• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Local woman gets her 11th DUI and still gets out on bail

aphex

Moderator<br>All Things Apple
Moderator
Jul 19, 2001
38,572
2
81
http://www.heraldtribune.com/a..._11th__2nd_in_2_weeks_

Despite a series of arrests for drunken driving and drivers' license suspensions over the past 20 years, Janet Landrum keeps getting behind the wheel.

Janet Landrum listed an Ellenton address, but the owners say she never lived there.
Less than two weeks before she was nabbed by a Manatee County deputy Saturday for her 11th DUI arrest, Landrum was pulled over, accused of driving 92 mph on Interstate 75, according to the Florida Highway Patrol.

The trooper who stopped her just south of University Parkway at about 10:15 a.m. Aug. 11 charged Landrum with driving with a revoked license, Sarasota court records show.

Landrum, 41, was released, and was driving again at 2:20 a.m. Saturday on Cortez Road in Manatee County when she was stopped for weaving, braking needlessly and rapidly changing lanes, authorities say.

A deputy arrested her on a charge of drunken driving. That was then believed to be her 10th arrest on the charge.

But that total did not include an 11th DUI arrest that happened in St. Johns County in October 2002 that was later reduced to a reckless driving charge. <snip>
I'm all for giving someone a second chance, but 11 chances? Everyone makes a mistake once in their life, but the fact that she keeps doing it makes me sick to my stomach. I have some friends who nearly lost their life due to the stupidity of a drunk driver, I have very little sympathy for people who make such stupid decisions.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
After your second offense, you should face something like 90 days in jail. After your third offense, it should be two years in jail.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
I am not certain what is going on with this case, but being a FL resident I can assure you that this is not common by any means. There is something else in the works here.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
She needs life imprisonment. Such repeated callous disregard for the lives of others deserves nothing less.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,927
1,259
126
Too bad the article doesn't mention how many prior CONVICTIONS she has (just arrests), whether she has served jail time before and what jail time (realistically) she is facing now. Odds are she is now realistically facing some serious jail time, but the reporter did such a lousy job, we are left to guess.

In my state, based on the very limited info I would advise her to pack her bag for a long stay, especially with a prior just a week or two earlier.
 

gevorg

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2004
5,075
1
0
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
After your second offense, you should face something like 90 days in jail. After your third offense, it should be two years in jail.
:thumbsup:

 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
I don't know about anyone else but this screams of sexism. She has 11 DUI's and not in jail for a long period of time? Find me a Male offender that has 11 DUI's (if you can find one). I bet anything, the male counterpart of the same crime is in jail now.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,301
14,509
136
The only acceptable reason for denial of bail is if the accused is deemed a flight risk. She's not, so that's the end of that song and dance...

What the sentence may be if she's convicted is another matter entirely...

Due process... one of those pesky Constitutional rights, remember?
 

Veramocor

Senior member
Mar 2, 2004
389
1
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The only acceptable reason for denial of bail is if the accused is deemed a flight risk. She's not, so that's the end of that song and dance...

What the sentence may be if she's convicted is another matter entirely...

Due process... one of those pesky Constitutional rights, remember? .
....or a danger to society. she is.





Edit: quoted wrong person, fixed it.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I don't know about anyone else but this screams of sexism. She has 11 DUI's and not in jail for a long period of time? Find me a Male offender that has 11 DUI's (if you can find one). I bet anything, the male counterpart of the same crime is in jail now.
I wouldn't jump on that band wagon just yet. It seems ridiculously obvious to me that there is a big piece to this story missing here. More than likely, I would say that Thump is closer to the truth:

Originally posted by: Thump553
Too bad the article doesn't mention how many prior CONVICTIONS she has (just arrests), whether she has served jail time before and what jail time (realistically) she is facing now. Odds are she is now realistically facing some serious jail time, but the reporter did such a lousy job, we are left to guess.

In my state, based on the very limited info I would advise her to pack her bag for a long stay, especially with a prior just a week or two earlier.


