Pastor Daniel Keith Gabbard Sentenced To 20 Years for Killing a Prosecutor

• Ironic that Gabbard was the presiding minister for the funeral of one of the two killed by Robinson.

• Today (May 19, 2011), the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed Gabbard's convictions for wanton murder and driving under the influence of intoxicants.  This was a very unfortunate case.  Gabbard killed Doug Wright by driving his semi tractor truck, while speeding, over the top of Wright's car while his (Gabbard's) blood alcohol level was between 0.194 and 0.21 (i.e., over double the legal limit of 0.08).  Some of the posts below suggest that the prosecutors brought more serious charges because the victim had been a Commonwealth's Attorney.  Some of the posts also suggest that Gabbard should have received a more lenient sentence because he was remorseful.  Neither was an issue which Gabbard raised in his appeal; however, in its opinion, the Kentucky Supreme Court cited at least five previous cases and noted that multiple individuals previously have been convicted of wanton murder where the collision involved extreme intoxication combined with other egregious factors, such speeding, running a red light, or ignoring a police roadblock.  The victims in those cases were not prosecutors.  Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 507.020(1)(b) forbids a person from killing another person during "the operation of a motor vehicle under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person and thereby causes the death of another person."  Gabbard received the minimum sentence of imprisonment for wanton murder, which is 20 years under KRS 532.060.   As to the specific issues which Gabbard raised in his appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled, (1) that the jury verdict of wanton murder complied with the statutory definition of wanton murder, (2) that Gabbard's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were premature and that he could litigate the questions in a post conviction motion, and (3) that Gabbard's complaints about the jury selection were not properly preserved for appellate review because he had not properly complained about the jury selection until after the trial.  You can read the opinion for yourself at http://apps.kycourts.net/Supreme/SC_Opinions.shtm.  Enter "Daniel Keith Gabbard" in the search box, or you can enter the case number, 2010-SC-000435-MR.

• Let me just say this, Lery mahomey gets out im 16 years. He killed 29 people in worst dui crash in american history. He hits a church bus head on killing 29 people, kids all kinds of people. you people dont know keth had no other dui's eather i spent time with the man in jail and i got the hole story.I mean we all make mistakes but cause it was an elected offical thats why he got all that time. the trial was messed up and he is going to get his appeal so bla dix you just dont know

• TO EVERYONE OUT THERE GABBARD IS NOT THROWING STONES AT ANTONE I CAN TELL YOU THIS JESUS IS GOING TO GET VICTORY IN THIS HE IS NOT GUILTY YOU ALL WILL SEE THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT..................

• wowwow - So who are you suggesting the devil came to get?

• A very good point. As long as I've known Keith , he has always lived in Ky . Keith also has a family , I'm sure they are hurt as well. As a firm believer in God , I dont understand this. Once I had a beer , Drove home a few hours later and was parinoid the whole way . I would rather die instead of taking anyones life. I go out to eat see people drink wine , beer ,cocktails ect . We never know whats going to happen . I wish everone would take the time to think before drinking and driving . Too many people get hurt or even more Die . Knowing Keith personally as a friend , I am shocked as I'm sure most of the people who know him are . may God be with all involved .

• "As he drove south from his home in Cincinnati toward the Kentucky border, Gabbard downed nearly 16 beers in just a few hours." How'd he manage that? Cincinnati is right across the river from Kentucky. Just a few hours would put him halfway to Nashville.

• The last words, I heard from Keith was the devil is coming over and over. It was very very strong message and I knew the devil was coming to get someone and it wasn't going to be me.

• Interested Party - I was comparing it to another CDL Truck Driver case. Scott Robinson, also CDL truck driver driving his truck as he was drunk on Hwy 27, caused 2 deaths on October 28, 2004. KY prosecutors offered him a manslaughter plea agreement without having a trial. He was only sentenced to 20 yrs for taking 2 lives & must only serve 7 of the 20. Robinson had 3 prior DUI's! Gabbard has 0 priors. YOU people still wanna say there's no difference here???? DA gets killed = MURDER. 2 normal citizens get killed = manslaughter.

• I just found a case for KY where a woman had Xanax, Elavil, Soma, Valium and Hydrocodone plus some marijuana in her system and could not maintain consciousness for many hours after the crash and they overturned the wanton murder charge (Estep) but they held a wanton murder charge for alcohol at .297 BAC so clearly they are harder on alcohol than drugs with no apparent logical reason.

• Dan - It makes no sense to compare this to other DUI cases. This was not a DUI or wreckless homicide case. It was a wanton murder case. There is a distinct difference between someone leaving a bar after having a few drinks who gets in a fatal car accident and a professional (i.e. trained not to drink and drive) truck driver behind the wheel of a 20K lb truck after having consumed 16 beers in a 2 hour period. Kentucky law aknowledges that one is much more severe than the other, and provides sentences accordingly. So, you should be comparing this to other wanton murder cases, not your routine DUI or manslaughter case.

