Drunk driver who killed Malik Sealy gets another DUI

MINNEAPOLIS -- New drunk driving charges have been filed against the man convicted in the drunken driving accident that killed Malik Sealy of the Minnesota Timberwolves in May 2000.

Souksangouane Phengsene, 50, of Shakopee, was arrested in Crystal early Sunday and was charged with felony drunk driving Tuesday in Hennepin County District Court....

full article here http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2630224

If there is one thing i hate its irresponsible people. After reading more of the article i found out this dipshit only got 4 years in prison for killing malik sealy. IMO that is not enough. Being an irresponsible person doesnt make it okay to kill someone and get off with a smack on the wrist. Now he is out doing it again? This guy should have his drivers license taken away for a long time. Make him walk or ride a bike. This behavior is unacceptable.

How does he still have a drivers license now? How did he only get 4 years? Pathetic.

that guy has a weird name. however i have no idea how he got 4 years for killing sealy. he shouldve been locked up for 15 years.

He should be in prison right now. He murdered a man and got four years for it? How do you get off so easy?

The guy obviously feels no remorse for what he has done.

Fuck this guys a dumbass.
He is a disgrace to Laos people ( My background ).
Get this fucker off the streets.

He should be in prison right now. He murdered a man and got four years for it? How do you get off

Wasn't it an accident? So he didn't really murder Sealy... it was more like manslaughter...

Anyways, yeah, the fact he was drunk that night and killed someone (even if it was an accident)... wasn't fully justified by a 4 year jail sentence...

I think they should lock him up after this incident, or at leats go to rehab and take his licence away from him, he's a danger on the road

This is his THIRD DWI charge against him. When will they get the hint that this guy just doesn't get it?

This is his THIRD DWI charge against him. When will they get the hint that this guy just doesn't get it?

I dont think priors can be taken into account until after the verdict and sentencing...

A bit like a story I heard about this pervert...

He was caught starting through some ladies window late at night while she was changing, and arrested for it. During the trial, he used the excuse that he was looking for something in the bush, and not being intrusive or whatever. A completely plausible excuse, and he was let off, since there was reasonable doubt towards his guilt.
After the judge made the decision, he read the priors. 12 other recorded instances where this man had done the exact same thing...

This is an instance where there is a reason to introduce prior convictions when hearing trials (like in the UK for example) but it also doesnt really allow for people that have changed their ways.

Such as someone who was convicted of murdering someone, and then goes and commits manslaughter. He had no intention of killing the person, and may have changed his ways, so therefore the previous murder charge should not count towards his new charges, or the way in which the jury views the case...

wow... this guy definatly deserves what sentence he gets plus some...

did know he was "laos"?

He only got 4 years for killing someone, wow. And he got his license back

How does he still have a drivers license now? How did he only get 4 years? Pathetic.

Pathetic is right. The four year sentence was insulting enough to begin with and as Riot said it's clear he learned nothing from his punishment.

Well, about learning from what he's done wrong, lots of inmates come out of jail and haven't changed a bit.

ive seen/heard people get way less time for way worse crimes. The Legal systems are crap in almost every country (not the ones with electric chair, if there are any left).

Thing is, when people make decisions in legal sentences, they look at what the best option is and try to give even the guilty man another chance. Giving less time may mean that the person will have the greatest chance to learn from their mistakes and still come back out in the community and be sane. If you keep someone behind bars for too long, they will be all screwed up (as studies suggest) and when they come out, they may make society worse off.

As long as his sentence was justified, I'm sure it must have been a 'fair sentence.' Sometimes people can't let bias help them make a judgement. I'm sure the sentence was given out.

Vehicular manslaughter's maximum sentence is 10 years in Idaho and that was an increased term amended via a draft. All jurisdictions are different so i dont know what the max sentence is in Minneapolis but I think it would probably similar... 4 years is less than half that... (I don't know USA geography well... im sure minny isnt in idaho...)

Ok, just found this:

The harshest sentence for vehicular manslaughter or homicide was 5 years

Thats from 1998... so 2 years before this happened... so 4 years out of a maximum sentence of 5 years is sort of fair in a sense... sometimes the law doesn't seem fair but... his sentence was fair in a legal sense I guess... ^^ The max sentence of 5 years is in South Dakota...

You can't do anything about that...

lots of inmates come out of jail and haven't changed a bit.

that's because jails aren't correctional facilities like the politicians would want you to believe.

lots of inmates come out of jail and haven't changed a bit.

that's because jails aren't correctional facilities like the politicians would want you to believe.

The people that go into jails are usually pretty fucked up ... Some of them live better lives in jail simply because they have a bed and food. Recidivism is most likely one of those things that will never be stopped, no matter what the punishment is (except captial punishment i gues... )

Zoom_24,

My issue with this whole thing is he had a previous DWI before the Malik Sealy incident. He then kills someone in a drunk driving accident and he gets four years? The worst part is he gets out and is still able to drive after those two huge fuck ups. Those are the three times he was caught driving drunk...I can bet you he has driven drunk a lot more than three times. He is irresponsible and he shouldn't have a license. He shouldn't even be out in society.

Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with what he got man... just trying to say how he might have got it.

In 1998, a woman admitted to running someone over. She got a suspended sentence of 4 years... and was sentenced for accidental vehicle manslaughter and not simply vehicle manslaughter even though she admitted it was intentional. The system is just soft

I agree, people like this shouldn't even be driving on the road but what can we do? It's not liek I could go and snatch his license away...

Also, there's nothing we can do abotu it. Even if you take his license away, I bet he will still drive without ma license. Locking him up means that you taxpayers are paying for him to rot in prison... There's nothing I can think of that would be a good solution to the problem

Locking him up means that you taxpayers are paying for him to rot in prison...

better that than him killing more taxpayers behind the wheel.

Well, about learning from what he's done wrong, lots of inmates come out of jail and haven't changed a bit.

something thats true and true, people don't change. they do for a little bit, for some time, and then they ineviatably switch back. as much as thats sad its just the reality of life. a tiger doesn't change its stripes, neither does a person change who they are, its who they are.

Locking him up means that you taxpayers are paying for him to rot in prison...

money isn't even an issue.

That's because you live in Australia.

something thats true and true, people don't change. they do for a little bit, for some time, and then they ineviatably switch back. as much as thats sad its just the reality of life. a tiger doesn't change its stripes, neither does a person change who they are, its who they are.

Well, chucking people in prison would more likely screw them up and make them worse... and as you said, some people never change...

better that than him killing more taxpayers behind the wheel

That's where measures like suspended licenses come in and stuff... and if he kills another person, he would probably be locked for even longer. Also, the likelihood of him killing himself due to sheer stupidity of drink driving is high so he could rid himself for us.

money isn't even an issue.

Do you mean here or there? I was just saying if every person was locked behind bars for a long long time... that would be really exspensive... I'm sure the Government funds prisons here, not sure bout America so I sorta jumped to that conclusion... and Jackal's probably right, it's cause I live in Australia

The people that should be locked up for a long, long time should be locked up. I feel this retard should be locked up for many more years. He freaking killed a guy and he's put others in danger by driving drunk numerous other times. He is reckless and irresponsible, he should not be out in public. He should be locked up where he can't hurt anyone else.

There are many people like him and many people worse than him... if this guy is locked up, then it's the same for all those like or worse than him... the thing is, it just doesn't happen. That's the sad truth man. Harsh reality...