Originally posted by: gevorg
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
After your second offense, you should face something like 90 days in jail. After your third offense, it should be two years in jail.
:thumbsup:
This is a nice idea in theory and I am not saying that I disagree with it, but one also needs to consider how often DUIs happen and how much extra money it would cost the country for all of these people to be processed through the legal system like that as well as the costs of having them in jail. I don't like these people driving on my streets any more than the next guy, but I think I would end up concluding that the money would be better spent elsewhere.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The only acceptable reason for denial of bail is if the accused is deemed a flight risk. She's not, so that's the end of that song and dance...

What the sentence may be if she's convicted is another matter entirely...

Due process... one of those pesky Constitutional rights, remember?
I'm not that familiar with FL law, but you'd think denial of bail would also be an option if the person is deemed to be a threat to themselves or to others --- I know that's the law in several other states, and I don't think FL would be that different. This person is definitely a threat to others and herself, so denial of bail would seem appropriate.

I personally think the first offense (assuming noone gets hurt) should be fines/removal of driving license for some time etc, but subsequent convictions should result in increasing jail time.

 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Xavier434
This is a nice idea in theory and I am not saying that I disagree with it, but one also needs to consider how often DUIs happen and how much extra money it would cost the country for all of these people to be processed through the legal system like that as well as the costs of having them in jail. I don't like these people driving on my streets any more than the next guy, but I think I would end up concluding that the money would be better spent elsewhere.
If we stopped arresting non-violent drug offenders, I imagine we'd have plenty of room for those actually putting the population at risk on the public roads.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Xavier434
This is a nice idea in theory and I am not saying that I disagree with it, but one also needs to consider how often DUIs happen and how much extra money it would cost the country for all of these people to be processed through the legal system like that as well as the costs of having them in jail. I don't like these people driving on my streets any more than the next guy, but I think I would end up concluding that the money would be better spent elsewhere.
If we stopped arresting non-violent drug offenders, I imagine we'd have plenty of room for those actually putting the population at risk on the public roads.
I don't necessarily disagree with that either, but understand that arresting someone and throwing them in jail on a DUI charge when they haven't hurt anyone is pretty much the same thing as arresting drug offenders who haven't hurt anyone. They are both being arrested and put in jail because on the basis that they could potentially hurt someone or themselves. That doesn't mean I completely agree with that logic mind you, but the point is that your logic about what should happen with drug offenders is exactly the same as the current logic behind one or two DUI arrests.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,974
848
126
Originally posted by: smack Down
Innocent until proven guilty is the piss of republicans every where.
Yeah youre right. Per the article, "After failing sobriety tests Saturday, Landrum blew a .112 blood-alcohol content reading, above the .08 level of impairment in Florida, reports indicate."

Shiiiiiit. She's not guilty.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Xavier434
This is a nice idea in theory and I am not saying that I disagree with it, but one also needs to consider how often DUIs happen and how much extra money it would cost the country for all of these people to be processed through the legal system like that as well as the costs of having them in jail. I don't like these people driving on my streets any more than the next guy, but I think I would end up concluding that the money would be better spent elsewhere.
If we stopped arresting non-violent drug offenders, I imagine we'd have plenty of room for those actually putting the population at risk on the public roads.
I don't necessarily disagree with that either, but understand that arresting someone and throwing them in jail on a DUI charge when they haven't hurt anyone is pretty much the same thing as arresting drug offenders who haven't hurt anyone. They are both being arrested and put in jail because on the basis that they could potentially hurt someone or themselves. That doesn't mean I completely agree with that logic mind you, but the point is that your logic about what should happen with drug offenders is exactly the same as the current logic behind one or two DUI arrests.
The two situations are completely different. If you're in your house, firing up a bong or injecting yourself, how am I threatened in the least? Keep in mind that it's not just illegal to operate an auto under the influence of drugs, it's illegal to use drugs period. That's in total contrast to a drunk behind the wheel, definitely putting me and my family at risk. DUI laws are intented to protect others, but anti-drug laws are just Big Daddy Gov't trying to protect us from ourselves. Personally, I've never done any recreational drugs, but I don't care if other adults do (with reasonable regulation to protect my own safety), and I don't want gov't making those decisions for us.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY