DUI Hit-and-Run Suspect Raymond Morua Has Criminal Record

Fired from Lois Capps Office; Held on $250,000 Bail

Originally published 12:30 p.m., December 9, 2013
Updated 4:00 p.m., December 9, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Police and court records show that the man charged in a DUI hit-and-run Friday morning that left a 27-year-old woman in critical condition had been arrested in recent years for two prior DUIs, a previous hit-and-run, driving with a suspended license, and grand theft.

Raymond Morua, a district representative for Congresswoman Lois Capps for two years until he was terminated from his position on Sunday, is being held in Santa Barbara County Jail on $250,000 bail.

Raymond Morua booking photo (12/06/2013)
Click to enlarge photo


Raymond Morua booking photo (12/06/2013)

According to police, Morua, 32, was driving down the 500 block of Anacapa Street just after midnight when he hit Mallory Rae Dies, who was crossing on foot. After the collision, Morua reportedly stopped his car, looked back, then drove two blocks ahead until he got to the end of Anacapa. There, police said, witnesses tried to convince him to return to the scene, but he again drove off, speeding down Cabrillo Boulevard until he lost control and crashed into a tree, where he was arrested. Morua’s blood-alcohol level at the time reportedly measured 0.17, more than twice the legal limit.

Dies was admitted to Cottage Hospital with severe head injuries. While her condition was initially described as extremely grave, friends and supporters have reported that Dies — a UCSB graduate and Tonic Nightclub employee well-loved throughout the community — has shown signs of improvement. Tonic closed Friday night on her behalf, and words of encouragement for Dies and her family continue to flood social media sites and this CaringBridge webpage.

Morua, according to Ventura County court records, was arrested in June 2006 for DUI. He pleaded no contest. Five months later in October 2006, he was again arrested for DUI, this time pleading guilty to the charge and admitting to a prior drunk driving offense. In December 2006, Morua was arrested for hit-and-run. He pleaded guilty to that charge and a separate charge of driving on a suspended license. (The details surrounding these incidents are not yet known, as requests for information made over the weekend to the Ventura court system have not been processed.)

In December 2010, Morua was sentenced to 10 days in Santa Barbara County Jail and three years of probation after he pleaded guilty to grand theft by embezzlement. According to Senior Deputy District Attorney Brian Cota, who prosecuted the case, Morua and co-defendant Crisostomo Lejano were employees of the Kmart in Goleta at the time.

They discovered a loophole in the store’s coupon system that allowed them to re-use vouchers already redeemed by customers. Rather than process the coupons, Cota explained, Morua and Lejano would give them to friends to buy video games and other items the pair would then keep. In addition to his probation conditions and jail sentence — which he served in September 2011 — Morua was ordered to pay restitution to Kmart.

Between that case and last Friday’s incident, Morua appears to have kept his record clean. A Ventura County native and Iraq War veteran who served in the U.S. Army for more than three years beginning in 2001, Morua became heavily involved in veteran’s affairs and graduated from UCSB last year. He was president of UCSB’s Student Veteran Organization, was elected secretary of the Student Veterans of America National Leadership Council, and served as board chair for Future Leaders of America.

Morua is currently a non-voting member of the Veterans Coordinating Council and sits on the Veteran’s Services Advisory Committee. As a champion of veterans rights and an advocate for resources for recovery, Morua has talked openly about the difficulties of readjusting to civilian life. In a December 2012 Noozhawk article, he said he turned to alcohol at times as a coping mechanism.

Morua — placed on non-paid administrative leave the day the accident occurred — started working with Lois Capps’s office as an intern in June 2011. He was hired as a district representative in October 2011, said Capps spokesperson Chris Meagher, explaining that as a Santa Barbara point person, Morua stood in for the Congresswoman at meetings and events. Morua also coordinated with federal, state, and local agencies throughout the Central Coast, acting as a general liaison with members of area governments.

As one of Capps’s five district representatives, and one of 18 people on her office’s current payroll, Morua was paid approximately $36,000 a year. According to quarterly statements from the House of Representatives, he was regularly reimbursed for “private auto mileage” expenses.

Meagher said Capps’s office follows House procedures in its hiring practices. It screens potential staff members through interviews and references, but does not routinely conduct criminal background checks.

Morua’s arraignment date has not been set. Attempts to reach him have not been successful. As of press time, he had not secured an attorney.

[UPDATE, 2:00 p.m.]: Capps spokesperson Chris Meagher issued this statement Monday afternoon: “Raymond Morua is no longer an employee in the office of Rep. Lois Capps. While Raymond excelled in his duties as a district representative and was valued member of the staff, his actions that led to this tragedy are inexcusable. The congresswoman expects all those who work for her and on behalf of the people of the Central Coast to behave responsibly and professionally at all times.

“The office follows House procedures and potential staff are vetted through a standard process of interviews and reference checks, however the office does not as a routine matter perform criminal background checks. We have undertaken a review of hiring procedures, and we are working with the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S House of Representatives to review our protocol.

“During this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers remain with the victim as well as her family and friends.”


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Recidivism, you're doing it right.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DSA can snoop on our every move, yet Capps Office can't even do a simple background check when she chooses her community liaison staffer?

Yeah, and let's keep making jokes about drinking and "having fun".

A few drinks and a few thousand pounds of dangerously moving metal do not mix.

Best wishes to the victim Ms Dies. This never should have happened. But it did, and she was asked to pay the price for our society's continued schizophrenia about intentional intoxication by choice.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lois Capps--the same woman who, when stepping in to fill her late husband's Congressional seat for the balance of his term, promised the voters that she had no intention of ever running for the office beyond her husband's elected tenure, continues to occupy the office at the behest of the Democratic Machine simply because she has neither ever had nor ever voiced an independent thought remotely contrary to the "party line"--is perfectly qualified to be a greeter at WalMart...and little else.
This sad episode--a complete failure of management that goes right to the top of her office--is a clear indication of her unmatched abilities to ride in parades and show up at barbecues to mollify constituents who depend upon her political largesse.
Tar and feathers, I say.

