Killer DUI driver gets 3 years

| 31/05/2012

IMG-20111130-00037.jpg(CNS): A 32-year-old man has been jailed for three years after pleading guilty to causing the death of Dr Richard Martin last November as a result ofdrink and speed. Patrick Brooks-Dixon had almost twice the legal limit of alcohol in his system when he took a bend at over 105mph on the Esterley Tibbetts Highway and lost control of his Chevy Trail Blazer, smashing into the Honda that Dr Martin was driving. The doctor was killed instantly. His wife and Brooks-Dixon’s wife, a passenger in his car, were also seriously injured. Justice Richard Williams said Martin was killed as a result of an “atrocious and shameful piece of driving by a man under the influence of alcohol”, as he read his sentencing ruling on Thursday.

The judge acknowledged a number of mitigating circumstances, but he placed the road death in the more severe category in terms of sentencing guidelines because of the combination of excessive speed and the fact that the offender was well over the legal limit for alcohol.

The judge did, however, give Brooks-Dixon’s a full discount on what he considered to be an appropriate sentence of four years as a result of the plea. While noting that "on the evidence a guilty plea was the only sensible course for you to take,” Justice Williams reduced the term of imprisonment to three years. The judge also suspended Brooks-Dixon’s licence for seven years.

Pointing to the aggravating factors in the case aside from the excessive speed Justice Williams emphasised that the defendant had consumed alcohol to such a level that it influenced his ability to drive safely.

Listing the mitigating factors, the judge said Brooks-Dixon was not the sort of man who would normally appear before the courts, that he was previously a good driver, had numerous positive character references, that he had shown significant remorse from the moment of the accident and had since been in counselling. However, he also said he had considered the victim impact statement and the circumstances of the death.

Justice Williams reflected that death by dangerous driving cases always trouble the court as the consequences are extremely serious but the offenders do not intend to cause death. But he pointed to the need for custodial sentences to also act as a deterrent.

“I must consider the deterrent factor to ensure that those who consume alcohol and then drive dangerously on our roads, and unfortunately there are many, should think twice before they do so, realizing that if their case comes before this court that can expect a hard line,” he said.

The judge said that as a result of Brooks-Dixon’s “deplorable conduct” Martin’s family had lost a loved one who was irreplaceable. He also pointed to the students who had lost a mentor and said that Dr Martin’s loss was one for the “whole community” as it had “lost an educator from whom future generations could have benefitted.”

Dr Martin, who was 52 when he was killed, was from Pennsylvania, USA, but was resident on Grand Cayman as he was a professor at St Matthews Medical School.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Crime

About the Author ()

Comments (69)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous 2 says:

    10 years for leaving the scene and not wearing perscription glasses!|mostview


  2. Anonymous says:

    This sentence is demonstrably unfit and needs to be appealed.

  3. Kadafe says:

    Not going against anyone here cause i personally support a longer custodial sentence for causing death by dui and even dangerous driving but i understand that the max sentence is 4 years? Whats up with that? Think we need to revise this and up it a bit…

  4. Anonymous says:

    Cayman is a nice safe place for those who have no respect for the law.  Not so safe for everyone else though.  Expats need to factor that in while they are a "guest" here.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Not too still this is not a big enough sentence !

  6. Anonymous says:

    Brooks-Dixon will be out in 18-months for good behaviour.  The message to the young, reckless drink drivers of Cayman XXXX is DUI is not a serious offence.  And you know what, that IS the overall opinion of the legislators, judiciary, and citizens of Cayman.  What, so you've never had a drink and sat behind the steering wheel of moving motor vehicle?  It was just a couple of drinks and you're sure you weren't over the limit?  Oh, okay.  And you can hold your liquor?  Sure you can.  And you only had to drive a few blocks?  Well, no problem then.  And you've never driven like a lunatic along South Church Street?  What not even 10MPH over the LEGAL speed limit?  Get real! There but for the grace of God go you.



  7. Sick of Cayman says:

    One year hard labour for every mile over the speed limit he was driving…… 65 years souns about right.