• Andyo, I simply said that his sentence was way too long in comparison for what others get. If you would like to argue that fact is incorrect with case examples, be my guest. But you are simply reiterating what you said before, with no facts. I never said he will never re-offend. If he does have 4 DUI's and then this, well, his chances of re-offending would be off the charts. (They would be very high, probably close to or at 100%) That's why he would never get his driver's license back. But most likely, he would drive anyway. I was pointing to the fact that drunk driving is a huge problem, extremely dangerous, and a huge monetary and emotional cost to victims, families of the driver, and the government. The current methods do not seem to be working very well and that alcohol sensing equipment would be better as a method of prevention and also save money, which I have proved it would. It doesn't matter anyway, b/c it will be in cars within the next decade. Don't you think that Gabbard would have much rather had one and missed work that day than have this happen? I bet people like him would be the first to sign up for it. Also, as far as the family deserving him to have that sentence, I was assaulted by someone and the prosecutor asked me what I thought should be done, just to give my opinion, but I highly doubt the judge will ask me what sentence to give the guy. And you never answered my question about religious figures being held to a higher standard per state staute, where is that? Right, I am a moron.

• You people commenting on here crack me up. 1st of all, Gabbard has 0 prior dui's. 2nd - he lives in the same county of the accident, that's why he thought the jury would show some compassion. 3rd - KY prosecutors have offered many prior individuals with prior dui's have pleas for vehicular homicide allowing them to serve less than 10 years in prison. So, there's clearly a difference that was made for the death of a KY District Attorney!

• Okay, so I just got caught up on this ridiculousness, and I'm glad I forgot about it because Mandy took care of the brunt of arguing with this ridiculous person (sorry Mandy), my highlight being: "Mandy said: Rocki, I don't understand what you are saying b/c you don't make sense. Not because i'm incapable of understanding due to my lack of intelligence. "Origional statement: sentence way too long. That's right". Like wtf does that mean? You are a fucking moron and if you were around me having this discussion, you probably would've already been blasted in the face." Rocki, fool, we understand the law. 5-7 years for killing someone else to teach him a lesson? Yes, we understand he made a horrible mistake and will never reoffend again. Probably. Maybe. Well, most likely. I mean its doubtful. AKA an assumption you are making. He got what he deserved, the victim's family deserves him getting that, and you possibly deserve a year in jail for your moronic ideas. You are obviously either a. Keith Gabbard's lover, wife or b. mother or sister?

• I think you got that name from a long time ago, you may want to catch up, shit sack. (I didn't write that above)

• Rocki: Great detective work, but I'm afraid that wasn't me. I'm guessing I could easily find a blog post from "Rocki" somewhere else, but that wouldn't necessarily mean it's you. It's a big internet world out there!

• 20 years!?!?! This man needs to get life or if we're lucky DEATH ROLL!!!

• No, I just forgot about that song b/c I was on another track b/c people were getting so bent out of shape about this I thought they were serious. And "interested" "concerned", etc. do you also go by "interested citizen" maybe on an Alyssa Bustamante post on another site? Ha Ha, I saw you!

• Hey! I'm 25 and I know that song! Isn't that number like disconnected now or something? And even if it is someones real number, how would you even figure out the area code?!?! I know about 5 different area codes, but I doubt that number would work with the ones I know! It was actually very funny to me, Concerned! Kinda lightened things for a minute, til Rocki got a little offensive over it. But then it was right back to funny as I started singing it and subsituted "Jenny" for "Rocki". Didn't quite fit, but still funny! Sorry Rocki, no dissrespect or anything, but it was funny!

• Thank you, Interested. I'm 28, but I still knew the song. Funny.

• I'm guessing that everyone over the age of 40 did, which includes me.

• Question: Did anyone understand the Jenny reference? Just wondering how many people were puzzled by this.

• Rocki, As I expected.

• and do you even have any idea what nimby means? If so, how does it refer to me as an individual? and what does first type of thinking mean?

• Mandy, What question did I not answer? Of course you think I'm a moron, b/c your narrow-minded me-first type of thinking cannot grasp what I am saying. I know what those words mean. Why would I use them over and over if I didn't? You're the one who had to look them up. If can't wrap your peabrain around the fact that that phrase describes you perfectly when you consider this person, then whatever. We disagree and you and Interested up there can innocently act dumb, but I am done posting on this, I have other things to do.

• Rocki, I figured you had no idea of what you were saying... can't even answer the question.

• Mandy, There was never any doubt in my mind why a person like you would think I was a moron.

• Interested Party, I've already tried to explain this to her... but shes on the lower end of the intelligence scale and can't quite seem to grasp things.

• Rocki, Elitist: 1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite. 2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group. Nimby: used to express opposition by local citizens to the locating in their neighborhood of a civic project, as a jail, garbage dump, or drug rehabilitation center, that, though needed by the larger community, is considered unsightly, dangerous, or likely to lead to decreased property values. Do you still wonder why I think you are a moron and have no idea what you're talking about?

• Rocki, Elitist:1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite. 2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group. Nimby: used to express opposition by local citizens to the locating in their neighborhood of a civic project, as a jail, garbage dump, or drug rehabilitation center, that, though needed by the larger community, is considered unsightly, dangerous, or likely to lead to decreased property values And do you still question why I think you are a moron?

• Rocki - I have no ill intent. I just assumed that you had additional information that you didn't want to share online, since you stated previously that a sober man driving home after a day of work only to be crushed by a 20K LB truck being driving by a professional driver who had consumed 16 beers in 4 hours "was guilty and deserved this fate".