Beachgirl77 (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So they fired him before his trial? I'd be interested on what grounds. Did he lie about his record when applying for the job? Not in any way defending this schlub, but is Capps's office being set up (or setting itself up) for a wrongful termination suit?

Carpreader (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If this was an at-will employment contract as it should have been when tax dollars pay the salary, why would this be setting up a wrongful termination lawsuit?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with beachgirl. This does indicate a failure of management that likely goes to the very top.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Capps acts like a criminal in far more serious matters, so it's no surprise to me that she would hire one.

Here are direct excerpts from a letter she wrote to a Santa Barbara resident on 10 September (ALL CAPS is mine):

"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to U.S. military involvement in Syria. As your Representative, I appreciate hearing from you.

"This is a deeply troubling and complex issue. As you know, several reports revealed the use of chemical weapons in the ongoing conflict between the Assad regime and armed rebel forces in Syria…

"Clearly, THE ASSAD REGIME'S DEPLOYMENT OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS violates a long standing international norm…"

Note what I've put in ALL CAPS.

As anyone paying even minimal attention at that time was well aware, this was a lie — Capps attempting to assist the executive branch of the USA federal government lying us into yet another war (more accurately, the expansion of an ongoing USA covert war into a far more brutal and destructive overt war) .

Just one recent revelation (8 December), among many:

Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And let's not forget that Lois Capps' husband was seriously injured by a drunk driver. You would think that a simple background check for that kind of thing would be in order.

bugmenot123 (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I also completely agree with Beachgirl77,

CManSB (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Re Beachgirl's comment -

It's very typical for employment applications to ask about criminal convictions, and lying on the application is almost always grounds for termination.

bugmenot123 (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Best wishes to the victim Ms Dies. This never should have happened. But it did, and she was asked to pay the price for our society's continued schizophrenia about intentional intoxication by choice."


Hey foo, do you think Ms. Dies would approve of this message? Here is a picture of Ms. Dies:

I'm sure she never EVER gets intentionally intoxicated by choice.

Is it possible that Ms. Dies was intoxicated and went out into the middle of the street without looking? I have to wonder if it is possible a sober driver in the same position would have struck her - hard to say. Obviously Mr. Morua had a greater responsibility as he was the one operating the vehicle and clearly shouldn't have been driving, drunk people who walk are obviously not as dangerous. I just think it is fair to show that it is likely both parties were intoxicated at the time and Mr. Morua would quite possibly have not struck a sober person who was paying better attention about when to cross the street.

That said I really hope Ms. Dies makes a full recovery.

So what I my point? People aren't going to stop drinking in this town and I'm certainly not going to be the wet blanket to discourage it. Drinking is a lot of fun, people have a great time drinking downtown. Go downtown some time and you can hear all of the people having fun. I don't hear you having fun, I just hear you complaining about other people who are having fun. All I can say is be careful, don't drink too much, find a DD or call a cab.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loonpt -

What's your point of posting that photo of Mallory? Clearly you have no idea of your talking about and completely have used that picture out of context.

Find something better to do with your day because you absolutely have no idea of how great a person she is.


matador (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Uh, matador, you must have missed the point of my post. I would hope that Ms. Dies herself would approve of the spirit of my post. She actually does look like a really cool person.

foofighter and a couple of other posters here that will go unnamed want to rally everybody to get rid of the bar scene downtown and the wineries in Santa Ynez and they use stories like this and victims like Ms. Dies to promote their agenda. I don't think that Ms. Dies would approve of their agenda to get rid of drinking establishments, but you know her better, what do you think?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry...just trying to keep things positive at the moment. We need all the positive vibes we can get. Get what you're saying after i reread i portion of it...

matador (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt wrote:
"Is it possible that Ms. Dies was intoxicated and went out into the middle of the street without looking?"

Yes, of course it's possible, as is most conjecture.

It's also possible this was a suicide attempt by an Olympic-caliber sprinter, and Ms. Dies deliberately ran at 15 miles per hour head-on into the car.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I completely disagree with beach girl and to insinuate that somebody is responsible for what their employees do in their free time is crazy talk. Read her post, there's obviously a lot more to beachgirls feelings toward the congresswoman. Sure, call me whatever left leaning slur you can conjure, but your sympathies and political lean have so contaminated your mind that you would reach into the fiction of your fantasies to blame somebody for someone else's actions. Y'all just might be the next contestant hosting their own fox news show. So Lois Capps lied about leaving office. Politicians never lie on either side of the aisle do they? Read your history & pay attention. There are far worse cases of politicians lying with far graver circumstances. Lying is part of the job in case you haven't noticed. Look at JohnTieber as well, takes any chance to rant at he said she said information. So Seymour is to be believed? Outcome; we get Syria to dispose of chemical weapons voluntarily. Guess John was there, havin' a beer with Asad when he chose not to use the chemical weapons. SIDESHOW: what is this article about again?

spacey (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JT, conjecture? Seymour 'alleges'. Like conjecture much?

spacey (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

spacey wrote:
"Look at JohnTieber as well, takes any chance to rant at he said she said information."

Goshdarnit. I thought "Capps acts like a criminal in far more serious matters, so it's no surprise to me that she would hire one." would sufficiently tie my "rant" into this discussion. ;-)

The USA government lies in September are well documented. Regarding "Outcome...," anyone who thinks the chemical weapons issue is a significant part of what the USA has done and is doing to Syria is very poorly informed about this issue.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

agree spacey!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting corollations being made between alcohol and chemical weapons, very interesting.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken_Volok wrote:
"Interesting corollations being made between alcohol and chemical weapons, very interesting."

I wish I had considered that. ;-)

Had I done so, rather than beginning my comment at December 9, 2013 at 11:53 a.m. with...

"Capps acts like a criminal in far more serious matters, so it's no surprise to me that she would hire one."

…I might have written:

"Capps certainly didn't bother to do any due diligence three months ago regarding much more lethal chemical weapons, prior to joining the executive branch of the USA government in its attempt to lie us into a war in Syria, so it's no surprise to me that she didn't do due diligence in considerably less significant employment matters, prior to hiring an employee who has now used our local version of chemical weapons to inflict grievous harm onto a Santa Barbara resident."

