lincoln