By Trissean McDonald
In the case of Andrew Thomas Gallo, Gallo was convicted of negligent drunk driving and as a result, he murders a total of three people and critically injured the fourth person.
The defendant allegedly had an alcohol percentage blood level of at least 0.19% (more than twice the legal limit) before he ran a red light and committed an act of involuntary manslaughter. Before the horrific incident, the defendant consumed a number of alcoholic beverages (resulting in a vulgar accident) that was recorded on film and also addressed to the court. In this article, there are several slippery slopes that will be pointed out.
First one, Gallo’s defense attorney stated, “what happened on that night, when all those kids met in that intersection… was something that captured the heart of Orange County. We don’t have a murderer. He did it, and he has to live with that for the rest of his life,” defense attorney Jacqueline Goodman said. “But Andrew Gallo is not a murderer.”
The defendant was allegedly coercively under the influence of alcohol before the defendant ran a red light; thus killing three and injuring the fourth person, and is considered not guilty for murder? That’s rather questionable, isn’t it? Secondly, this was actually not Gallo’s first time being convicted of a DUI. Therefore, Gallo was absolutely familiar with the judiciary prohibition in regard to driving under the influence of an intoxicant.
Defense attorney Goodman stated a repulsive argument to entice the jury into believing in Gallo’s civility. However Orange County prosecutor, Susan Price, revisited Gallo’s prior DUI convictions to remind the jury of his perpetuated disregard of cautionary notification regarding the dangers of driving under the influence, according to The Los Angeles Times. Price showed a video of Gallo and his stepbrother drinking at a West Covina bikini bar on the night of the crash.
“See the defendant drink beer after beer after beer, shot after shot after shot this is not someone who had never been warned about the dangers of drinking and driving,” Price said. “A court told him … a teacher told him. His family told him. He disregarded all of that.”
Gallo’s attorney argues the fact that Gallo never intended to drink and drive, that Gallo always had a designated driver. In addition to the attorney’s argument, Gallo’s stepbrother, Raymond Rivera, encouraged Gallo to drink before the crash. First of all, is it logical to go against your own belief of decorum, to be enticed and beguiled simultaneously? Secondly, shouldn’t the defendant have felt a sense of guilt after being convicted of a DUI at age 18 and was sentence to three years probation?
Goodman’s argument stating the fact that Gallo shouldn’t be labeled as a murderer is quite frivolous. Although it was an accidental fatality, in all reality, Gallo committed an act of involuntary murder. The definition of murder is as followed: the crime of unlawfully killing a person. In the case of Gallo, although the murder was not premeditated, he was under the influence of an intoxicant while driving a machine, which is unlawful. Gallo definitely fits the definition of a murderer.
He unlawfully killed three individuals although not premeditated. The crime that Gallo committed unquestionably affected his local surroundings in numerous of ways. For instance, The Los Angeles Angels lost one of their rookie players (Nick Adenhart) due to Gallo’s negligence. Furthermore, not only The Los Angeles Angels felt a sense of remorse for their lost rookie player; moreover, it is without a doubt that the family of the rookie was hit hard by the catastrophe as well.
In addition, consider the lament of the family of the two other victims that were murdered by Gallo’s negligence. Secondly, consider the concern of the people within the community. Could there perhaps be fear embedded within their hearts over such tragedy? Will it be hard to believe that perhaps some of the locals are seeking psychological help because the grief is too heavy?
There are certain regulations in which we must comply. Wheter it is a local or nationwide law, we are held liable of these regulations. In different states in the U.S., the legal alcohol percentage blood level is not the same. However, it is a federal crime to drive any motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. Gallo not only was aware of the law, but also broke the law and broke it more than once.
Gallo’s stubbornness caused him to be ridiculed by the locals and the nation. Indeed, not only the locals were affected in his treacherous act. The nation is full of people that are highly sensitive about drunk drivers. Therefore, it would make perfect sense to state the nation was also affected in some way or another. Internationally laws do differ.
For instance, if Gallo was found guilty of a DUI in Malaya, both Gallo and his spouse would be forcedly incarcerated. In addition, citizens of Finland must be incarcerated with induced hard labor. Although these are harsh international punishments, El Salvador is far beyond negotiation of suspects of a DUI. For instance, if Gallo was found guilty of a DUI in El Salvador, it will be his first and last offense. The Salvadorians, allegedly as punishment, kills the suspect execution style by a firing squad, according to a November 7, 2012 “Worst DUI Laws Around the World” statement from the Charlotte County DUI defense attorneys’’ website.
In conclusion, Gallo committed an unforgettable crime that has scarred the families and friends of all four victims. Gallo should be held accountable for all three murders. Gallo’s mistake has made him out to be a murderer although Goodman disagrees. In addition, Gallo failed to logically analyze the outcome of driving a vehicle while intoxicated. If Gallo had properly rationalized the outcome, the act of involuntary manslaughter could have been avoided.