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The article by Seymour Hersch is a long-winded stream of conjecture. Prior to the chemical attack of note, there were at least 14 smaller attacks that the Obama administration ignored, despite complaints by doctors and rebels.

I have yet to see ONE complaint by the Syrian army of chemical attacks by the rebels or any opposition. Furthermore, why would the opposition waste time killing civilians when there are almost daily bombing from the air by the Syrian Air Force on civilians and opposition forces.

Seymour Hersch may have gotten some things correct, but that does not mean he gets everything correct.

Here is a blog that attempts to come to conclusions based on real evidence, and discussion with others of different opinions.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Ken, spacey (and, of course Dr. Dan, for the typically substantive comment: "agree spacey!").

I was able to utilize my improved comment above (more succinct and thus hopefully less apt to stimulate a distracting subthread) at the Noozhawk article posted at 1:28 pm:

Aide to Rep. Lois Capps Fired After Alleged DUI, Hit-and-Run

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What do you expect from Lois Capps? She lied about running for re-election. This is what happens when you are unethical. You tend to attract other criminals and those that are unethical.

Carpeterian (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tabatha (at December 9, 2013 at 2:32 p.m.):

The link below is to a 7 September article which includes the full text of a memo to Obama from twelve people who singly have far more credibility than some guy's blog:

Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan
Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)
Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

12 U.S. Intelligence Officials Tell Obama It Wasn’t Assad
7 September 2013

I could provide numerous similarly credible articles from a range of sources, some of them quoting USA-allied government intelligence services, but there's no need, because, in addition to substantial evidence, even then, that the USA executive branch was attempting, yet again, to lie us into war:

Lois Capps' 10 September letter was a lie REGARDLESS of who fired off chemical weapons in Syria, because at that time, the Obama administration was all over the Sunday talking head shows peddling desperate nonsense to the effect that it was just "common sense" that it had to be Assad.

So even if Capps somehow was unaware of the memo linked above, she had to have known that even the Obama administration was admitting (perhaps unintentionally) what most of the world already knew: that at that early date there was not yet evidence to determine who fired off the chemical weapons.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Two things, no three:

1. Capps (or any other politician) needs to do a far better job of vetting their underlings and staff. This is but one element of why we need drug tests for all members of congress---to weed out the blatant substance abusers before they hurt others.

2. Morua should never again be allowed to get behind the wheel of a car. Period. in addition to DUI, attempted MURDER should be the charge. Willful endangerment due to willful disregard.

3. Mr. Tieber---you might consider backing off YOUR obvious drug of choice----meth-fueled delusion.

Draxor (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loony, did you ever stop to consider MAYBE that the picture of Ms. Dies you posted was of her doing after hours cleanup at her place of employment?
I'm not much of a drinker, a few beers, maybe some wine, but I do know for a fact is ANY of us drank the amount of alcohol those emptied bottles she is holding once contained, we'd probably die from alcohol poisoning.
Also, last time I checked walking around drunk is a misdemeanor, driving drunk, causing an accident and leaving the scene is a felony.

With that said, guys and gals, the ISSUE here IS the incident involving a drunk driver, an innocent victim, a criminal act and that's that.
All the political BS, please take it somewhere else, has no place here and is neither here nor there with this tragic incident. LET IT GO!

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

THE DRAX IS BACK! My day is made!

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Syrian opposition (rebels) was losing and desperately wanted to draw the US into the conflict, tabatha. They wanted Obama to make good on his red line promise. So yes, they did have motivation to stage such an attack.

You need to dig into what is/was going on a lot deeper than the statements you just made, and you can even include Benghazi and what the real mission was there in support of the Syrian rebels. This is no time for a shallow analysis. Thank you John Tieber for your cogent posts.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Any of us who also got Lois Capps form letter response to our protests about Obama taking us to the brink of WWIII at that time, her blatant lies about Syria and Assad were stunning.

Took your breath away that she thought she actually believed she could get away with writing that garbage. But she did. Not her finest hour.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Draxor wrote:
"Mr. Tieber---you might consider backing off YOUR obvious drug of choice----meth-fueled delusion."

Meth, huh: odd choice; and also, incidentally, I'm perplexed by what you were attempting to accomplish by putting 'your' in ALL CAPS.

But excellent refutation, Draxor. You can read more about your discussion abilities here:

And then, if that hasn't consumed too much of your time, you might consider tackling:

How to Disagree

Finally (and I do mean finally, so feel free to have the last word, especially if it will make you feel better and amuse myself and others):

Congratulations: I'm nearly certain Paul Graham would consider your comment at the second level from the bottom of his colorful seven-level 'Hierarchy of Disagreement' pyramid near the bottom here:

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

STOP IT !!!!

The girl is hanging by a thread - put your politics were the sun don't shine.

The girl needs positive energy and love.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Prayers are in order for Ms. Dies.... and SHAME is in order for Ms. Capps who will now do all she can to avoid ANY association with this tragedy or the sad fellow behind the wheel.

Sickening, truly sickening.

Beachgirl77 (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bottom line....this guy is nothing more than a drunk scumbag.
Adios loser.

zuma7 (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

howgreenwasmyvalley wrote:
"…put your politics where the sun don't shine…The girl needs positive energy and love."


I very much agree with your sentiment regarding Mallory, but with all due respect (and you can trust I sincerely mean that, due to our very positive interactions in other discussions), regarding "put your politics where the sun don't shine," the article title is:

DUI Hit-and-Run Suspect Raymond Morua Has Criminal Record
Fired from Lois Capps Office; Held on $250,000 Bail

Setting aside the fact that giving positive energy and love does not require a discussion, and that, even if it did, many prefer to do so in their own way, privately, it's no more logical for you to admonish participants in this discussion for not focussing exclusively on Mallory than it would be for you to admonish the Independent for focussing more on issues related to the perpetrator than the victim in this particular article.

