Our condolences to the family, friends and co-workers of Rebecca Post, a paralegal at Clark Law Group, who was killed along with her two young sons in an apparent DUI accident. [8NewsNow]
Suit to bar Trump from Nevada ballot dismissed for lack of standing. [TNI]
Some business owners worried they won’t bounce back from F1 seek compensation from the LVCVA. What do you think? If this doesn’t work do they have a case? [8NewsNow; RJ]
Man faces new battery charges related to attack on Judge Holthus. [KTNV]
Family of tourist among 5 killed in Grand Canyon helicopter crash gets $100M settlement [News3LV]
Judge rejects state AG’s pleas to oust Esmeralda County sheriff on a motion for summary judgment. [RJ]
Mom of man shot dead by Metro in 2022 files suit. [RJ]
Deputy DA Kayla Farzaneh-Simmons, facing DUI and reckless driving charges, was driving 38 mph above the speed limit, report says. [RJ]
Rest in Peace, Rebecca and your two beautiful babies. This is crushing news. This year has been full of tragedy, I sure hope something gives. Hold your people close and make sure they know you love them.
DUI should never happen. We’ve been trying to punish our way out of the problem since at least the 1970s. What we’re doing doesn’t work. It’s time for real driving bans for those convicted. First offense 3 years, second offense 10 years, third offense lifetime. Anyone caught driving during the ban can serve the time in prison instead.
It’s also time to close down bars. People who want to use alcohol can do so at home. What message does it send that the only way to get to most bars is by driving? Casinos can continue serving alcohol to anyone with a room on the strip.
But of course, instead of taking drastic action, or really instead of taking any action at all, we’ll just keep being sad when someone dies then move on.
Time to close bars?! Yes, that’ll do it. No issues with casinos, restaurants, sports venues, concerts, or any other form of adult entertainment. I agree DUI is a horrible problem but bars are only a tiny portion. We know prohibition doesn’t work. Ride sharing apps are great, but autonomous cars/ride-hailing services and better public transport would go a long way toward addressing the issue on practical terms.
Totally agree, 11:04 AM. I’ll never understand why we allow a person with more than one DUI to ever drive again. Everybody gets a mulligan, and beyond that it’s driving bans that, if violated, result in felony convictions and prison time.
Not a supporter of closing bars, but there is merit in noticing that not only is alcohol available to “drink and drive”, but now how our wise elected are approving smoking lounges to allow “get high and drive”.
– nothing drives politics and the elected like money.
It should be an automatic year ban from driving if you receive a DUI. If you get a second your license is taken away for 5 years and a third is lifetime ban from driving. Easy way to reduce recidivism.
Does NV have any law placing responsibility on the bar for serving the obviously intoxicated?
(I am too lazy to do the research). If we did, the PI bar might dampen the number of DUI persons on the road.
See, your first point was a bit illogical when it started with the declaration about the failed attempt to punish our way out of the problem and concluded with a proposal for punishment.
But then the second point about closing down bars demonstrates that the problem isn’t logic but a grasp on reality.
I’m not saying that DUIs are going to solve themselves. I just think the following is a bit wrong and a lot funny when the ultimate conclusion was more severe punishments:
“We’ve been trying to punish our way out of the problem since at least the 1970s. What we’re doing doesn’t work.”
I think the overall propensity of drunk driving is probably down a lot from its worst heights, but we are more aware of the occurrences and more sensitive to their harmful potential outcomes–like a lot of things for which we have less social tolerance. Not to mention the fact that there are going to be more DUIs when they are actually enforced.
But I don’t claim to have the data or the big-picture solutions to know what the cost benefit analysis is. Breath locks make a lot of sense to me. Speed governors could be more complicated, but I’m not automatically against the idea.
Would be nice if we had some light rail and a bus system that people wanted to use. It’s a lot easier to take away a license when that’s not a bar to employment.
Seem smart (though, I don’t know about the safety implications of speed governors). So do reasonable suspensions and revocations.
It’s just funny to say “we have punished and it didn’t work, but that’s because we didn’t punish hard enough.”