• I agree that it is excessive. I believe they should receive a more harsh punishment for their first offense, not wait until they have four. However, I still feel that people that commit other crimes such as rape or murder shouldn't be getting less time than a DUI. These laws should be amended. However, I still found it funny that someone was (in my opinion) jokingly asking for someone's number. I thought I would respond with something silly as well.

• Oh...it's probably Mandy anyhow so she can scream at me in person. This just wasn't fair to this guy and something should be done about it, that's all. 17 years is excessive, but he can't be trusted to not drink & drive so their methods have not worked, I still think 5-7 years would be sufficient to teach this guy a lesson, 17 basically equates to life for this guy's age. Drinking and driving is not the same as intentional murder or they would call it "first degree murder"

• Rocki - Lighten up, it's a friggin song from the 80's. Just about any person in the free world can recite this number and how Jenny will answer it if you call. I was joking as I'm sure that Interested Party was as well. Who in their right mind would post their personal information on a public website?

• My name is not Jenny and that is not my number, not even close. Do you realize that people threaten each other on this website and to publish people's private information on the internet is very dangerous...look at the post on the dog dragging by that lunatic threatening me. Do you want someone like that or that vampire guy having people's personal information? It's one thing to call someone stupid or a cocksucker but those people should scare you. Mandy, That's a nice attempt to get me to explain what a nimby is, if you're so smart, figure it out yourself. Concerned, you should call Jenny and apologize b/c that's not me.

• Interested Party, I don't know what your intent is in asking for my phone number but I am not publishing it on this site.

• Interested Party - ha. I'm sure she won't share it so I'm going to since I have it. Her name is Jenny and it is 867-5309. Have a nice chat.

• Rocki, and do you even have any idea what nimby means? If so, how does it refer to me as an individual?

• Rocki - Could you please provide your phone number? I'd love to have a conversation with you about this.

• Rocki, Well the last time I commented on the elitist you said you were speaking about the drunk driver... Thats what I dont like about you or your comments, and why I say you are a fucking moron. b/c you keep making comments and when someone calls you out on them you say, 'oh i didn't say that, or thats not what i meant." Whatever. I would much rather pop you in the mouth than continue listening to the garbage that keeps seeping out of your man pleaser!

• Mandy, I didn't say you were unintelligent. I said what you are, and elitist nimby. But I'm questioning the intelligence thing now that you feel you would resort to phsyical violence if you don't agree with something or understand something. I'm glad you're out there making women look really good by calling people "fucking morons"!

• Rocki, I don't understand what you are saying b/c you don't make sense. Not because i'm incapable of understanding due to my lack of intelligence. "Origional statement: sentence way too long. That's right". Like wtf does that mean? You are a fucking moron and if you were around me having this discussion, you probably would've already been blasted in the face.

• Rocki, "then the hell with them, let them rot. Fairly or unfairly. Long sentence, short sentence, doesn't matter who gets what b/c it's not my problem." And you're damned right its not my problem!! I dont drink and drive, and I shouldn't have to pay to keep this jackass in jail. Sorry if you think it makes me a heartless person; but if that asshole thought his punishment was death if he killed someone, then maybe he would have thought twice before drinking and driving and KILLING someone. But he didn't think that.. so I say eye for and eye.. kill him now, so when he finds a loophole in our shitty government, and gets released early, he wont have the opportunity to make another bad decision and take another INNOCENT persons life!

• Mandy, I couldn't care less. Tell me I'm a stupid asshole moron and then tell me you don't understand what I'm saying. Origional statement: sentence way too long. That's right. Drunk driving does not equal intentional murder, end of story. He didn't get a jury made of his peers, in that little tiny town, he got one made of the victim's peers. And you are absolutely right, if alcohol detection devices are put in all cars, people will find a way to dismantle them and still get DUI's, and those are exactly the most deviant drunks, the people you want to put in jail. You have to find them first.

• Rocki, It is sad that you are a woman, and I will have to put you on the list of idiot woman who make other women look bad. Just b/c you try to use big words and your comments are packed full of USELESS information, doesn't make you intelligent. Nothing about breathalyzers offends me; b/c I don't drink and drive as I have said before. All I said was putting breathalyzers in everyones car is not going to fix the problem. People find ways around anything. And I was unaware that I'd given any solutions. So i don't understand what you are judging unfair or impossible.

• Mandy, It's not sad that I am a woman. It's great b/c I am more intelligent that you or Andryo, if not that, at least more perceptive and less narrow-minded. I fully understand what you are saying, that this guy is scum, like his fellow repeat offenders, that his sentence is just, & alcohol detection devices in all cars are not a good idea b/c they offend you personally, I just disagree with you and your solutions are neither fair or possible in reality.

• Rocki, It is sad to hear that you are a woman. I am calling you a stupid moron. You ramble and ramble and ramble and I'm tired of reading your comments and trying to make you understand something, only to get the same reply from you, except worded different. I'm over it

• You're calling me a stupid moron, saying you'll type slow for me, saying I am trying to bamboozle people with statistics from the dept. of highway safety and then saying you don't understand how my mind works? Please don't give me more ammunition. I'm not saying one is more intelligent but see how Andryo up there just said "oh you're just wrong and that's all there is to it" and then promptly left the scene, after he figured out I was right? Elitist doesn't mean I you are saying you are more intelligent than me, this story is not about me or you. Elitist means exclusive and better. The ability to remove yourself from a group of people because you do not possess the same attributes as them, in this case the stupidity to be an alcoholic and still take a job as a truck driver. That would be to say that since I am a woman, I can say that prostate cancer is caused by an unhealthy diet and that we do not need to research or treat it b/c I will never have to deal with it and people who get it are worse than me so what if they die? Doesn't bother me, never will. So, since you are not a drunk driver, then the hell with them, let them rot. Fairly or unfairly. Long sentence, short sentence, doesn't matter who gets what b/c it's not my problem.

• Rocki, I have absolutely no idea how your brain works. I guess I'll try one more time... I'll type slow for ya. There is no secret 'codes' to anything I say in my comments. 'I think you are very much like the morons/assholes that are running the government'... meaning.. you talk about how smart you are, all your big ideas how this world can be so much better, knowing how everything should be done; all your facts falling out of your ass. But you like everyone else don't do shit about it. Its much easier to sit online and add up figures for all your calculations and spit em out at people to argue your side of things. Its lame, and once again your last reply is full of your 'figures' for your plan to save our country. Its repetative and its irritating. And get off the elitist bullshit... know ones saying they're more intelligent ; just that you're wrong.

• Andyo, Mandy, What a lovely collection of elitist nimby's. The problem with that type of thinking is that when something applies to you, you actually have to resort to lying eventually, when you said, Mandy that you didn't say I worked for the government. "morons like you running the government" is what you said, is that a code that I don't understand. Thank you for throwing me that bone about jail time on speeders, etc. But I can see thru it. "Speeders" are not as bad as drunk drivers, even though they apparently kill 2 1/2 times as many people. Hmm. Interesting. So the sentencing should be more severe for them, habitual speeders, if they are eventually invovled in a fatal accident. Not "jail time", "prison time" and lots of it. Drunk driving is terrible in that is raises your chances of having a fatal accident by 250 %; but apparently, speeding and other terrible driving moves raise it by over 500%. Anyhow, if we were to jail all the drunk drivers each year (1.5 million) this would add to the currently 2 million prison population, almost doubling it each year. They would have to build the current number of prisons they have now each year. If you feel so strongly about this, maybe you can call your congressman and ask for new prisons and execution chambers to be built in your area.

• Andyo, "So as not to go around in more circles I will again say and just regurgitate what has already been said, in more specific terms, Mandy is right and Rocki has just not realized that he is wrong. Night." It's so refreshing to see that adults can still have a rich and fulfilling fantasy life. Some people get so old fartish with all their facts and reality.

• Well, from as far as I can tell, everyone agrees on the same thing. He got what he desreved. Whether it was too long or not long enough, he got what he deserved, right? I can see everyones point. If they are going to give him this long of a sentence, shouldn't all people involved in drunk driving fatalities get the same? If people who are just down right evil and plan to kill, rape, molest, or otherwise harm others get just as harsh if not harsher sentences? I see both sides. There is no right or wrong answer, I don't think. In my opinion, I think every state should have the same punishments for every crime. If you rape in Ohio you get the same sentence as someone who raped in California. If you molest in North Carolina you get the same sentence as someone who molested in Alaska. If you get a DUI(s) in Kansas you should get the same sentence as someone in Vermont. I know its only my dream, but it makes a lot of sense. True, certain things, like accidental murder, intentional murder, and self-defense, should be taken into account. But rape is rape. Molestation is molestation. If all those who do those certain crimes are given the same sentence no matter what state, maybe just MAYBE there would less of those. Like I said, its only my dream/fanasty of punishment for scum like that, but I can alwasy dream! With that being said, I don't know about all states but my husband almost lost his license, not just his CDL,for having I think 4 moving violations on his record in a certain amount of time. He had to go to court and get diversion for the last one so he could keep on truckin, as the saying goes! And actually one of his tickets was my fault! He was driving my car and "ran" a red light (it had actually just turned yellow and the cop followed him for about two miles before he even pulled him over) and I didn't have insurance. Weird thing is, I was actually going to pay it that morning(he got pulled over at 7:45, insurance opened at 8!) Money was tight and insurance was the last thing on my mind! He told the judge all that had happened and that he was unaware that I had no insurance. She didn't care. Actually she is just a hateful hag and needs to retire, but you shouldn't actually say that to her! I guess my point to that whole rant is, if my husband could almost loose his license/CDL over 4 moving violations, why in the heck did this guy still have his after so many odd DUI's?!?! I mean, that's just askin for trouble in my opinion. Trucks are dangerous whether or not the driver is sober, but drunk? Not sayin his sentence is too light or too heavy, not really sure about that one just yet. But it seems to me that at least his CDL should have been taken away or suspended by the first one. People who depend on their CDL's tend to change real fast when its taken away. Well, at least my husband did! He almost never goes over the speed limit, will stop at all yellow lights, and has even refused to haul a load if its over the limit. He even yells at me for driving a little too fast or going thru a yellow light.

