Absolutely! McFayden should have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon at the very least and second degree murder at the most. Only a change in our laws will allow this to happen. Let your representatives know how you feel and keep on letting them know until something is achieved.

I still cannot believe that the defendant got off so easily.
Does anybody know what this defendant did for a living in order to pay for his high dolla attorney? He must of mortgaged his home, if he had one. Or perhaps he had an orifice that he simply pulled money out of at will.
I went to see this same attorney about a matter, (nothing like DUI and the police had NO evidence whatsoever, so it would of been a slam dunk case imo) and this attorney turned me away.
I guess I didn't have access to the huge sum of money it would of taken for his time.
So, I'm sitting here wondering why? Why would he work so zealously to defend a obviously guilty person with a past criminal history and turn me away with a case basically being given to him on a silver platter to make a huge amount of money off of.
Maybe he is such a "good" lawyer, highly respected and revered in Guilford County, that the case I took to him was beneath him or something. Or maybe, he was just doing his "job".? The things that make you go hmmmmmmm.....
Again, my sympathy to the familes of the victims.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (Hamlet, III, ii)
Finally the crux of Lily's argument about McFayden's lawyers is revealed. Her denial of services by the same law firm. Hmmmmmm. Indeed.
Say what you will about the defense lawyers in this case, but the writer of this letter states it correctly. It is our laws and how they are enforced. If we don't want to see this happen again then we need to get on the state legislature and demand tougher penalties for repeat offenders.
"The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept." (Measure for Measure, II, ii)

"Quote the raven nevermore..."
Perhaps I didn't make my post clear enough for ya. I am QUESTIONING. I am not PROTESTING. k?
There is a difference, and when I'm protesting trust me, it is obvious. :)

I see people drive drunk every weekend. Some are heavily intoxicated, some barely. It happens A LOT. I find it hard to believe that the people who write these letters to the editor or respond to them have NEVER driven under the influence of alchohol or medication. Now, this guy in particular got caught several times. And it appeared he was a heavy drinker.

But to sit there like ladies at church and act like he is the exception is bullsh$t. It happens everyday and if we locked every person up that ever drove drunk, high or medicated then some of you would be in prison right now.

McFayden's atty is indeed slick and has a criminal past of his own that was expunged this past fall (the N&R covered it so it's not that big a secret). Regardless, McFayden's case points to a much larger problem than that of sleazy, unscrupulous lawyering (in fact, KC was just defending his client to the best of his ability, right?) - people in general are so dismissive of the fact that when operating a motor vehicle, one is in effect behind the controls of a potentially deadly weapon and anything that compromises a person's ability to drive endagers the lives of others. McFayden, like so many other repeat offenders who cruise through the judicial system time and time again, should be forced to serve out their sentences speaking to high schoolers, etc. about the effects of their bad judgment regarding drinking and driving. Jail almost seems too easy compared to having to face the world and speak to the fact that your disregard killed 3 innocent people.

People that drink and drive any should be charged like someone that shoots into a croud.

I'm really not trying to play devil's advocate here, but why all the attention to Drinking and Driving. You say a car is a deadly weapon. Well, what about the idiots that speed recklessly down High Point road at 5pm because they have to be first to the red light. Heck, some of them even run the red light. Aren't these folks just as careless and reckless without good reason. Why shouldn't they be charged with 2nd degree murder, or should they? Or how about those dummies that still can't figure out where the turn lanes are around the coliseum? They aren't intentionally causing wrecks but their stupidity is more dangerous than some people's insobriety.

HAHA! Well I a must say that Truth has an argument there.

I have driven "under the influence" (by this I mean I have had a couple of beers on Thirsty Thursday and drove home)but I usually have enough knowledge of my body to know when I am "fine" and when I am not. I had a friend killed by a drunk driver a few years ago so I rarely take the chance of driving if I think I am remotely tipsy... I don't want anything like to every happen again and especially at my expense.

I also have a question for all of you who say that "anyone who takes a sip and drives should be locked up". Do you all drink a glass of wine at Olive Garden, Bianca's, George K's, etc.? I mean...I have and for some reason thought it was okay to drive home. I weigh around 220 lbs. and have casually drank for a while; therefore, I have a feeling I can handle the glass o' wine/beer. Now when you start getting up to 3,4,5, etc. it's a lot different so please clarify your blanket statements before chastising everyone who occasionally drinks in public venues and drives home.

I personally have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to drinking and driving. Even if it's "just one drink".
This is the year 2005 people.. enough of our loved ones are in the cemetaries already. Stop the nonsense.
Having a drink and driving is not worth taking the risk of killing someone, or even the endure the cost of a DUI.
If the fact that you could kill someone doesn't bother you, here's a question for ya: does anybody have any idea how much it costs to "defend" a DUI charge in NC? If not you should research it, and maybe that would be one reason NOT to drink and drive.
Both things could happen if you are not intelligent enough to NOT drink and drive.

Lily, among the definitions of protest are: to express disapproval and to speak strongly against (Webster's). It would seem from your opinion on this letter and your previous opinions that you are expressing disapproval and speaking strongly against the lawyers. I think that's apparent to everyone who's read them. What you are doing is questioning the status quo as it exists and that is protesting. Good for you.
I think the reason everyone here is harping on drinking and driving "truth" is because this case deals with drinking and driving. It's not about trying to beat the red light to get home two minutes quicker or, as somebody wrote, about taking out a gun and shooting someone.
Now, for the laws as they exist. I know people can screw up at least once in their lives and I wouldn't suggest throwing someone in the slammer because of one beer, glass of wine, or high ball at dinner and heading home afterward. That's a bit extreme. If you are a "repeat" offender then you shouldn't be out there driving. If you cause an accident and are a repeat offender, to jail you go. If you've lost your license because of repeat DUIs and you still drive, off to the slammer.
Then you'll have to go and hire a lawyer at whatever cost because you don't want to go to jail. We all have a legal right to defend ourselves. How strange that we gripe and complain about someone else doing that until it's our turn to sit at the defense table. Notice how Lily thought enough of these lawyers to try and hire them for herself.

Truth and Tater, I have repeatedly posted "drunk drivers". Now if one glass of wine or one beer makes you or anyone else "drunk", then yes, I'm talking about you. If it doesn't, then I'm not.

McFayden was a repeat DRUNK driver. IMO, he has no defense. And if it were your child who he killed in cold blood, I suspect you would not be so quick to half-assed defend him or his kind.

For your information I do not drink and drive, ever. There was once a time when I would have a glass of beer at a pizza place or a glass of wine with dinner and drive home. That was many years ago when I was young and thought I was invincible.

Now I know drinking and driving could cause me to lose my professional license as well as potentially harming someone. I guess when you are on the receiving end of that lethal weapon it changes your perspective.

I agree road rage is also dangerous (and stupid) but that is not the same as drunk driving. At least with RR you are not driving dangerously WHILE being impaired (unless you have been drinking).

Let's not compare apples to oranges on this one fellas. Like Lilly, I have zero tolerence for drunk driving as the subject is very personal to me. The issue is the light sentence McFayden received in spite of the fact he was a repeat offender. Can either one of you defend that?

Joe, Why not leave Lilly alone? She was trying to make a valid point, not start round whatever in this fight between you guys. The truth of the matter is money does talk. And loudly. Who cares if she was stating an opinion or protesting. She posted sincerely and should not be pounced upon for doing so.

I think Joe does have a point Yvonne. Lilly opened up the can of worms by talking about that guy's lawyers and has done it before. I don't think it's pouncing on anyone it's just pointing out that she is bringing up a point that this guy bought his sentence with his legal aid and now we find out that she went to them and she says she wasn't able to afford them or something like that. It does sound like crying over spilt milk. If you bring up something here someone's going to call you on it. Ain't it funny that this is supposed to be a place to express your opinion and everybody keeps saying "don't mess with mine". If you want to talk about something then you have to accept the criticism that comes with it. Even I know that's at the core of debate. So let's all get off our high horses and thicken our skin here.

I totally agrees with Williamson's letter but it's not just the legislators but all aspects of society. Drinking is "The Thing To Do" in today's society whereas smoking is not. Smoking receives all the attention by the News and Record and all other publications in the country. Smoking does not kill an infant nor a ten-year old, etc. In most cases people who die from smoking are over 50. Smoking does not cause the break-up of a marriage as does drinking. Alcohol is involved in a lot of domestic abuse cases. Smoking does not affect innocent people nearly as much as alcohol but receives far more negative press than alcohol. If someone chooses to smoke they are only hurting themselves primarily, while someone who abuses alcohol can affect a lot of innocent people. There are legitimate concerns about tobacco companies advertising to the youth, but who are the beer companies targeting with their advertisements in sporting events with young women in bikinis.

Obviously "Truth" believes that most everyone has driven drunk at some point in time in their life since drinking is "The Thing to Do". Fortunately not everyone has.

It would be nice to see the News and Record to do an article on why drunk driving laws are not tougher and include a discussion of Williamson's point that it could easily happen to legislators or a lot people who otherwise would not get in trouble with the law. It seems like society has decided that I should worry about someone killing themselves from smoking but if I get killed by a drunk driver "that's the breaks".

For the record I do not smoke or drink nor do I work for a tobacco company or a beer company.

Joe, listen to Yvonne, don't start with me.
Yes this guy had himself a VERY good lawyer. I only go for the best when I shop. So? What is wrong with that?
Sarah, I doubt very seriously that this guys lawyer was paid with legal aid money, (but before I get attacked, I should say, he COULD of been, I just think it was highly unlikely)
Oh just to set the record straight, I wasn't crying over "spilt milk", I was just stating facts. I guess everything is left up to interpertation huh?
Sometimes things have a way of working themselves out for the best. In the case of this particular lawyer not taking the case I spoke to him about, was in fact, the best thing that could of happened. :)
I ain't mad at cha, ya'll. :)

Sarah, I am not attacking Joe. I have read his posts since he joined this forum. On most issues I think he presents some mature, well thought out points. In this instance I think he was baiting Lilly and being petty in making such a big deal out of "opinion vs protesting".

Such childishness is most unattractive in an adult, in my humble opinion. He could have made his point and been a better person without such an "Ha,ha, I gotcha back" attitude. It seemed to be a carry-over from previous issues he, Lilly and Steve have disagreed on.

You call it "pointing out" and "calling someone" on something. Whatever you want to call it is OK by me. I just think it was not conducive to an adult discussion.

I'm not, repeat, not, jumping on anyone's case or starting something with them. I'm highlighting people's arguments and the fallacies that exist there. I'm just tired of beating a dead horse on McFayden's lawyers. Sure he may have paid more money or maybe they did it pro bono for the publicity. Did you ever think of that? Any one of you would do the same thing when you are in trouble with the law. I thought it strange that Lily would condemn them and sought to hire them. That's not anything against her. It's just typical hypocrisy. I can point that out just like the rest of you can quibble about other people's, as well as my, opinions here. It's freedom of speech and the press ladies.

I'm sorry Yvonne, but if you look at this string the "baiting" occured with Lily and not Joe. She started the symantics argument about protest/question. I didn't see a "na na boo boo" type of thing come from him. He just said it was the same thing. If it's a carryover from something else then why are we getting in the middle of it? I've read most of his stuff too and find it has far more depth than most of the people here. At least he sees beyond the surface of an issue.

Joe, I do not want to talk about you as if you are not here so I'll address my comment to you. I thought the post to Lilly was out of character for you. I know you, she and Steve had some major disagreements on previous posts. Since those threads have fallen into cyberspace and the archives, I had hoped the anamosity all had expressed would fall into darkness also. I was just disappointed when you (seemingly) continued the feud in this thread.

I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions. The way I was reading your post, I thought all that emphasis on opinion vs protest took away from the issue of McFayden's light sentence (given the gravity of his offense). And to be perfectly honest, my agenda is to keep harping on the lack of tough laws aganist drunk drivers until the laws are changed.

At any rate, Lilly is near and dear to my heart so I really wish you and she could realize you share more common ground than you think.

Now, if there is anyone in cyberland reading this that can help, please do. I want to know how I can be instrumental in getting the lax laws re drunk drivers changed. I contacted Dateline after I saw where some states had gotten the laws changed so drunk drivers could be charged with assault with a deadly weapon when they hit someone. I specifically asked how I might get that done in NC, where to start. All I received was one of those annoying generic responses thanking me for my interest.

I asked a lawyer but he was of little help as he thought it was a bad idea. So does anyone here know?

" I thought it strange that Lily would condemn them and sought to hire them:. Joe, you got it all wrong.
I did not condemn this particular attorney, I just wondered aloud.
"So, I'm sitting here wondering why? Why would he work so zealously to defend a obviously guilty person with a past criminal history and turn me away with a case basically being given to him on a silver platter to make a huge amount of money off of." That's not condeming, its WONDERING.
Keep posting anti-Lilly stuff, but keep in mind there are a FEW pro-Lilly people so do it at your own risk. :)
I ain't mad at cha.

PS Sarah: "I'm sorry Yvonne, but if you look at this string the "baiting" occured with Lily and not Joe. She started the symantics argument about protest/question"
Read before you type please..
This was the first bomb thrown by Joe ok?
"Lily, among the definitions of protest are: to express disapproval and to speak strongly against (Webster's). It would seem from your opinion on this letter and your previous opinions that you are expressing disapproval and speaking strongly against the lawyers. I think that's apparent to everyone who's read them. What you are doing is questioning the status quo as it exists and that is protesting. Good for you."
So for the record, I was NOT the one who "baited" anybody. Its there in black and white.
I don't bait, I express myself. I do not play games. I am here for fun, discussion and to hopefully have a different point of view (my point of view) seen by lots of people.
I still ain't mad at cha. :)

The UNC-G student, Dawn Upson, has written a follow-up comment that provides further details of the incident concerning her pet and her professor. If this link does not respond, go to the May 26th archive.

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/archives/2005/05/who_are_profess.html

Lily it's in your second post. You even used all caps (in black and white) to yell about the difference. I think Yvonne used the baiting word and I was replying to her. Yvonne is right it is a trivial point and you and Joe do share some ideas. I saw the ones on kids and video games. He acknowledge you shared a veiwpoint and you didn't. Don't you think you're being a little too wrapped up in Joe the person and end up not noticing his arguments? I think he agrees with you on the lawyer thing but says it's more than that.
Yvonne, in several of these posts people have said we need to contact the lawmakers. I guess that would be our reps at Raleigh. They'd know what to do better than a lawyer would.

Sarah, yes, the lawmakers in Raleigh would know better. The majority of them ARE lawyers.
So there will always be loopholes, and/or a way for defense lawyers and the state and county to make money off this legal drug that kills people.
This is all I'm going to say about that.
The rest of it is evidently too difficult for comprehension, for all involved. Including myself. :)

Wow. All these comments about Joe and Lilly. Sorry, Sarah, but Joe started it on this thread. That is obvious. Joe could have made his comments without addressing Lilly at all. She didn't address him. Then we wouldn't have had all these other comments from the rest of us.

I played devil's advocate and I expected comments here. I wasn't defending this particular case. I was, however, pointing out that there is often hypocrisy when people start villifying others.

George went on to say that I obviously think everyone drinks and drive. I did not say that. In fact, I know that to be true because I don't drink or smoke either. Actually, I drink about 2 times a year and don't drive.

I also realize that this thread is speaking about drinking and driving and not reckless driving. But regardless of whether or not my child is killed by a drunk or a reckless driver, I'm going to feel the same way. Either way it is a senseless action leading to someone's death.

My main problem is people getting on high horses. I just can't stomach it. And I'm going to call them out every single time I see it. And trust me, my skin is as thick as they come so if anybody wants to attack my ideas, bring it on. I'll keep posting them and you can attack them all you'd like. The point is that I'm trying to bring some different ideas and angles to this forum. Not just nod in agreement or disagreement.

Isn't that the point?

I have always believed that the "truth" shall set you free.

Yeah truth, I'm with you on the thicken our skin thing. And like you said we all can have our opinions trashed. I'm sorry I just don't buy riding to someone's defense because they have a weak argument. But, like I said to Yvonne, why are we getting in the middle of their squabble? Let them do their thing and work it out. We can stick to the point.
You say you that "there is often hypocrisy when villifying others." That sounds like what the man pointed out about the woman here. (I won't say their names, but we know who. I don't want to start that up again.) Six of one and a half dozen of the other. If I say it it's okay, but if you say it, it's wrong. (not really, just a point)

Truth, I think you and I are actually AGREEING ON SOMETHING! Amazing....

I found it interesting that people seemed to pounce all over me for merely stating that MOST people that enjoy a nice glass of wine may like to have one with their meal in a public restaraunt. THEREFORE, they would HAVE to drive home and more then likely be fine to do so. The legal limit in this state is .08 and I gaurantee you that most people would blow below that if they only had one or two glasses of wine/beer. (especially men) All I was trying to do is point out that I don't think these people are criminals and should be thrown under the jail simply because they enjoyed a glass of wine. Now when they have more then a couple and become a danger behind the wheel I say they should be prosecuted. So let's go ahead and get that straight.....

I too had a friend killed by a drunk driver ya'll. I saw him the night before he left to go on vacation to Wilmington with his family and had I known that was the last time I would see him I would have said a lot more to him. His name was Derek Kesler and both he and his father were killed in a head-on collision. His mother was severly injured along with his brother. The drunk driver that hit them also died in the crash (which I am glad of because I would have got him later on if he hadn't) and was legally drunk at the time of the accident, according to the autopsy reports. Now this ass had been caught several times and, if I remember correctly, lost his license yet somehow he still was able to get good and drunk and kill a couple of great men and tear a family apart.

When you speak about drunk driving, trust me I have felt the sadness it can bring first hand and have seen what it does. It tears people apart just because it is so preventable. A lot of my friends use to have no problem driving home and four wheeling after drinking a six pack. Now none of us drink more then a couple because we always think about the tragedy that occured a few years ago.

So please, when you all pounce on me for "half-ass defending him" (Yvonne) understand that I agree with you on most of your statements; however, I am not going to chastise everyone that has a beer at the baseball game and drives home. It's ridiculous to suggest that everyone that has A drink is a felon and should be locked up because you are wrapping me up in the argument and I take a little offense to that. So instead of thumping your chest and trying to sound like a bad-ass all the time why don't you step back and come back into reality because not everyone lives in "Yvonne and Lilly" world. I'd really like to see if you all ONLY drink at home as well and if you NEVER drive after you have had ONE. Here is a better question, have you ever been a PASSENGER when someone else has had a couple? Did you chastise them?

My simple suggestion to curb the problem is this. If you get a DUI the first time you should be put on probation and lose driving priveledges for a year. The second time restricted driving privedges for 5 years and a year in jail. Third strike, 5 years in jail and restricted driving priveldges for the next 10 years. If you injure someone or cause an accident, off to jail you go for at least five years. I haven't decided on if you kill someone.....I'd probably charge with vehicular homicide depending on the circumstances..... (This could all be a lot more detailed but that's pretty much the jest of it)

Tater, I am sorry that I offended you. It was not my intention to offend anyone. My only excuse, I guess, is I did get steamed when you and Truth insinuated Lilly and I were judging McFayden unfairly. ("But to sit there like ladies at church and act like he is the exception is bullsh$t. It happens everyday and if we locked every person up that ever drove drunk, high or medicated then some of you would be in prison right now." Truth quote. And in prior posts you have said we were judging him harshly because we didn't know all the story and he didn't "intentionally" set out to kill someone.)

You asked us to clarify our blanket statement about drinking and driving. Neither one of us had made a blanket statement. Lilly said she had zero tolerence for drinking and driving but did not say she thought someone should be locked up for having just one drink. I have always used the term "drunk drivers" and said if one drink made you drunk then I was talking about you. Otherwise I wasn't. In other words, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. If my choice of words seem harsh, it is because I am passionate (and perhaps not entirely rational) about this issue.

Now, I am not angry with you or Truth. I am upset by the suggestion that we are riding on high horses and standing in judgement of all of you who choose to have a drink and drive. I think it was unfair to us to accuse us of that. But I also think it is your right to express your opinion even if I don't agree and say so.

FYI, I happen to like and respect you and Truth. That doesn't mean I don't think you both are butts at times.

I have an idea. In several places where I have lived, the judges have sentenced shoplifters to stand in front of the stores with large signs indicating the shoplifters had stolen from the stores. In addition to other penalties judges hand out for first time DUI offences, why not make the drunk driver stand in front of the bar, or wherever the drunk driver got the booze, during peak business times with a large sign saying �I drove my car while drunk�. If people going in to the establishment see this, perhaps they will think more carefully about how much they drink.

Tater if more people lived in "Yvonne and Lilly" world", the world would be alot better off I think. :)

If I am directing a comment to you, I will put your name at the top. Don't assume I'm talking about you. This subject was brought up before and I was really addressing some of the posts there along with the ones here. There just seems to be a trend of people jumping all over one issue and acting like they couldn't ever be guilty of at least as bad or worse.

People need to get over themselves. That is my point.

Yvonne and Lilly I consider friends so no disrespect intended.

As far as Tater goes, I agree with him on a lot of things. I just rarely chime in with affirmations. My bad.

Truth, Aw, lets kiss and make up. Smack on the pucker. Seems there are a lot of us who are extra sensitive about this subject. Sorry if I offended you too.

In the future I will not assume you are talking to me if you do not address your post to me. OK?

Smooch and a handshake! Sounds like a deal to me, Yvonne.