Also, there’s obviously less social acceptance or legal permissibility of drunk driving than 50 years ago–this is great, maybe those punishments have an effect or maybe social pressures or maybe both–but because we have less social tolerance and we do actually arrest people for it, it appears to some people that it’s a worse problem than it used to be, when it’s clearly trending the other way. (Not that we should accept that as good enough.)
Anyway, I want to hear more ideas from the person that thinks they are going to close bars.
Yeah. The way traffic is going in this town, it looks like 1/3 of the cars are driving without driver’s licenses, insurance, registration, or license plates. There’s no recourse for their bad behavior now that everything is a civil infraction. We need to just starting impounding their vehicles because they obviously don’t care about the law and the rest of us are making up the difference with increased insurance premiums and registration fees.
So many driving infractions shouldn’t happen. Texting and driving. Talking on the phone. Putting on make-up while driving. Turning around to yell at your kids. Though so few of these problems are as easily solvable as requiring breathalyzer ignitions. There are other things we could be doing too: https://dnyuz.com/2024/01/10/why-are-american-drivers-so-deadly/
Hopefully technology and the market solve this problem and we just go to self-driving soon. I am guessing it’s probably already safer than humans driving, but the technology will catch up soon. The shift from PI to other types of law will cause more unrest than the move from agricultural to industrial society though.
Closing bars. Yeah right. Look, I did some stupid things in my youth in terms of getting behind the wheel when I shouldn’t have. Thankfully nothing bad ever happened to me or anyone else. Today we have Uber/Lyft so there really is no excuse at all.
Guest
Anonymous
January 10, 2024 12:51 pm
To save democracy, we must not allow the voters to vote for my #1 political opponent!
I think this is a terrible strategy for dems because it increases his ability to play the martyr. That said, it totally makes sense that a person ineligible to hold the office of president cannot be on the ballot for president. The problem is the dems waited til the last second to take any action on this to actually demonstrate that his actions meet the definition of “insurrection or rebellion,” so it gives him the argument that this is a last ditch political ploy to rig the election.
I think that was part of the plan, put the issue in the news all the way up to the election. It was underestimated that many people don’t see his acts are rebellion.
How is it that “the dems waited til the last second to take any action” on disqualification? One cannot challenge the qualifications of a candidate for office until the candidate filing period has opened and the candidate files for office. And given compressed timeframes in election administration, the period available to challenge a candidate is typically short, and the decision timeframes are also typically compressed as well. If one wants a longer process, that would necessarily make election season last longer. Election season is already plenty long enough.
From what I read, the Colorado example went really well. Full on trial to evaluate whether he was disqualified. The democratic party should have had 50 of these ready to go the moment he filed in each state, asking for TROs and injunctions, all with expedited election timelines. A uniform approached nationwide.
Instead we have a hodgepodge of trials, state SOSs taking action without a trial, etc. I’m not aware of any court action in Nevada other than the strange case in front of Judge Navarro with no standing. The dems had a decent shot of getting real traction with actual court decisions, both legally and politically. That would’ve given them a universal message. Instead, nobody knows what’s happening from one state to the next.
Guest
Slick Willy
January 10, 2024 2:54 pm
What the hell is in the water at Boyd? First deputy DA Castro tries to diddle a young girl, and now one of his classmates and former colleagues gets nabbed for DUI and reckless driving? The DA’s public relations department is working over time. Not a great look for Boyd either.
Yes. They have the 2nd most amazing legal writing program in the land. Hire a middle of the pack grad and you’ll see just how incredible that writing program is!
That is such a meaningless statement (about their writing program). I have worked with many Boyd graduates, and I’ve never been impressed by any of them. In the last seven years or so, each and every one has been well below what one should expect from a new graduate.
Both of those “DAs” had worked in the office less than a year. It seems like it’s less a DA problem and more of a lack of qualified attorney applicants recently. The same issue that was discussed on another thread. The quality of attorneys has dropped significantly in the past 2 years. The number of applicants who are failing the bar multiple times (and who produce crap work even after passing the bar) is at an all-time high. Might be time to hire chatgpt instead.