  8. RRH says:

    Why not go to the LA building and tell them to outlaw the sale of alcohol in Cayman, would that please Cayman, because the fact is that at least 90% of people who go to a club and drink in Cayman, end up on Cayman road and weather you have 1, 2 or 3 drinks it is still considered driving under the influence of alcohol.

    So you people need to stop being hypocritical and bias, because you only see these comments when it is was a foreigner behind the wheel.

    For example I noticed no one mentioned anything about the comment regarding the patrol cars being parked at the stations, why, because most of you know that the police are not doing their job, yet you do not mention anything about it.

    I am a victim of the police not doing their job, so are many others in Cayman, but the people of Cayman just sit and do nothing.

    YOU ALL SUPPOSEDLY HAVE A VOICE, USE IT FOR A GREATER CAUSE, rather than to judge other, because am pretty sure even though this young man had twice the alcohol limit in his blood, he did not mean to kill anyone.

    My condolences to Mr. Martins family, but I think there should be a police officer at the door of each bar and nightclub everyt weekend night with an alcohol breath tester, they are being paid, put them to serve and protect like they are supposed to.

    • Anon says:

      Didn't mean to kill anyone? The road to hell is paved with the best intentions.


  9. Bethinking says:

    Kinetic energy goes by the square of the speed, i.e. KE is 1/2 MASSxVxV. Simply put if his speed was one-half the105 mph or less then the KE needed to be disipated would be 4 times lower.

    Assuming seat belts and airbags, everybody would have walked away.

    Unless it were me because I would have mashed up drunk guy a bit and left him in the ditch and tell the cop it looks like he didn't fair as well.

  10. Bethinking says:

    The more I think about this the more ticked I get.  Some young person recently got like 12 years for a second time offense for possessian of an illegal firearm.  He didn't use it in a crime as far as we know.  Didn't kill anybody, yet 12 years.

    Drive a car recklessly and drunk, kill someone very worthy of living and seriously injure someone else and get 3 years maximum.

    I know this is a drinking town but come on.  Change the laws and give the judges something more powerful to work with.

    This is vehicular manslaughter in most places.  Step-up CI.

    • Anonymous says:

      I know one doesn't have anything to do with it, but an illegal firearm is an illegal firearm and I believe he got the right sentence for he had been arrested prior to this arrest for the samething so he didn't learn…to bad, what was he doing with this illegal firearm?

      To the drives who supposively are of "good character" as the judge stated, this is BS, everyone knows once you go into a club or bar, start drinking your senses will be questioned, you know damn well what you are doing and three years is not enough when you kill someone…I don't get it, its just like if you took a loaded gun and shot someone, dead is dead and an innocent person at that….drunk driving kills, three years is a slap in the face to the families of these people that are victims.  The driver gets out of jail eventually, goes home to his or her family, parties all over again, no remorse (very few of them feel remorse), they are given their licenses back, good chance they will do it again sometime in their lifetime, maybe not kill someone, but they will definitely get into another accident.  


  11. Anonymous says:

    "Listing the mitigating factors, the judge said Brooks-Dixon was not the sort of man who would normally appear before the courts, that he was previously a good driver, had numerous positive character references, that he had shown significant remorse from the moment of the accident…"

    I reckon at least half the population of Cayman, incuding its MLA's have never appeared before the courts, are considered to be good drivers and have numerous positive character references, but it doesn't stop them from going out and getting blind drunk, then getting behind the wheel of their car to drive to the next bar or home.  Naturally if they caused an accident due to being under the influence anyone would show significant remorse, but think about it, if they were good drivers and positive characters, WTF are they doing drinking and driving in the first place?

    The sentence should have been tripled- we need to set an example and stop all the rampant drinking and driving that takes place here.

  12. Anonymous says:

    It only takes one or two drinks to reach the legal limit for driving. Everyone knows this. I have always felt that anyone who goes over this amount, then gets in a car and has an accident that takes a life should be charged with premeditated murder. You know you have drunk too much, and yet you still choose to get into the car, which is really a deadly weapon in the wrong hands.