I have had Mallory in my thoughts since I first became aware of this incident and, in fact, in order to generate many reminders per day to continue doing so, immediately set the CaringBridge webpage temporarily as my browser home page.

I can do a variety of things in a day without detracting from other things, and so can others.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"however the office does not as a routine matter perform criminal background checks."

So they run a vetting process but not a criminal background check???(slapping my forehead in disbelief)

Maybe they should.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh wait, that's right, Capps does not obey the law. After all, she supports the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a violation of the Sixth Amendement.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sy Hersh's Chemical Misfire
What the legendary reporter gets wrong about Syria's sarin attacks.

- See more at:

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As for Loonpt--who I won't waste my time addressing directly in this matter--he/she is a defender of the drink-and-drive lifestyle as indicated by previous posts saying that you are ok to drive below the legal limit. I've explained several times that my dad was lucky to survive being rear-ended by a driver with a 0.069 blood alcohol content and no--there were no extenuating circumstances in the collision and the court ruled that alcohol played a role in the crash. (My dad had been stopped for several seconds waiting to turn left before the guy rammed into him)

Again, we have a culture of denial--and denial is one of the big factors of alcoholism. I've long heard it said that if you can admit you are an alcoholic, you've won 50% of the battle. It's very easy for me to get furious at both the guy who ran into my dad, (who after running into him, was so desperate to get to his dinner party until my sister reminded him he'd be guilty of hit-and-run) and the guy who hit Dies, but the main problem is the alcoholic mentality of people such as Loonpt--who is effectively blaming the victim--and the take-no-responsibility approach of those who know perfectly well that the people who come to their house/company party and drink are doing so with the intention of getting buzzed at the least if not flat out drunk.

When you are impaired with alcohol--and for that matter other drugs--you may feel as though you are ok to drive when in fact you're not. You may also appear to be ok but not be ok to drive, and as I have pointed out, you need not be legally drunk to be unfit to drive, yet for some reason people continue to drink and have booze parties where the imbibers will be driving home.

We can say all the prayers we want for Dies, and think good thoughts and send positive energy, but until we address the epidemic if drinking and driving, (much as we have the issue of smoking) then the suffering inflicted onto Dies and her loved ones will have been in vain.

It's time to grow up and face the fact that drinking and driving--like smoking--is NOT cool--under ANY circumstances.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Syrian...sarin, all CAPPS, Draxor is back after his tragic death.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posting a photo of a victim who is in the hospital fighting for her recovery to make a statement about what she may or may not have deserved* is victim blaming.

It doesn't matter if she went out and got drunk 100 times this year or never in her life. The actual matter at hand is that someone got into their car intoxicated and ran into her with that car. Not her fault. Not her responsibility. Not fair to make her part of some kind of crazed example that has nothing to do with anything she has done or not done in her life.

Some comments here never cease to amaze (and sicken) me.

*There's absolutely no other way to parse this or try and mitigate it by following it up with your best wishes for her fast recovery. Posting a photo of the victim and saying what you did is absolutely blaming her and pulling her into a debate to be used as an example for your own agenda.

Native1 (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2013 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bill I am all for people taking responsibility for their actions but just because the court determined that alcohol played a role in that crash doesn't mean it did, but it very well could have, yet in the end it doesn't matter! All we need to do is attempt to determine negligence and assign responsibility. The other driver who hit your father was clearly negligent whether they were drinking or not so they should take full responsibility. That's it. Let their insurance company deal with the rest. Alcohol may factor into negligence and I may be ok with testing people under certain circumstances but my point is that alcohol does not equal negligence in 100% of the situations and you know it.

I am not defending their decision to drink and drive and I am not jumping up quickly to defend this guy because right after he hit the girl he displayed gross negligence by crashing his own vehicle. You say I am blaming the victim, but I am not - I'm saying we don't know yet what happened. She could have been intoxicated and may have jumped out into the street and it may not have mattered whether the driver was sober or not. Or maybe she crossed the street thinking it was safe, and the driver was going 20 mph over the speed limit and switched lanes right into her. I mostly just found it ironic that the same people were using this victim to indict alcohol culture in SB as harming another innocent victim when the girl was a poster child for alcohol culture in SB - tonic is one of the most exclusive clubs in town.

Earlier somebody said that I was speculating about what happened - damn right - but don't be hypocritical and assign blame 100% of the time to a driver who may be mildly or relatively intoxicated when their negligence is not going to be the cause of 100% of the accidents - yet that is what society does - they punish for precrimes when nobody may ever be harmed.

I don't personally drink and drive anywhere near the legal limit and probably only drive with any alcohol in my system a few times a year. But I do smoke weed all day every day and I do drive all day every day. You can find several studies out there showing that smoking small to moderate amounts of cannabis can actually improve people's driving performance, reduce at fault collisions as well as deadly collisions. This is because cannabis generally makes people more cautious when they drive. So I would find it highly offensive if they began routinely DUIing people who drive with cannabis in their system. DUIs for cannabis in Washington State or at least the Seattle area have doubled because they have started enforcing an incredibly low legal limit and according to tests should raise the limit at least 4-5x to be in the range of reasonable compared to the .08 limit for alcohol.. but even then I think should only be given the test if they fail a field sobriety type of test (not sure if I support the current ones or not).

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 12:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You drive "all day every day " and you" smoke weed all day every day". Please let me know what kind of car you drive so that I can try stay as far away as possible.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 12:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Native1 I find it highly offensive that you say I think she DESERVED anything!!!

Please be more careful with your accusations.

I hope she makes it out ok just as much as anybody else.

I was only pointing out that we don't have the full story, both individuals may have been intoxicated and we don't know whose negligence caused the accident. If you have any evidence to the contrary please post it. This thread doesn't have to be a Mr. Morua hate fest, I was tired of seeing people positively identify him as being at fault when the victim crossed the street, legally, incidentally, but not in a cross walk on a one way street. That sets up a scenario where ANY driver could have potentially hit her, not just a drunk driver.. but we don't know if he was speeding or changing lanes or whether there were cars blocking his view of her before or whether he had time to move or stop or anything. There are so many possibilities.

The fact that he drove off and got into an accident does not bode well for him but is not related to whether he was at fault during the original incident. IF (if) she bolted out into the street and Mr. Morua had no way of avoiding her, sober or not, then what do you expect him to do? He got out of his car and people were already dialing 911 no doubt so he could have done nothing to save her and staying there would only result in him getting arrested, convicted of DUI and having his career ruined whether the accident was his fault or not. At least that is very likely what was going through his mind and drove his decision making.

I have no idea I'm just pointing out that neither does anybody else, in the mean time let's hope she makes it out and we can all be very highly skeptical of Mr. Morua as he will and should be dealing with some court charges against him.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 12:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A new study released by United States auto insurance quote provider shows that statistically speaking, marijuana users are safer drivers than non-marijuana users

A 1983 study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that the only significant affect of cannabis use was slower driving - arguably a positive effect of driving high.

A comprehensive 1992 NHTSA study revealed that pot is rarely involved in driving accidents, except when combined with alcohol. The study concluded that "the THC-only drivers had an [accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers." This study was buried for six years and not released until 1998.

A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia examined blood samples from drivers involved in 2,500 accidents. It found that drivers with only cannabis in their systems were slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without. Drivers with both marijuana and alcohol did have a high accident responsibility rate. The report concluded, "there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents."

In Canada, a 1999 University of Toronto meta-analysis of studies into pot and driving showed that drivers who consumed a moderate amount of pot typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed. The analysis also confirmed that marijuana taken alone does not increase a driver's risk of causing an accident.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 12:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are no studies showing pot makes you a better driver. More lies from the pot addicts. Those they studied thought they were better drivers when doing an obstacle course, until they got their scores. They were terrible drivers.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 12:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Herschel, conversely, could you tell me what car you drive? Now that I know you don't partake in cannabis I would like to stay as far away from YOUR car as possible.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lol@foofighter's late post it's too bad you can't take it back :D

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 12:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Loon, why just you take a story about a tragic accident and make it your platform for legalizing weed? It is blatant thread jacking. Please stop.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Alcohol is a far more destructive drug than cannabis.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 1:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hershel I didn't bring it up, bill brought it up. Again please be careful with the accusations.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 1:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK people, time to take a poll. Who is more nuts, Loonpt, or me?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like this guy is a perfect fit in Capps campaign organization. She hired him with a couple of DUI's. Why should Capps have expected any different?

Botany (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry dolphin but no contest on the nut poll. foo No.1; 14noscams No. 2: beachgirl No.3.

sbreader (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey loony, there's also a study that says ~85% of all accidents are caused by people driving at or below the speed limit. I say screw speed limits, GUN IT!
Basic point of this: There's a stat for EVERYTHING for and against your point.

But back to posting the picture you posted... MESSED UP! Like I asked earlier, how do you know this picture of her wasn't taken as she was cleaning up at her place of employment after hours? You don't.

Bottom line, the guy's employer chose to hire the guy, the guy chose to get intoxicated, the guy chose to drive intoxicated, the guy accidentally hit a pedestrian, the guy chose to flee the scene, the guy got caught, the guy's employer chose to fire him, the guy's going for a prisonyard suntan. Simple right? Yeah, the way it should be, no complex scenario, no conspiracy, just a recidivist drunk driver and a victim as a function of bad choices. Now he's in the system, yet again, for his choices.

Good to see Draxor back from the dead, but got to say, zuma7 is starting to comment like the Drax used to. Draxor, you're slippin' old friend!

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

blablah first of all, there are plenty more studies that agree with the ones I posted. Secondly, show me a study that goes against what I'm saying and I will show you a flawed study based on the fact that THC metabolites stay in a person's system for at least 30 days and this was not considered in the study or they did not compensate for alcohol or other drug use.

The fact is that those who use small to moderate amounts of cannabis drive just as safe if not more safe than sober drivers. Drivers who use heavy amounts of cannabis before driving only show very small, minimal performance weaknesses compared to those who drink heavily or are taking certain prescription medications. It has been tested over and over.

You can even watch a test they did up in Seattle recently on youtube. They setup a course, brought in police and had drivers smoke, take the test, smoke more, take the test again, smoke more, take the test again. That was how they figured out that the levels they test for and give DUIs in Seattle are way too low, because those who had much higher readings were completing the course just fine. And in my opinion they had them smoking a LOT more than most people would normally have before driving after just the first round. By the end they may as well have choked down a blunt or more, but they were still working the course pretty well all things considered.


loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Secondly blahblah, if a drunk person is driving and otherwise following all of the traffic laws and goes through a green light and a sober driver who isn't paying attention goes right through a red light and crashes into them and the sober driver is injurred, by your logic, you would fault the drunk driver in the accident and give them a DUI even though the sober driver was the one who was negligent in their driving.

You fault the drunk driver for being out on the road even though they may not exhibit any danger to anybody else. That may not apply to Mr. Morua, but the fact is we just don't know what happened yet exactly and you are speculating, even if your speculation has a 90%+ chance of being accurate, even if I agree that what you are speculating is most likely the case, the fact is I admit it is speculation and you don't. That's why we wait for trials.

Yes, I am speculating that she drinks to intoxication based on the photo I posted, but I don't think that is entirely unreasonable or inaccurate. That would lead to further speculation that she was intoxicated on the night in question. That would lead to further speculation that she jumped out into the street in front of the car and there was nothing Mr. Morua could have done. But guess what, it is an entirely plausible scenario and you are not willing to admit that it is a plausible scenario. All you want to do is see people who drink and get behind the wheel go to jail whether or not they are actually a danger to anybody. He may have made it home just fine otherwise and decided to never drink and drive again, but after everything went down his blood pressure went up and it caused him to freak out. He was also a veteran, maybe his PTSD kicked in. He crashed his car. That doesn't bode well for him at all, but it doesn't mean that his negligence caused the original accident. If it turns out that it did then he should be charged for gross vehicular negligence that cause severe injuries and go to jail as well as pay for any medical expenses, etc.. The only thing that could save him at this point is any witnesses or Ms. Dies herself coming to his defense, if she is able to remember the incident at all. We may not have enough information, it may come to a jury of people deciding his fate and the fact that he was drunk will be known and that won't bode well, but the jury would be getting a lot more information than us.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, he's a pow of the war on drugs... NEXT! Admit it, you tried to make the victim the bad guy here, no wikipedia or youtube link needed for your attempt at blaming Ms. Dies. And we thought Mr. Moura was a piece of work!