• Hi rocki it's just me C.C. Not sure why everyone is so hot about this topic? About a year ago there was an article about DUI's. 1st DUI: drunk school, probation, SR22 insurance, license suspended for 4 months, a fine. Week-end in jail. 2nd DUI same thing, except bigger fine. 3rd-4th possible prison time. 5th DUI the individuals Licenses is revoked for the remainder of their life. Unless of course the drunk has an accident. Once the DUI goes to court it will not be reduced to a misterminer, it becomes a felony. If an individual receives a DUI and than continues to get moreDUI's within 7 years of the first one, the law and the judges become very hard on the criminal. If the person is a repeat DUI offender and commits a homicide, the law is not going to show lenience to the offender and the sentencing is longer. A Granite City man with five prior DUIs accepted the maximum sentence Tuesday for driving drunk in a 91-mph crash that killed a young man. Donald W. Canterbery, 57, received a 28-year prison sentence in exchange for pleading guilty to aggravated drunken driving and related charges. He pleaded guilty to driving drunk in a February wreck in Pontoon Beach that killed Adam Zimmer, 26.

• Rocki's original tirade was that the dude's sentence was way to long.... again he killed another human being and yes Rocki we understand the concept of intent, willfull neglect, etc. So as not to go around in more circles I will again say and just regurgitate what has already been said, in more specific terms, Mandy is right and Rocki has just not realized that he is wrong. Night.

• Rocki, And to answer your other question... Yes, if there was a fatality (or even a really bad accident)due to reckless high speeds; hell yes they get jail time, and definetly lose their licence.

• Rocki, I never said you worked for the government.... what i said was assholes LIKE you...... No i did not address the others idiots on the road b/c that was not the discussion. The discussion was this drunk driver. Yeah and i do refer to people who drink and drive as scum, b/c they are. They are risking other peoples safety.......

• I am sticking up for something that would take away 1.5 billion dollars per year in revenue for the government so that make you think I work for the government? Wow, you really are smarter than me. You never addressed the speeders and tailgaters and generally shit all stupid idiots who account for the rest of the 70% of highway fatalities per year. Let me correct "your right to drive" to your elitist right to drive since you are not the "scum" that would drink and drive. You categorize drinking in a worse category than general asshole driving but it looks like general asshole driving is responsible for more than twice as many deaths as drinking. Therefore, speeding and the like should carry higher sentences than 20 years. Agreed?

• Rocki, It does piss me off. B/c we have morons like you running our government;you who know it all, and sling facts around and strong opinions, so they can be right. Be right all you want, not gonna change anything. But when it comes to actually fixing the problem, nothing gets done. You and Gina should team up and start a new crusade! You guys are so right, you should be able to fix everything.

• Mandy, That's where you're missing the point. This doesn't interfere with anyone's right to drive, just to drive drunk which is NOT a right. You all whine and cry that I have no facts, then when I give them to you, you burst a blood vessel. Here's some unsolicited advice: Don't go around asking for things that you know are going to piss you off.

• Rocki, I wish i was able to stop you before you went off on your tangent..... but the 'rights' I was referring to, we're the rights I had to just drive a car. Why do I have to get a breathalyzer put it my car? I don't drink and drive. And I know many many people that would agree. How about putting breathalyzers in peoples car who get DUI's, the 1st time. Yeah I agree with your logic of the whole breathalyzer thing, but you make it irrational by taking it to the extremes that you do, so you can try and prove your side.

• As far as drunk driving = willful killing, only 30% of driving fatalities are alcohol-related. So, 70% of us can't drive worth a fuck sober anyhow and those people should also go to jail if they were speeding and tailgating, etc. They should get lengthy sentences, too, just like this guy.

• Mandy, People's rights? I was never aware that any of us had a right to drink and drive. I thought it was always illegal. You are getting this confused with the tapping into phone conversations to find terrorists, which could possibly expose other criminal activity, like drugs and prostition and gambling. This is something completely different. It only prevents drunk driving, I can still rob a bank and use it as aget away car as long as I'm sober. If you think it's an invasion of rights, then what about those people who got busted kicking the dogs, almost the same thing, but that is actually a case of the camera being used for a purpose it's not designed for, which is much more an invasion of rights than a breathalyzer. It doesn't matter anyhow, corporate and personal greed will do us all a favor on this one. Technology is already being developed to sense BAC non-invasively. If companies like Volvo & Saab installed them in their vehicles, what do you think that would do to their safety ratings? What would be the gov. perks for this for them? A lot, (too bad that won't share it with the customers.) What kind of perks will insurance companies give? The only people who stand to lose out would be the slimy DUI lawyers and who's going to stick up for them? You?

• Gina, See thats what you can't wrap your little head around... if you choose to drink and drive; whether you are a fucking idiot or not; you are deciding to take someones life in your own hands. Sure, you can hope you will get lucky and make it home w/o hurting anyone... but you know its a possibility... a good possibility... thus having every intention of hurting someone. They are the same as a rapist! You keep bitching about how corrupt our legal system is, do something about it. If you feel so strongly, and you know how to make the system work and work fairly then that should be your new goal. Good luck with that!

• God'sCop, B/C HE KILLED A HUMAN BEING!! Thats why he should get the book thrown at him. Don't you get it. You all are trying to prove this point that people are getting set free from their punishment and they shouldn't be released because they CHOSE to kill someone to see what if felt like or rape an innocent child. (Rocki, lets just all agree and assume the child was innocent. No i don't have proof of that; but i'm pretty sure.)Gabbard CHOSE to drink and drive and killed someone and you're saying he's getting dicked b/c he got a longer punishment than some other drunk drivers who've killed someone.