    Just don't drink if you are driving, and if you do change your mind and drink, find another way to get home, please.

    • Anonymous says:

      Everyone does not know that because it is not correct. Unless your first sentence refers to glasses of overproof rum then it is completely wrong that it only takes one or two drinks to reach the legal limit. Much will depend on body weight, type of drink, hours spent drinking etc. but as a rule of thumb three premium beers or three glasses of wine over the space of 90 minutes for the average size male will not put him over the legal limit.   

      Have a look at this calculator:

  13. Bethinking says:

    This is a joke.  The law(s) need to change on this issue.  10 years minimum for serious injuries and 20 years minimum for manslaughter whilst DUI.  Add another 5 years for reckless driving and do not let the sentences run concurrently.

    The law makers need to grow a spine and the Judges need to throw everything they can at it.  Get mean and take it personal.  This is unacceptable on all fronts.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Condolences to the family first of all. To put the whole episode in context, some interesting facts: a well maintained car travelling at 105 mph takes about 200m to stop in normal driving conditions; the blood alchohol level for the Cayman Islands is already the lowest in the developed world; due to the speed being more than twice the maximum speed limit and the blood test being twice the legal limit, he should hace faced 'Involontary Manslaughter' charges. Also will the judge be talking directly to the family of the deceased to explain why he only gave 3 years, which i suspect with parole means that he could be out before Christmas 2013.

  15. Attorney says:

    The sentencing policy is a disgrace for a crime that it is far too common in Cayman.

    We have seen so many light sentences like this one and a similar one for that silly little party rich girl both of whom killed innocent people and ruined lives because of their selfishness.  I don't care about character references – people who drink and drive a the most selfish, lazy, arrogant people out there.

    We need a radical overhaul of our approach:

    1) All DUI's should start with a 6 month custodial sentence as a starting tarriff.

    2) All DUI's where there is an accident of any type involving a driver should go up to 1 year minimum.

    3) Death while drunk should be at least 5 years and preferably 10 years.

    4) At the very least the driver should be made to pay the full costs of the accident including the police, medical and legal costs.  Bankruptcy is too good for scum like this.

    5) All DUI's should have at least a 5 year ban.

    I bet you with this regime in place Cayman would become a safer place.

    • jsftbhaedrg says:

      I would take your suggestions further and add that anyone caught speeding whereby they are double the speed limit or more should be automatically banned for 5yrs, if they are caught in excess of 100mph they should be banned for life (as is the case in the UK). Furthermore if they are caught speeding in such excess (or not), are drunk and kill somone, they should be banned for life. And ofcourse mandatory custodial sentences would aslo be a part of the convictions in both.

  16. real talk says:

    he'll be out soon…with laws like these, who would be fool enough to buy and use a gun these days?! just use your honda


  17. Bethinking says:

    3 years, what a joke.  This is really going to deter folks from DUI????  10 years minimum for serious injury while DUI and 20 years for manslaughter.

    Lawmakers grow a spine.  In the meantime, Judges throw everything you can at these type crimes, don't go all soft, unacceptable.  Get mean about it. Make it personal.

  18. Anonymous says:

    What in the world??? someone please pinch me, I must be sleeping. Three years for Vehicular homicide (manslaughter?) this is what it is called in the US when someone were under the influence of Alcohol, drugs and or speeding and causes the death of another person(s) and in most cases carries a stiff sentence with the minimum for manslaughter one (man one), being ten years, if my memory is correct. So why is this guy getting three years for killing an innocent person with an vehicle? I still don't believe our judicial system is so lenient toward these drunk drivers who murder someone while they were behind the wheel and find this judgment in this case very disheartening, or better yet disturbing. No one forced this guy to go behind the wheel plastered and to be speeding almost three time the speed limit, so he should have gotten a stiffer sentence of no less than ten years. The courts needs to start making example of people who killed someone while under the influence of alcohol, to set an deterant  and make other think twice before going behind the wheel drunk. That's just my fifty cents on the matter.