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again with the lack of logic in your posts blahblah, you might want to read and think about what you post first.

This has nothing to do with drugs or the war on drugs, bill brought up driving on cannabis and I defended it but it is irrelevent to this story.. when I said he had PTSD and is a veteran I'm talking about the war on terror and our military occupation of over 150 countries overseas where we bomb, kill and maim innocent people so that the military industrial complex can profit at the expense of our soldiers and innocent foreigners. In fact at one point the number of military suicides was reaching 22 every day which is a lot more than we lose over in the war, I don't even know if we kill that many combatants each day. It's really sad and you should further consider what a tragedy the whole thing is.

Secondly, I'm not trying to make Ms. Dies a bad person in any way shape or form, I'm getting sick of these disgusting accusations. Even if she was intoxicated and ran out in front of the car, that doesn't make her a bad person, it's still a very unfortunate situation and I wish the best for her no matter what transpired that night. It just completely boggles my mind that you are set on one variation of the story for which there is no proof yet.

Once again - just because a person is drunk and gets in an accident doesn't make it their fault. I have brought up several examples and you are not able to logically argue against my point, all you do is bring up unrelated points. Stick to the topic.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The point that needs to be made here is that this driver violated the law by DUI, and with two previous DUI's as well as fleeing the scene of an injury accident, the punishment should be severe. We may never know the specifics of who was actually at fault, but either way this guy should be put away for a long time.

His personal situation is irrelevant.

Botany (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What a swell opportunity for all the right wingnuts to vent. Hey, why not field a VIABLE CANDIDATE to defeat Caps if you think she's so terrible? Apparently the voters want her in office, despite the clear need for some fresh Democrat leadership talent n her district.

emptynewsroom (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Congresswoman Lois Capps, you need to resign. Yes, I said that. If you can't perform a simple background check, how can you represent us?

Hope the victim recovers and I hope the system won't fail us yet again by letting this guy back onto the street.

sbsurfguy (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What's all this "should have" performed a background check? Maybe she did perform the background check. Do you have any idea how many alcoholics work in D.C.? Why would they not hire somebody because of past DUIs? Do we just banish anybody with a DUI to fast food restaurants or from society completely?

Not to mention he had since gone to college, graduated and was President of the Veterans Associate at UCSB. He did everything right, and then obviously made a horrible mistake.

PTSD is serious.

Do we just give him a free pass? No, he needs to be held responsible.

But maybe we should consider our foreign policy as a cause for concern.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now Capps has fired him retroactively.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loony: "Once again - just because a person is drunk and gets in an accident doesn't make it their fault. I have brought up several examples and you are not able to logically argue against my point, all you do is bring up unrelated points. Stick to the topic"

Again, please save our's and your time by NOT putting up some wikipedia or youtube link, they don't clear up WHY you posted that picture of Ms. Dies.
Basically, reading your post, it comes down to this: "Everybody makes mistakes!" & yes, while this is true, some "mistakes" are costly to others in a life changing way. Ask Ms. Dies. Oh, nope, you can't, she's messed up from this "mistake" you speak of.
It WASN'T a "mistake" just as you posted that picture of Ms. Dies in an attempt to make her out to be a drunk stumbling on the streets.
The TOPIC here is a repeat drunk driver messed up a person's life in terms of health, finance, standard of living, comfort, a whole slew of things. THAT IS THE TOPIC!
It was YOU that decided to turn it into the victim being a drunk & walking into the car. Do you have a BAL on her? No, just a picture of her holding empty bottles of booze which she more than likely had none of.
I'd say check yourself, but you already wrecked yourself. Now go rip a bongload, let it all soak in. Bad stoner... BAD STONER!

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

blablah, you really don't make any sense at all. I didn't post any pictures in any incriminating fashion. I enjoy tying one on every once in a while and used to have quite the bottle collection when I lived in IV myself. There's nothing wrong with getting drunk downtown and walking home, I've done that plastered a few times in the past when I lived within walking distance of the bars.

And nowhere did I say that she was plastered or even drunk - but she could have been and it absolutely positively amazes me that you are not willing to admit that it is possible and may not have mattered whether a sober person or a drunk person was driving the car that hit her. What is it that is stopping you from making that admission? It is a 100% logical admission. It may not be the best position to take a bet on, say if you were in Vegas betting for money, but you are basically saying that the only colors on the roulette wheel are red and black and there is no green square. Please blahblah, the green square is on the roulette wheel, why won't you admit there is a green square?? Do you need to smoke a bowl to see the green square? Why is it invisible for you?

My posts do not come down to "everybody makes mistakes" when right after that I said that Mr. Morua should not get a free pass and should take responsibility if it was his negligence that caused the accident. It comes down to not immediately blaming somebody for something specific when you don't have all of the facts and may be able to attain additional facts. I never would have pointed out the possibility that she could have stepped out into the street and been hit by a sober person if so many people weren't making the assumption that this guy ran into her BECAUSE he was drunk when the two events could have been incidental and there may be information that could bring to light some truth to the matter.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