Rest in Peace, Rebecca and your two beautiful babies. This is crushing news. This year has been full of tragedy, I sure hope something gives. Hold your people close and make sure they know you love them.
Horrible situation.
DUI should never happen. We’ve been trying to punish our way out of the problem since at least the 1970s. What we’re doing doesn’t work. It’s time for real driving bans for those convicted. First offense 3 years, second offense 10 years, third offense lifetime. Anyone caught driving during the ban can serve the time in prison instead.
It’s also time to close down bars. People who want to use alcohol can do so at home. What message does it send that the only way to get to most bars is by driving? Casinos can continue serving alcohol to anyone with a room on the strip.
But of course, instead of taking drastic action, or really instead of taking any action at all, we’ll just keep being sad when someone dies then move on.
Time to close bars?! Yes, that’ll do it. No issues with casinos, restaurants, sports venues, concerts, or any other form of adult entertainment. I agree DUI is a horrible problem but bars are only a tiny portion. We know prohibition doesn’t work. Ride sharing apps are great, but autonomous cars/ride-hailing services and better public transport would go a long way toward addressing the issue on practical terms.
A ban is always the tool of fascists. GTFOH!
This is [supposed to be] the land of the free . . .
Found the adult hall monitor.
Totally agree, 11:04 AM. I’ll never understand why we allow a person with more than one DUI to ever drive again. Everybody gets a mulligan, and beyond that it’s driving bans that, if violated, result in felony convictions and prison time.
Honestly, what’s so unreasonable about that?
We are too permissive with drunk drivers.
Not a supporter of closing bars, but there is merit in noticing that not only is alcohol available to “drink and drive”, but now how our wise elected are approving smoking lounges to allow “get high and drive”.
– nothing drives politics and the elected like money.
It should be an automatic year ban from driving if you receive a DUI. If you get a second your license is taken away for 5 years and a third is lifetime ban from driving. Easy way to reduce recidivism.
Does NV have any law placing responsibility on the bar for serving the obviously intoxicated?
(I am too lazy to do the research). If we did, the PI bar might dampen the number of DUI persons on the road.
Exact opposite, actually.
Nevada does not have dram shop laws.
See, your first point was a bit illogical when it started with the declaration about the failed attempt to punish our way out of the problem and concluded with a proposal for punishment.
But then the second point about closing down bars demonstrates that the problem isn’t logic but a grasp on reality.
This is fun. Say more stuff.
What about breath locks and speed governors?
I’m not saying that DUIs are going to solve themselves. I just think the following is a bit wrong and a lot funny when the ultimate conclusion was more severe punishments:
“We’ve been trying to punish our way out of the problem since at least the 1970s. What we’re doing doesn’t work.”
I think the overall propensity of drunk driving is probably down a lot from its worst heights, but we are more aware of the occurrences and more sensitive to their harmful potential outcomes–like a lot of things for which we have less social tolerance. Not to mention the fact that there are going to be more DUIs when they are actually enforced.
But I don’t claim to have the data or the big-picture solutions to know what the cost benefit analysis is. Breath locks make a lot of sense to me. Speed governors could be more complicated, but I’m not automatically against the idea.
Would be nice if we had some light rail and a bus system that people wanted to use. It’s a lot easier to take away a license when that’s not a bar to employment.
Seem smart (though, I don’t know about the safety implications of speed governors). So do reasonable suspensions and revocations.
It’s just funny to say “we have punished and it didn’t work, but that’s because we didn’t punish hard enough.”
Also, there’s obviously less social acceptance or legal permissibility of drunk driving than 50 years ago–this is great, maybe those punishments have an effect or maybe social pressures or maybe both–but because we have less social tolerance and we do actually arrest people for it, it appears to some people that it’s a worse problem than it used to be, when it’s clearly trending the other way. (Not that we should accept that as good enough.)
Anyway, I want to hear more ideas from the person that thinks they are going to close bars.
Further, most of these proposed solutions presuppose that a person won’t drive if his or her license is suspended/revoked. This, of course, is untrue.
Yeah. The way traffic is going in this town, it looks like 1/3 of the cars are driving without driver’s licenses, insurance, registration, or license plates. There’s no recourse for their bad behavior now that everything is a civil infraction. We need to just starting impounding their vehicles because they obviously don’t care about the law and the rest of us are making up the difference with increased insurance premiums and registration fees.
So many driving infractions shouldn’t happen. Texting and driving. Talking on the phone. Putting on make-up while driving. Turning around to yell at your kids. Though so few of these problems are as easily solvable as requiring breathalyzer ignitions. There are other things we could be doing too: https://dnyuz.com/2024/01/10/why-are-american-drivers-so-deadly/
Hopefully technology and the market solve this problem and we just go to self-driving soon. I am guessing it’s probably already safer than humans driving, but the technology will catch up soon. The shift from PI to other types of law will cause more unrest than the move from agricultural to industrial society though.
Closing bars. Yeah right. Look, I did some stupid things in my youth in terms of getting behind the wheel when I shouldn’t have. Thankfully nothing bad ever happened to me or anyone else. Today we have Uber/Lyft so there really is no excuse at all.
To save democracy, we must not allow the voters to vote for my #1 political opponent!
Yeah we should just leave it up to the voters, because just like last time, he’ll totally completely go along with the will of the voters.
I think this is a terrible strategy for dems because it increases his ability to play the martyr. That said, it totally makes sense that a person ineligible to hold the office of president cannot be on the ballot for president. The problem is the dems waited til the last second to take any action on this to actually demonstrate that his actions meet the definition of “insurrection or rebellion,” so it gives him the argument that this is a last ditch political ploy to rig the election.
I think that was part of the plan, put the issue in the news all the way up to the election. It was underestimated that many people don’t see his acts are rebellion.
How is it that “the dems waited til the last second to take any action” on disqualification? One cannot challenge the qualifications of a candidate for office until the candidate filing period has opened and the candidate files for office. And given compressed timeframes in election administration, the period available to challenge a candidate is typically short, and the decision timeframes are also typically compressed as well. If one wants a longer process, that would necessarily make election season last longer. Election season is already plenty long enough.
Remember kids, ballot signature verification is voter suppression, as is allowing certain candidates on the ballot at all.
From what I read, the Colorado example went really well. Full on trial to evaluate whether he was disqualified. The democratic party should have had 50 of these ready to go the moment he filed in each state, asking for TROs and injunctions, all with expedited election timelines. A uniform approached nationwide.
Instead we have a hodgepodge of trials, state SOSs taking action without a trial, etc. I’m not aware of any court action in Nevada other than the strange case in front of Judge Navarro with no standing. The dems had a decent shot of getting real traction with actual court decisions, both legally and politically. That would’ve given them a universal message. Instead, nobody knows what’s happening from one state to the next.
What the hell is in the water at Boyd? First deputy DA Castro tries to diddle a young girl, and now one of his classmates and former colleagues gets nabbed for DUI and reckless driving? The DA’s public relations department is working over time. Not a great look for Boyd either.
Did Boyd ever have a “great look”?
Yes. They have the 2nd most amazing legal writing program in the land. Hire a middle of the pack grad and you’ll see just how incredible that writing program is!
Sarcasm.
That is such a meaningless statement (about their writing program). I have worked with many Boyd graduates, and I’ve never been impressed by any of them. In the last seven years or so, each and every one has been well below what one should expect from a new graduate.
Why is it a Boyd problem and not a problem with the DA’s office? Regardless, they do God’s work, they should be exempt from and above our laws…..
Both of those “DAs” had worked in the office less than a year. It seems like it’s less a DA problem and more of a lack of qualified attorney applicants recently. The same issue that was discussed on another thread. The quality of attorneys has dropped significantly in the past 2 years. The number of applicants who are failing the bar multiple times (and who produce crap work even after passing the bar) is at an all-time high. Might be time to hire chatgpt instead.
Hire chatgpt? Uh huh, sure. How does a harmed client sue chatgpt for malpractice? How does a firm insure for chatgpt’s malpractice?
If you graduated in the last two years, you’d understand that it is 100% a Boyd problem. Not exactly churning out the best and brightest.