  19. Donkey Caymanian says:

    Three years, this is an average sentence for Cuasing Death by Dangerous Driving beleive it or not, now we have the case this person was Drunk, so he should have gotton an additional 1yr in jail, then he should have been charged for dangerous driving, there's an additional 1yr, so five years and that should just be the start. loss of license for 7yrs, now does this start when he hits Northward. or after his sentence?

    Our sentencing and Judges are to F>>>>>> soft. So it is up to us to go to out MLS's and have them amend the sentencing to a minimum and if you get done for DUI @ the sametime the person should get double the minimum.

    • Anonymous says:

      3 years thats it???? Reckless and driving drunk!!! What a joke…he took someone's life and all he gets is 3 years……

      • anonymous says:

        Actually she only did barely 12 months and was released early and made to wear an ankle braclet until she completed her sentence.

  20. Anonymous says:

    What is the sentence for killing someone with a handgun while under the influence?

    • Anonymous says:

      The sentence will depend on whether the killing was intentional or reckless or accidental whether a gun or car was used.

  21. Anonymous says:

    THREE YEARS? That's a slap on the wrist. The judicial system is telling people, "hey go drink and drive and then hopefully you take the life of someone innoccent vitcim and then guess what? You'll only serve 3 years in our 4 star hotel, opps is mean prison.

    Taking his licence away for seven years is not a punishment to him. Do you think some of the people who get it taken away still don't drive? His a$$ should been in years for a very long time. The only sympathy I have is for Dr Martin's family. Who was heart broken to loose their loved one to this scum bucket then insulted by what they call the "Justice system" here. XXXX

    Only in Cayman can you commit a crime get away with for the most part or if you get caught get slapped on the wrist.


  22. Anonymous says:

    Aggravated causing death by dangerous driving, that is under the influence, equals manslaughter at the least.  Credit for a gulty plea??? So now if the police wrap up the case with no option for a guilty plea, the offender gets discount – whats that all about?

  23. Anonymous says:


    I expect a full apology from this animal to the family of Dr. Martin and to the passenger in the car (the article mentioned it was Dr. Martin's wife which is untrue, it was a fellow classmate).  This also means that all of us who knew Richard have lost all faith in the Cayman "justice" system.  It is not just a farce, but almost comical.  Did the judge take character witnesses of Richard, the man murdered by an animal's complete disregard for life?  Maybe that would have changed his mind.  Richard wasn't just another person, he was simply amazing and devoted his life to his wife, his children, his classmates and his future profession.  He was a dedicated and passionate man who injected life into any room he entered.  He is the sole reason many of us were passing classes as he had a way to light a fire under us.  He was kind. He was compassionate.  In death he certainly deserves justice and this island let him and his amazing family down.  

    I cannot emphasize enough how much contempt I have for the court system, the police and the (complete lack of) respect for law that people here have.  I can only speak for me but the sooner I get off this god-forsaken place the better.  I only hope I make it out alive…


  24. Anonymous says:

    A 'shameful piece of driving' resulting in a shameful sentence. 

  25. Anonymous says:

    When I read the headline, I thought it was a joke. The message here is that if you get in an accident, the fact that you kill an innocent person, drive drunk as an idiot, make a mockery of the speed limit, will all work in your favor in getting the lightest sentence possible. This is unbelievable and a disgrace.

  26. Anonymous says:

    There is a wider issue here that is being ignored and that is the culture of DUI on this island that needs to change. Maybe a well known minister (also known for being under the influence) will push the changes through the LA to ensure that a late night alternative is available to those under the influence starting with the taxi drivers putting meters in their vehicles and reducing their rates which are currently some of the highest in the western world that I have seen and that includes London, New York, Miami, Zurich, Sydney, Auckland…. The list is endless!

  27. Slowpoke says:

    This is indeed a very sad story. 


    Unfortunately, the solution is not "more punishment".


    Putting the offender in prison at the taxpayers’ expense, while the family gets money from DCFS because he is not providing an income, and the victim’s family gets nothing because the responsible person is in prison earning nothing…..


    The real solution is to increase the likelihood of being "caught".


    He is much more likely to have behaved responsibly, if he knew that there was a police check within the next mile, than worrying about whether he would get two or five years, or gambling that there was no check at all.

    • Anonymous says:

      Where are all the police patrol cars?  Last night driving about 30km home across the Island I was passed by a number of drivers exceeding the speed limit .I did not see a single police car until I passed my local police station where at least five were parked. This morning making a much longer journey in the rush hour I counted five police cars at the police station. Again I did not see a single one on the road even though I saw many loaded lorries being driven at reckless speeds. These are typical observations. No wonder Cayman has so many who drive under the influence. The police should be seen regularly patrolling our roads Knowing that you may be caught is a great deterrent.

      • Anonymous says:

        Uh, they may have been passing you because you were going 30km, well under the speed limit…

        I know it can be confusing, especially for tourists, that our speed limit signs are circles with a red boarder as they are in most countries that use km instead of mpm. I never understood that…

        • Anonymous says:

          No, I was not doing less than the speed limit. As has been my habit, for for the last 40+ years, in the UK, USA and all over Europe and here, when it is safe to do so I travel at a couple of km / h above the legal limit. Because one knows that if one speeds in say France, or Scotland one is likely to be caught by the police one tends not to. I suggest that so many speed here  because it is unlikely they will be caught by the police who are not visible enough.

    • Anonymous says:

      You have got to be kidding, Slowpoke. Is this a Caymanian mentality? You only behave if you have  good chance being caught  while doing dirty deeds? Un*&*^(_ beleivable. What a joke this "country" is with its "laws", "police" and "government" that steals openly . 

      • Slowpoke says:

        You give us humans too much credit that we act law abidingly, ethically and rationally.  My post was based on evidence, research and science. 

        Cross-cultural and cross-boundary information clearly indicates that the likelyhood of being caught, is considerably more efficacious than punishment, in affecting behaviour.

        This has nothing to do with "Caymanian mentality", Cayman loves punishment.  Just look at our imprisonment rate, drug laws, and Bible teachings every Sunday, for example.

  28. RRH says:

    How many Caymanians have not killed while driving under the influence and got no jail time at all.

    You people are being bias.

  29. Anonymous says:

    First of all, repeated condolences to Mr Martin's family and friends, nothing about this case will alter the tragic outcome for them.

    With that said, I do think that the judge has missed a very real opportunity to send an even clearer message here.

    it is not enough to say that the deterrent is needed to ensure that people need to 'think twice' before driving drunk. Don't think about it…period. It should be an insitinct and not a thought process. we don't ask people to think twice before breaking into a property – we just say 'don't'.

     In other words the deterrent is required to ensure that people clearly realise that it is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.  The courts can fulfil that responsibiltiy (and have here) but should make it clear that that is the message. The enforcement agencies and others then need to match that message

    • Anonymous says:

      Why are we called HUMAN if we need whatchdogs so we behave as human beings should?

  30. Civil dialogue says:

    This accident took the life of an innocent human being; it is references as “atrocious and shameful piece of driving by a man under the influence of alcohol with speed in excess of 100mph and almost twice the allowed alcohol limit” YET given consideration because of good references and not previously appearing in court!!!! IS THIS JUSTICE FOR ONE’S LIFE?

  31. Anonymous says:

    Absolute disgrace! The drunken idiot should get 15 to 20 and be made to support the guys family for life.
    I hope he suffers for the rest of his life! No excuses for drink driving deaths.
    He will be out in 1 year.
    Where is the justice?????????

  32. Anonymous says:

    Very good, I don't feel sorry for him. It actually should have been 5 years or more. If this was the US he would have gotten manslaughter.

    • Anonymous says:

      Please don't hold the US system as a beacon of hope for humanity.


      If this happened in California, the punishment would be "Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated: Imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 1 year, or imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or 2 or 4 years and not more than $10,000."


      Delaware – "First degree: death caused by criminally negligent driving while DWI is a Class E felony. Not less than 2 years or more than 5 years. Second degree: death caused by criminally negligent driving or negligent driving while DWI is a Class F felony. Not less than 1 year or more than 3 years."


      Indiana – "First offense with a BAC between .08 to .14: Class C felony, A fixed term of between 2 years and 8 years (advisory sentence of 4 years) and may be fined not more than $10,000."


      Kentucky – "Reckless Homicide: when a person, with recklessness causes the death of another person-Class D Felony – Not less than 1 year or more than 5 years and may be fined not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000."


      Maryland – "Homicide while DUI: Not more than 5 years and/or not more than $5,000."


      Oklahoma – "Negligent Homicide: Not more than 1 year in the county jail and/or not less than $100 or more than $1,000."

      • Anonymous says:

        What are you trying to say? A Human life worth nothing?

        • Anonymous says:

          The first sentence explained what the poster was trying to say. Don't be stupid.

  33. Anonymous says:

    your loved ones life is worth three years. What a disgrace

  34. Anonymous says:

    3 years is meant to act as a deterrent for killing an innocent man whilst driving at over 105 mph and having consumed almost twice the legal limit!

  35. Anonymous says:

    3 years? That's it? Seems to me it's better to kill someone with a car than a gun!

  36. Anonymous says:

    I find it inconceivable that our laws are so anitquated and backwards that a drunk man can kill another human being and serve only mere months (36 or less) as punishment.  The Judge said the sentence needs to serve as a deterrant.  WTH?????  Is this a cruel joke????? A person who is found to be in posession of a gun automatically gets 10 years just for possession, not even for using it in any way much less against another human being and they are put away for 10 years but you kill someone and serve a few months?????   Obviously even THIS automatic 10 year sentence has not been a dterrant because we have more and more cases of firearms possession and more crimes committed with firearms almost daily.  Now I am not saying that the sentence should be reduced for gun possession.  I believe the punishment fits the crime for possession.  The problem I have is that our laws are much too lenient for serious crimes such as when one takes another person's life by DUI.  Our judges should be able to see the discrepancy here and take steps as a judicial body to seriously up the punishment for these crimes.  Willfully causing another person's death under any circumstance other than self-defense should be an automatic life sentence.  (at least until the death penalty is reinstated someday)…Driving a weapon of mass destruction when a person is impaired is no different than someone randomly firing a loaded gun while driving down the street.  I hope this man will use his time in jail to think about ways he could make a positive difference in this world from within the prison wals and when he gets out and maybe even himself acknowlege to the courts that his sentence is far too lenient and the laws were not a deterrant for him.  I also hope his drivers license is revoked for 7 years AFTER he completes his sentence!  Being in jail shouldn't automatically reduce his punishment by 3 years.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Three years, only three years, what adisgracefully light sentence for a murderer. Surely a much, much longer sentence is needed for those who drive under the influence and kill someone. A car with someone over the limit is a lethal weapon, as this case so unfortunately proves.

    This was not the case of a respectable driver making a careless mistake that led to an innocent person being killed. It was an irresponsible drunk driving much too fast when he had had much too much to drink.

     A  twenty year sentence and a life driving ban might have helped to deter others from driving when over the limit. Then perhaps our roads would be safer for us all

  38. Anonymous says:

    Drinking and speeding, almost twice the legal limit, over 105 MPH and a life lost  = 3 years    Does not make any sence to me. I do not see any deterrent in this sentence.


  39. Anonymous says:

    DUI and 105 mph – ONLY THREE YEARS!!  Come on

  40. Anonymous says:

    Don't drink and drive.

    • jsftbhaedrg says:

      Police down here need to start doing road blocks EVERY NIGHT ALL YEAR ROUND if they want to see any change in peoples attitudes towards driving under the influence. Simple. They are recruiting special constables right now, make a DUI Task Force who's sole purpose is to conduct road blocks every single night of the week.

