Darryl Anderson was drunk behind the wheel of his Audi SUV, had his accelerator pressed to the floor and was barreling toward a car ahead of him when he snapped a photo of his speedometer. The picture showed a car in the foreground, a collision warning light on his dashboard and a speed of 141 mph (227 kph).

An instant later, he slammed into the car in the photo. The driver, Shalorna Warner, was not seriously injured but her 8-month-old son and her sister were killed instantly, authorities said. Evidence showed Anderson never braked.

Anderson, 38, was sentenced Tuesday to 17 years in prison for the May 31 crash in northern England that killed little Zackary Blades and Karlene Warner. Anderson pleaded guilty last week in Durham Crown Court to two counts of causing death by dangerous driving.

  • theluckyone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    This was no accident.

    He drove while drunk. He made a decision to become impaired. While impaired, he decided to get behind the wheel of a vehicle. He made a decision to drive unreasonably fast, beyond the speed limit and beyond his ability to safely operate the vehicle. He further made a decision to take a photo while operating his vehicle.

    All were his choice to make, and thus the repercussions of his choices were no accident.

    Does society want a person inclined to make such decisions roaming about freely? How many years of incarceration are likely to eliminate his continuation of such behavior?

    • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I’m not saying that 17 years behind bars is too much here, I’m saying it’s definitely not too little. Unless it can be proven that this idiot actually thought he was likely to get in an accident by acting the way he did

      • theluckyone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        What person, arguing in good faith, could state that they believe driving while drunk, at high speeds, while operating a cell phone, would likely not result in an accident? I’d love to see the train of thought laid out for that argument.

        • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          A pretty stupid and/or egotistical person, which is not illegal. I have literally met people who think like that. Also that’s arguably the most dangerous part of drunk driving: impaired judgement makes you think you’ve got everything under control, and you’re not that drunk anyway, and you’re a good driver… Combine that with someone whose brain isn’t exactly firing up on all cylinders when they’re sober and you’ve got a deadly cocktail, and also probably someone who is more likely to get too drunk to legally drive (and not give up on driving home after that line is crossed)