See, here's the difference between a sober driver & a drunk driver: A sober driver has nothing to run from, unless said sober driver is:
a) Unlicensed.
b) Is driving an unregistered vehicle.
c) Is driving an uninsured vehicle.
d) their license is under suspension or revoked.
Now a drunk driver HAS every reason to run from the scene of an accident because driving impaired is ILLEGAL.
So yes, it WOULD make a difference if it WAS a sober driver that hit her in the sense that the majority of sober drivers, if they meet the 4 points mentioned above, ARE within the law.
A drunk driver, such as the individual in this case had no business behind the wheel.
Remember, DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT. With that said, this guy's privilege should've been taken away.
So by saying "he probably didn't cause the accident" you ARE in fact making an excuse for the guy.
Admit it, your hatred of law enforcement because of the "war on drugs" you're always whining about has made it to where you WILL defend guys like this, even though the guy was wrong getting behind the wheel of the car and you will try to shift the blame.
Then you post a picture w/ the attempt at insinuating the victim was drunk. WHERE'S HER BAL? We know his BAL.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loonpt, it's possible that she was really former president Gerald R. Ford dressed in drag after faking his own death and he was on his way to a bed-in with John and Yoko. Yes, anything is possible, and I might even be Guinvere (assuming King Arthur was real) but the issue is that the guy was drunk--and well over the legal limit, and I've already proven that you can be under the legal limit and still be unsafe, and moreover, that this guy is a symptom of a greater problem which is that the booze industry has convinced many people that drinking and driving is ok, but you just know "when to say 'when' " and all that good stuff.

You can take the dialectic ad infinitum, but in the real world, this guy was drunk, he hit the woman, and he tried to get away. Moreover, what is wrong with our legal system when one can get multiple DWI convictions and still be allowed to drive? I know this is conjecture, but I'm thinking the booze lobby has softened our venal politicians with $$$.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

blahblah, your reading comprehension of my posts is poor I never said that he probably didn't cause the accident, I said that he most likely was negligent and therefore it is very possible that a sober driver could have avoided hitting her - but the fact is you don't know that and you are basing your entire opinion of the event around the fact that he was drunk rather than whether he was negligent or not, which we just don't know yet. And the chances of that not being the case have a bit higher probability than bill makes it out to be.

bill says that even being a little bit drunk can affect your driving skills, which may or may not be true in all cases but the fact is that some people's driving skills are much better than others and people who are able to drive well with alcohol in their system may have better driving skills than a sober person with poor driving skills. Can you deny that? So if their skills driving buzzed are better than someone else who has the right to drive what right do we have to tell them what they can and cannot do? I'm talking mostly about those within the legal limit. Those over the legal limit may also have better driving skills than a sober person to a point, but Mr. Morua did not have better driving skills than a sober person - however he may very well have had better driving skills than somebody who was adjusting their radio, taking a sip of a soft drink, looking for their car charger and all of those activities are legal. That is why it is important we hold people fully accountable for their mistakes whether they are drunk or not. Being drunk can help sway jurors that a person was negligent, and that is why I stated earlier that I may be ok with testing people in some circumstances but alcohol alone does not prove negligence 100% it is only evidence of a person's state.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2013 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry for another off-topic post, but this is the thread in which this subject was first posted.

Why Seymour Hersh has it wrong this time
The chemical strike on East Ghouta is not as mysterious as Seymour Hersh suggests

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 1:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At this point I'm not sure any topic is out of bounds. Any stamp collectors out there?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 5:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblahBlahblah, as I mentioned before, Draxor has been reincarnated, but as a mellower person. Since he's into reincarnation maybe he can die again (twice dead in a month does seem a bit much, doesn't it) and come back as more acerbic, sarcastic being.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

after 72 posts about this guy, nothing is out of bounds, and the chemical weapons issues in Syria obviously have a lot to do with Morua's chemical-dependency issues. now Dolphin swims into this pool with his paean to Draxor, uh, the old Draxor, I think s/he means.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan wrote:
"...and the chemical weapons issues in Syria obviously have a lot to do with Morua's chemical-dependency issues..."

I assume DrDan is referring to tabatha's continued (and apparently fruitless, judging by the lack of response) attempts to flog the Syria issue, apparently not understanding, even after I clarified for her at December 9, 2013 at 1:38 p.m....

"Capps certainly didn't bother to do any due diligence three months ago regarding much more lethal chemical weapons, prior to joining the executive branch of the USA government in its attempt to lie us into a war in Syria, so it's no surprise to me that she didn't do due diligence in considerably less significant employment matters, prior to hiring an employee who has now used our local version of chemical weapons to inflict grievous harm onto a Santa Barbara resident."

...that I raised the Syria issue simply as it relates to Capps' character and competence (i.e. note, if missed the first time, the eighth and ninth words of the paragraph above: "due diligence")...

… and even after I clarified this even a second time for her, at December 9, 2013 at 3:56 p.m.:

"Lois Capps' 10 September letter was a lie REGARDLESS of who fired off chemical weapons in Syria, because at that time, the Obama administration was all over the Sunday talking head shows peddling desperate nonsense to the effect that it was just "common sense" that it had to be Assad.

"So even if Capps somehow was unaware of the memo linked above [ ], she had to have known that even the Obama administration was admitting (perhaps unintentionally) what most of the world already knew: that at that early date there was not yet evidence to determine who fired off the chemical weapons."

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just in case anyone is interested, per Mallory's Caring Bridge site she is being taken off of life support today. Now it is no longer just DUI and hit and run but the charges will most likely now include murder. If you pray, please send up prayers for comfort and peace for her family and friends as they deal with a horrific situation.

prncessotheKing (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is sad that the news of a tragic accident is used by some posters to advance their goofy agendas. Knock if off thread jackers.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That poor woman and her family, nothing can ever make this right for them. Alcoholics are selfish people.

RE: thread hijacking. It takes two to tango.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel_Greenspan wrote:
"It is sad that the news of a tragic accident is used by some posters to advance their goofy agendas. Knock if off thread jackers."

Perhaps Herschel might clarify why he thinks he should determine, rather than the Santa Barbara Independent, via use of the 'Suggest removal' link at every comment, what people are allowed to discuss, in this or any other Independent comment section, especially considering that such comments do not violate the 'Independent Discussion Guidelines [ ] posted at the top of every comment section.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)


As it had some recent activity, I excerpted your comment to the Noozhawk article here...

...then directed any there to the 12:52 pm Noozhawk article here:

Victim of Alleged DUI Hit-and-Run to Be Taken Off Life Support

(As of this writing, both my Noozhawk comments are awaiting moderation.)