• Rocki, "Anyone who is willing to abuse power like that should be stripped of it immediately. Considering this sentence and other stories everyday about law enforcement, how do we know that justice wasn't served when that guy was given his dirt nap?" This comment really erks me too. You're justifying this guys dying b/c maybe he was part of the corrupt 'law enforment'. Yeah there are cops who are corrupt; whole departments. But you can't assume b/c he was a DA, that he was corrupt and deserved a dirt nap. That is cold. And to answer your previous question... I would say he was 'innocent' b/c he was NOT drinking and driving. He was abiding by the laws when HE got ran into by a drunk driver. I would definetly say he was innocent.

• Mandy, obviously, you cant read either. I don't care what he gets charged with, I dont care if he gets a lesser sentence or a higher sentence, but yes rape is a more severe crime than this. Why? Because the rapist had every intention on hurting someone and isn't just a fucking idiot like this guy is. READ Mandy. I dont want this guy to get a lesser sentence, I think they need to charge the more extreme crimes accordingly and keep those bastards in jail 19 years like this guy instead of 7.

• Rocki, You speak as if you REALLY believe putting breathalyzers in cars are going to be this miraculous fix. Its not just money thats gonna be an issue. You're talking about 'peoples rights' and changing laws... and a ton of other shit that you're not even considering. Its not gonna happen, so you may as well stop running it into the ground, and just consider letting assholes like Gabbard rot in jail for the rest of his life! He made a choice to take someones life. He should take his punishment and consider it a blessing that he's still alive.

• If Doug Wright could comment on this site, which do you think he would pick? Longer sentences or breathalyzers?

• Well, here are your facts, it should be common sense to you all but since you are being such babies, I will give them to you. It costs and average of around $20,000 per year to keep a person in jail. So with his sentence, it will total over $230,000. There are about 12,000 dui fatalities reported in 2008. At that rate it would cost $240,000 per yer to house all the drunk drivers (just for fatalities) There are actually 1.5 million arrests for DUI in the US per year. At that rate, it's $3,000,000,000,000 per year to house drunk drivers in jail, I don't even know what that number is. There were about 8 million passenger cars sold in the US in 2007, double that to account for other vehicles, you get 16 million. Breathalyzer technology per car is about $1000. The cost per year in each vehicle in the US would be 1,600,000,000,000. So basically half the cost of DUI's.

• rocki said: "what is this? come at me with some cold hard numbers. None of you will ever beat me b/c I am right and you are wrong. And I actually wish you were right b/c I could sure use the sleep." ------------ Actually they are right and you just have not realized that you are wrong.

• Gina, You're referring to something such as drinking til you're shitfaced and stupid, and running into someone and killing them 'crap'? How is it in anyway a lesser of a crime than rape? You guys don't make any sense... you want to rant on and on about how are goverment legal system is shit, and then say this asshole should get a lesser sentence b/c it was an accident and its the cops fault b/c they let him have a drivers licence after 4 DUI's. Give me a break, this asshole deserves to rot.

• One more thing: I'm all for making sentences for child molestation, rape, etc. MUCH harsher than they are now. Some here (Gina) seem to be arguing that b/c sentences are too light for these crimes, the sentence for killing someone while drunk should also be lighter. That's illogic. Irresponsibility that leads to a preventable death is typically called either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, and carries 5 years in my state (independent of other factors) if involuntary, 10 if voluntary (as driving drunk certainly would qualify). Aggravating that: prior DUIs, being that drunk (he wasn't just edging over the line here, he was 4x the legal limit). Aggravating factors bump up your sentence. He got what he deserved. Rocki: pot, kettle, black. Show us YOUR facts. All you've put here are opinions, nothing more.

• Do I have this correctly? B/c states have failed to put breathalyzers in vehicles, and b/c other criminals don't get this harsh a sentence ... he should only get 1-5 years for KILLING a man while driving at 4x the legal limit for DUI? After four previous convictions? Sorry, no. As for statutes ... statutes rarely apply to sentencing, where aggravating/mitigating factors apply. These are determined by case law, predominantly, not by statute. Yes, people in moral authority are typically held to a higher standard, as they should be. If the roles were reversed—drunk prosecutor with history of DUIs kills a pastor behind the wheel—the same should apply. Also, the fact that the man had priors does factor into a longer sentence. Should the pastor have been behind the wheel? Of course not. But we cannot legislate common sense, or use the flaws in the system to justify lighter sentences. That's nonsense. That's what the criminal justice system is for.

• Anyone who is willing to abuse power like that should be stripped of it immediately. Considering this sentence and other stories everyday about law enforcement, how do we know that justice wasn't served when that guy was given his dirt nap?