    • jsftbhaedrg says:

      " I uldn't drink and drive if it didnt cost me CI$50 to go from West Bay Rd to South Sound at 2am after i leave the night club".

      " I uldn't drink and drive if I knew that there was a road block / REAL police presence on the road at 2am when I leave the night club".

      " I uldn't drink and drive if I knew there was a road block evry night of the week at closing hours of licensed establishments, i.e. 11pm and 2am".

      " I woul't drink and drive if there was some sort of public transportation system after 8pm every night of the week because I still can't understand why the bus service stops at 8pm every night".

      "I would walk home after i leave the club at 2am instead of getting into my car but there is a very real risk (almost daily now) of being robbed, raped, kidnapped or killed".

      Those are some of the reasons why people do drink and drive down here and until these sorts of matters are addressed, we will conitnue to drink and drive, continue to risk life and limb of both ourselves and others and continue to pretend that it is not a MAJOR ISSUE.

      • Anonymous says:

        you've probably been making excuses your whole life. Take some personal responsibility for your actions.

      • Anonymous says:

        " I uldn't drink and drive if it didnt cost me CI$50 to go from West Bay Rd to South Sound at 2am after i leave the night club"

        1. Is yours or someone else's life not worth spending the 50.00 to get home safe.

        " I uldn't drink and drive if I knew that there was a road block / REAL police presence on the road at 2am when I leave the night club

        2. You are responsible for your own actions.

        " I uldn't drink and drive if I knew there was a road block evry night of the week at closing hours of licensed establishments, i.e. 11pm and 2am".

        3. same as # 2 

        " I woul't drink and drive if there was some sort of public transportation system after 8pm every night of the week because I still can't understand why the bus service stops at 8pm every night". 

        4. same as # 1 & 2

        "I would walk home after i leave the club at 2am instead of getting into my car but there is a very real risk (almost daily now) of being robbed, raped, kidnapped or killed".

        5. # 1

        Those are some of the reasons why people do drink and drive down here and until these sorts of matters are addressed, we will conitnue to drink and drive, continue to risk life and limb of both ourselves and others and continue to pretend that it is not a MAJOR ISSUE.

        6. excuses every one.

      • Anonymous says:

        How about you don't drink if you have no one to take you home? 

      • Good Grief says:

        How about, "I won't drink and drive because"…

        1. I most likely will kill someone or myself.

        2. It's illegal.

        3. It ruins the lives of the spouses, children and friends of those that die or go to jail.

        4. If caught, it brings shame to your family (or at least it should).

        5. It proves what an insensitive jerk you really are.

  41. Anonymous says:

    3 years? That's it? For killing someone?

  42. Anonymous says:

    Hmmm.. let's see, is a car at 105 mph on our type of roads any less of a weapon that say a gun? I don't think so considering the difference in size of the weapon.

    The judge said: A drunk has no intend to kill anyone andis basically a good driver otherwise is also a bit off the wall don't you think. Anyone that seems to have the inclination to speed under any condition is per definition a dangerous driver, regardless, hence the crash in South Sound a few days ago and it has not been proven yet that any of these drivers were under the influence.

    The sentence for killing someone any other way means life, usually without parole. Unlicensed gun or ammo that has not killed anyone: 10 years. Smoke or have some pot: 7 years just to name a few items.

    I have no objection towards any judge being considerate but must say that three years is hardly a deterrent to prevent others from doing the same. The seven years of no driving, well, sorry but that does not mean much here anyway.

    Good thing I am not a judge as I would give anyone three years for killing an animal, on the road or otherwise.

  43. Anonymous says:

    thats it? these sentences are seriously out of whack/ ridiculously light given the severity. People are going to jail for 10 years for firearms possession but you kill someone with your car and get 3 years.  Huh?

  44. Anonymous says:

    What a horrible story all around. Any one of us could have been in Dr. Martin's vehicle and died as a result of a drunk driver. Hopefully this story will reach others who may choose to drink and drive.