Comments on: DUI Manslaughter Suspect Released On Bond

By: Friend of family

Friend of family — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 15:19:49 +0000

Prayers for the Mckay and Ryland family . Rest in peace Mrs.barbara and praying for justice to be served for the woman drinking and driving that took your life from you and your family . Prayers for your husband and his recovery

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 08:08:42 +0000

REGARDING:
“If anyone operating a vehicle has a BAC of .08 or above they are impaired, by the laws. I’m not a mathmetician either but she was over .2, almost three times the legal limit. Those are all facts and when they are ignored, that is a crime.”

Worse than that, per the previous article:

“According to court documents, Ahearn’s initial blood alcohol level was .291 — over three and half times the legal limit.”

Assuming the equipment was accurate, she was drunk.
No evidence that was ignored or will be when it comes to trial.

Interesting she went 14 years before her previous problem and two more to this one.
I wonder why.
It looked like she had wised up.
Very sad.

David for justice
and comfort to those who mourn

By: Rodney

Rodney — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:10:34 +0000

While some are persuaded by their hearts in serving justice it doesn’t make them ignorant to the law. What it does make them is caring humans who would rather not tolerate animalistic behavior. Here is a summary driving history for Debra Ahearn.
06/24/1996; Driving while license suspended/revoked and careless driving.
11/14/1996; 54mph in a 45mph zone
09/30/1999; 39mph in a 30mph zone
11/08/1999; 80mph in a 55mph zone
12/17/2013; Careless driving.
In a conviction not related to driving…..12/05/1996; alcohol to person under 21.
I am not a lawyer but I do understand the process of law. If anyone operating a vehicle has a BAC of .08 or above they are impaired, by the laws. I’m not a mathmetician either but she was over .2, almost three times the legal limit. Those are all facts and when they are ignored, that is a crime.

By: barbara agerton

barbara agerton — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:41:02 +0000

Yes, , she is out , My husband and I were talking about it. I thought she would not get out. I do know this I told my husband , if she is guilty, she is never gonna see the light of day again. I hate to admit this but If I were her I would go to Alaska right now, cause I think this is the only freedom she will ever know again, best thing to do is go disappear…………

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 07:03:59 +0000

REGARDING:
“We have the right to vote a judge out. Didn’t you know that?”

Have at it.
If you prefer a judge who ignores the law, replace her with a crook.
(That’s what a lawbreaker is, isn’t it?)

I hate what the drunk did.
I suspect, thinking back, she hates she did it.
You want to punish her before her trial.
You may even want to kill her, after all, SHE killed.

If everyone accused of a crime were punished before trial, imagine if someone accused you of something you didn’t do and either charged you a million dollars for your freedom before your trial or locked you up with homicidal, rapist criminals for a year or so awaiting trial.

For the purpose of bail, even this see s excessive.
If she’s going to drive drunk and kill again, she should never be free.
This isn’t really likely.
She is unlikely to flee the country or not show up for trial no matter what her bail.

David for justice,
even in the face of tragedy

By: shay

shay — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 14:42:56 +0000

The escambia clerks website shows Judge Joyce Williams as the judge who set her bond. It also shows a very troubled past for this woman, i.e selling alcohol to a minor, a couple of citations for careless driving. It seems this woman has been making bad decisions since at least 1998 perhaps before then and finally things just caught up with her.

By: john

john — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:14:39 +0000

If you never take that first drink, you’ll never become an alcoholic, or kill someone drunk driving!

By: c.w.

c.w. — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:46:11 +0000

@david green,
We have the right to vote a judge out. Didn’t you know that? A 100,000.00 dollar bond for killing someone is far from excessive. Who is the judge???

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 02:47:31 +0000

REGARDING:
“Who is the judge? We have the right to know!”

The one who was scheduled to hear her yesterday is listed by
escambiaclerk.com/clerk/coc_online_public_records.aspx
It also shows any previous run-ins with the law for traffic infractions or any other thing she or anyone else might have been accused of and final disposition of each case.
(Check your neighbors and yourself out while at it, it is most interesting)

It is silly to blame her for applying the law lawfully despite this lady’s infractions.
The government should not act unlawfully because criminals act unlawfully.

You already know the Constitution forbids excessive bail Amendment VIII says:
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Yes, she did a terrible thing and needs to not drive until the case is heard. We hope whoever paid the $10,000 non-refundable tenth of the set amount will see to it she doesn’t kill anyone else.

It is a shame so many don’t realize cars are deadly if misused.

David for law and order by all

By: chris in Molino

chris in Molino — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 00:01:28 +0000

@Patriot
A LOT of are laws and the way we do things donthave a damn thing to do with the constitution. It doesn’t say a darn thing about convicted felons not being able to have a firearm, but they cant. Oh but that’s a good thing (so folks say) but its nowhere in the constitution. And before some moron says yes it is cause the people voted it in through elected officials, I say, so did they with homosexual marriage. But that don’t seem to count.
At any rate, whether you like it or not, bond is punitive. It’s fact. And in instances like Debra Ahearn, it’s a good thing, if it had been applied. However, law is always discretionary. They (any form of govt) never apply it as narrowly to themselves as with the ones they seek to go after. For example, ECSO. Have you ever hear of the State’s Attorney or FDLE NOT finding an officers actions justified ?