• mcr, In all seriousness, name-calling aside (I apologize, I shouldn't get that bent out of shape.) If breathalyzer technology were installed in all cars, it would greatly reduce expenditures more than what it costs, plus how can we put a price on people's innocent kids in their baby seats who are killed by drunk drivers every day? What about that woman who had 8 kids in her car and was going the wrong way on the highway? Shouldn't we at least try to prevent that? It just saddens me that we could do so much more but the government doesn't seem to care about protecting public safety like they say. They wait until the tragedy happens. I know people would think it was an invasion of their privacy, but so were the cameras that caught those people in the elevators beating dogs. Should people be able to get away with drunk driving just because they didn't get caught? No, we are not entitled to decide that. It's illegal every time someone does it, no matter if they get caught or not. Here's a taste of what the government is spending money on and will be having us spend money on in the coming years. Take a look at you electric bill in the future. They have determined that CO2 is a pollutant so they are going to have power companies contain and bury it instead of release it into the atmosphere and they power companies are going to pass the cost onto us. Now, I'd much rather pay for breathalyzers in cars than that. It would really do much good in sobering drunks up, I bet it would cause a huge decrease in alcoholism itself, b/c when you start limiting someone's freedom to go where they want, they would probably sober up right away

• "And if you can't spot the 900 "typos" you make, then you're even dumber than I originally thought, or you just can't speak English" MCR EXAMPLE: Lord of the Flies (when you reiterated what me and a couple of other people) David

• MCR, maybe your the one who should read more of what people are saying before you decide to put your two cents in on other peoples opinons. I don't care what he gets charged with, I said he does deserved to be charged with killing that man and he does deserve a hard sentence, I just find it riddiculous that one would get 19 years for this when they let child molesters out sometimes less than 7. Its not like Im saying, oh poor mister drunk driver. But it was an accident, they need to charge these dumb fucks who do shit intentionally like raping people, or murdering just to see what it feels like with an even higher sentence if they're going to charge him with 19 years for this crap. My problem is with the legal system and who decides the lengths of these sentences. If they are going to put every drunk driver in jail for that long, so be it more power to them, I dont care I dont drink and drive. All I'm saying is if they are, charge these people who intended to kill and hurt people accordingly.

• It does sound like blatant misuse of power by the prosecution team. Why should this guy have the book thrown at him or the case be handled any differently because it was a prosecutor he killed? Granted he (the truck driver) acted like a reckless irresponsible jerk and he should be convicted, but treated like any other criminal irregardless of who he killed. "Prosecutors made the salient point that any man -- especially one who makes a living off of touting morality and decency" This same point should be argued when a law enforcement officer commits a crime or indecent act, unfortunately this is not the case. This double standard makes a mockery of the "justice system" and is why it needs to be radically changed.

• Rocki -- nothing you have said is right, except when you reiterated what me and a couple of other people already said about the fact that this man never should have been behind the wheel to begin with, considering his past DUI's. What sense does it make to have everyone paying for breathalyzers in their cars when not everyone drinks? If you get a DUI, then you deserve to pay the fines, in addition to any jail time you may receive. I shouldn't have to go through extra b.s. because some ignoramus like yourself can't figure out when it's not okay to drive. And if you can't spot the 900 "typos" you make, then you're even dumber than I originally thought, or you just can't speak English. Own up to one of them. From here on out, I'm going to call you out on every typo you make. So keep on it. This man deserves 19 years not only because of the fact that he killed a man, but because of how many other lives he could have taken by committing such a stupid act. And Gina, I don't see the same people who are defending Alyssa Bussamante condemning Daniel Gabbard. Both of them deserve to do a lot of time for completely different reasons. She's criminally insane, and this man is so selfish and inconsiderate of human life that he thinks it's okay to knock back 16 beers while driving his semi, even after 4 DUI's. You think this man deserves less, you're a f*cking idiot. It's not like they're giving him the chair. I don't understand what goes on in the mind of someone who thinks this guy is getting the sh*t end of the stick when the other guy involved is DEAD as a result of Gabbard's actions.

• Gina, Oh I'm sorry. I was totally unaware of these typo people. I don't get people on typos b/c I do the myself even after i rad, so they are not possible to escape. No, that is not directed toward you, I just didn't know what "*" meant.

• Rocki- I think atleast the rest of the comment was for the people trying to fight with you about this, but the "*" was because I put than instead of then on my first post and we have these crazies on here that jump on everyone about any typo what-so-ever so I've been correcting myself lately to avoid from being attacked like so many other people have.

• "*" what is this? come at me with some cold hard numbers. None of you will ever beat me b/c I am right and you are wrong. And I actually wish you were right b/c I could sure use the sleep.

• Thats a good point, he shouldnt have been driving at all. With four dui's his license should have been revoked, and even if they let him keep his personal drivers license his commercial drivers license should have been taken away atleast after the second DUI. I agree, we need harsher punishment for drinking and driving to prevent tragedies like this from happening. Its sad how often things like this really occure. But I still do think he's at fault, a person is responsible for their actions reguardless of what measures should have been taken to prevent it. I just believe 19 years is riddiculous when people are escaping with 1/2 as much time for much worse and evil crimes.

• *then

• Gina, thank you for your voice of reason. this is the opitme of "the accident that never should have happened" why is this guy driving a commercial truck with 4 dui's? Why is he driving at all? Hello people!!!

• Without a doubt this man should have been charged with reckless driving, and should be facing prison time for manslaughter of some kind. But it gets me that people think this man deserves a longer sentence than some child molesters usually get. And then people are so quick to defend someone like Alyssa Bussamante who intentionally murdered a little girl to see what murder felt like. Some feel she shouldnt face jail time at all, yet some of the same people feel this pastor deserves 19 years in jail because he's an idiot who used poor judgement and by cause and effect killed someone? Don't get me wrong, ofcourse he should go to jail. Ofcourse he should be prosecuted for killing that man. Ofcourse drunk driving is stupid and reckless. Ofcourse he should have a hard sentence, especially since it wasn't his first offense. I just think there needs to be a comprimise. If one is going to be sentenced 19 years for killing someone unintentionally from drunk driving than sentences for crimes like intentional murder, rape, and child molestation need to be moved up and have far less ways out of it. (IE the insanity plea or having the courts sympathy because of age.)

• Why do you idiots choose to allow others to define "personal responsibility" when you, yourselves could define it?

• italian dude, please do not pay attention to these morones.. specifically, and "innocent man" We really have no proof that this person was innocent and considering the incomprehensible misuse of power that this jurisdiction seems capable of, I highly doubt that was the case. So, Mandy, How was this person "innocent" please provide facts. If you can't, I will assume he was guilty and deserved his fate.

• mcr, Please keep smoking crack. It make you look really smart. Nothing I have said is logical? Prove it with facts. Otherwise I will assume that I am the logical authority. I'll make it real easy for you. Prove that breathalyzers in all cars cost more than DUI's and I will voluntarily commit myself to a mental institution. (for a week-end) What will you bet in return? Dweeb.

• Gabbard may have had a habit of drinking and driving that lulled him into a false feeling of being able to handle it. This time it caught up with him and caused a man to lose his life. I think the sentence isn't long enough. I say this because I'm thinking of the survivors. His parents, wife, children, inlaws, and other relatives will have to deal with their loss for the rest of their lives. He should not be given a free pass or a reduced sentence because it was an "accident." A key feature of personal responsibility involves thinking about the consequences of decisions before you make them. I drive, so I choose not to drink. I pay my bills instead of going on shopping sprees and risk losing my house and everything I own. Don't use the term personal responsibility if you don't plan to accept its consequences when you fail to take responsibility for your actions.

• MCR, EXACTLY!!!

• I'm convinced Rocki is not of sound mind. Hardly anything he says is logical. Yes, Rocki. It is fair to ask you to pay for all breathalyzers. Because I wasn't being facetious or anything. Get a clue, dweeb. There are a lot of things we could do to either raise money or save money. It's not my responsibility either. I don't even own a car. I use the amazing public transportation Portland has to offer. Maybe if we took a cue from many European countries and permanently revoked the licenses of such offenders, they wouldn't have a chance to go back out, do it again and kill someone in the process. And would that cost anyone anything? No, it wouldn't. The government would just lose out on all the reinstatement fees one has to pay after having their license revoked for a period of time. Most offenders get three or more chances before their license is permanently revoked and that's not right.

• Italian Dude, If you decide to drink and drive, (especially to the extreme he did)then you should know (have the intention) of hurting someone; possibly killing them. HE is CHOOSING to drink while he is driving. He was aware of what could happen. He was aware there is no 'take-backs'. The only sad part is, an innocent man died, and now his family will be w/o him. You always hear later, "that was never the intention"... well yeah; he didn't set out to kill someone;but he DID do something to put people in harms way. A choice is a choice.

• look i feel sorry for this guy and before i get any bad feedback let me explain why,the guy never intended to hurt any one he was just iresponsible,he never dreamed he would of killed someone that day,i too once drove home drunk when i was a teenager and it could of happend to me,that being said i think the sentence was just,17 years is a long time,and he can always continue his sermons in the big house.

• Rocki, I think your calculations are a bit extreme.

• I don't think it's fair to ask me to pay for breathalyzers to be installed in all cars since I am not responsible for all drunk drivers of the future since I cannot work with marry all people and drive them to drink. Your logic is so flawed it's hysterical. The money that would be saved by not paying to jail drunk drivers (your idea would be to jail them longer and then what? If it costs too much, execute them? That would be a decided step backwards for society) not paying for victims' funds or medical bills. Or rescues or the courts' cost. The money saved by installing breathalyzers would be so great that the whole justice system could do that and still have enough left over to give itself a triple pay raise!!!

• The fact is, the sentence this man received SHOULD be the sentence for all drunk-driving fatalities, if not worse. He got what he deserved. It's the other people who get off too easy. And Rocki, if you'd like to personally pay to install breathalyzers in all vehicles, then by all means, do it. There are lots of things we could do to prevent people from dying in various ways and they all cost money.

• Exactly oceandaisy. There's always some way around it. Put those in peoples vehicles and they'll be driving kids around while drinking, so they have someone to blow into it. People are gonna do what they want! They find ways around every "barrier" you put up. Yeah, I get it; they stiffed him. But come on man; hes claiming to be a "preacher", drinking and driving, and killed someone. Maybe they were too hard on him, lifes a bitch! Don't set yourself up to get screwed over. He made a life changing decision, not only for himself, but for Doug Wright and his family. So he has to deal w/ whatever they throw at him. Just or unjust.

• If this is out of line with other sentences, I would posit that it's the others that are wrong - this man appears to have gotten exactly what he deserves. From now on, this should be the norm.

• he was drinking WHILE driving, so the truck would've started just fine because he wouldn't have been drunk when he left.

TotalComments: 100