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The article posted here is about the DUI hit and run suspect who was an employee of Lois Capps, so I would expect that the discussion would revolve around topics related to the suspect, the incident itself, Lois Capps as well as the victim. Therefore all topics in this discussion are fair play, including well wishes for the victim, her family and friends.

This really is awful news to hear, I sincerely hope that the doctors are wrong, the swelling diminishes and Mallory is able to make a full recovery.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

She's taken a turn for the worse and I just read she's being taken off life support.

Good job people, keep serving that alcohol to people that are driving.

Absolutely disgusting.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt wrote:
"I would expect that the discussion would revolve around topics related to the suspect, the incident itself, Lois Capps as well as the victim.

"Therefore all topics in this discussion are fair play..."

loonpt's first paragraph is perplexing: the second sentence appears to contradict the first; I agree with the second.

Regarding the second paragraph, in the unlikely event bill's report above is incorrect, I very much share and transmit that hope.

Relevant to that is this most recent note at the CaringBridge page which, incidentally, seems to conflate reporting a decision (I would think not irrevocable) to withdraw life support today with reporting that Mallory has already died.

"1:00pm December 11th

"MALLORY HAS NOT PASSED YET. SHE WAS IN THE SAME POSITION SHE WAS IN YESTERDAY. Please refrain from posting anything publicly about her passing in anyway. We all love her and the posts are made with the best intentions but her family does need to be seeing or hearing about that.

"Until we officially hear from the staff, we would love it if her friends and friends of friends would take down their posts anything regarding our Mallory passing."

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Correction to my comment above:

Bill wrote "being taken," not "been taken."

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, it is so great to hear she is still hanging on..

JohnT - My point in the first sentence was that all of the topics in these comments are related to the suspect, the incident, Lois Capps or the victim. I think it is completely fair to relate Lois Capps decision re: Syria chemical weapons attack to her decision to hire this person if that is the argument that a commenter wishes to make. Some people just want to talk about how anybody who has alcohol touch their lips and then drives a car should be shot and anything else is off topic.

and bill... how do you know if you are serving somebody alcohol who plans to drive home or take a cab? When I order a drink I usually have to shout at the bar tender and they can barely hear my order, now we are supposed to have a conversation about my transportation plans for the night? I guarantee Mallory served alcohol to people who drove home under the influence, I won't claim to know what her position was on drinking and driving but for most reasonable people who are not in the zero tolerance crowd it really depends on the person, the situation and how much they have had to drink and is not black and white. Of course it is always better to err on the side of responsibility and caution. There are plenty of people who are able to drive just fine with some alcohol in their system - others may get over excited, get distracted with the other drunk people in their car and may not be able to handle it. However other people handle it just fine, so as long as they are not breaking any traffic laws or driving erratically it makes me curious as to what we should do about it without harming everybody's civil liberties. We can put up DUI checkpoints, but data shows that these do not work as well as just having the officers patrol the area for people breaking traffic laws, plus they are anti-civil liberties.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loonpt, you really have a phenomenal lack of self-awareness to post a photo like that and then be offended and try to turn things around when others here call you out on what was truly distasteful behavior.

A vibrant young woman has lost her life and you took a moment, while she was alive and fighting, to post a photo of her here that you hoped would either start an argument or back yours up. There's just no getting around that, no matter how offended you are by the reactions to what you chose to post.

Native1 (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loon, use your head. You know perfectly well many if not most people people who go to bars/parties where they are drinking are driving home. Your game of dialectics is getting old and boring. Even people who normally fight with each other on these blogs are unified in being disgusted at your comments on this matter. This isn't a government/prohitibion issue, it's a moral one. Deal with it.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)


DUI Hit-and-Run Victim Dies, Suspect Charged with Murder

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Native1, a vibrant young woman living in Santa Barbara and choosing to engage herself fully into the recreational alcohol lifestyle by participating and choosing it as her employment and making it into a huge part of her life unfortunately suffered a horrible tragedy that just happened, incidentally, to be related to her chosen lifestyle and was caught up in someone's emotional distress and PTSD thanks to our violent overseas empire. If you read about this guy you would know he was an alcoholic many years ago, using the substance to treat his PTSD from the Iraq war. We sent him there with our tax dollars and now we are all mad at him for being messed up in the head. What a great society we live in. Anyway, if you know how alcohol works for some people, you see what I'm saying. Otherwise you may need to study up.

I did NOTHING to disparage this girl because I fully respect her right to engage in that lifestyle and have done so myself, there is no reason you should be attacking me.

I am fighting for people's right to live their life how they choose and continue to be vibrant themselves, whether they choose to consume alcohol in a somewhat responsible manner or otherwise is up to them - but I am not going to sit here and watch other people use her victim status to promote an anti-civil liberties agenda that flies in the face of the life that she lived. THAT I believe is disrespectful, THAT is what I was trying to stop from happening, ok? So stop trying to bully me into feeling guilty because it won't work, I have nothing to feel guilty about here.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2013 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpit, how embarrassing for you. You release only 1983 studies - 30 year old pot studies when pot was so much less potent than what is doped out today. You need to get your research from better sources than NORML. Try PubMed for a more comprehensive investigation of the facts and not the pro-pot feeding frenzy you pass off as "science".

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2013 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lol, foofighter you are the one making embarrassing statements.There was plenty of herb back in the 60s and 70s that was as or nearly as potent as today. They also had hash, and hash has not gotten any more potent. The average quality of green bud may have risen some, but that doesn't even matter, because people simply ingest larger quantities of the less potent herb and it has a similar effect but with more health problems in case you are ingesting it through smoking. So now it is simply more healthy. But don't think that people were not taking very potent hallucinogenic pot brownies back in the 70s, because they were.

The studies I cited were from 1983, 1992, 1998 and 1999 as well as a study done just in the last couple of years in Seattle where it was legal for patients and is now legal for recreational use. There are also more recent studies if you search for the ones I posted you will get several lists of such studies, I just posted a small sampling.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2013 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: