Old 06-06-09 | 04:26 AM
  #32  
fetad's Avatar
fetad
drive-by poster
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
From: St. Petersburg, FL

Bikes: Yes(s)

Originally Posted by laxrider
My first question is why was the sheriff even allowed to be driving in the first place if, as stated in the article, he has sleep apnea?
I'm not sure how sleep apnea is relevant to the crash. It's not narcolepsy. It's a disorder characterized by temporary cessation of breathing while sleeping. I don't think that sufferers of sleep apnea are more likely to pass out while in a state of consciousness. Am I wrong?

I guess an argument could be made that they receive less productive sleep , but that's a bit of a stretch if used as an excuse to either (1) remove negligence from a crash caused by falling asleep or
(2) not allow someone to operate a motor vehicle.

From both articles: "Others said the punishment fit the crime, since Council was not inebriated, has expressed deep remorse and had a 10-year-old sister who was killed in a car accident."

Relevance does not compute.

I wonder if sis died before or after his street racing and drunk driving charges. If before, he didn't learn anything from it.
fetad is offline  
Reply