Staples pleads guilty in DUI case
URBANA – A former Champaign police detective who admitted she drove while drunk will have to wear an alcohol-monitoring bracelet until her sentence is imposed next month.
Lisa Staples, 41, whose last known address was on Frank Drive in Champaign, pleaded guilty Tuesday morning to misdemeanor DUI for driving while drunk on Dec. 19.
Staples hit a sport utility vehicle driven by a Mahomet teen from behind about 9:30 p.m. on County Road 1600 N near Bondville.
Staples’ attorney, Tony Novak of Urbana, and Assistant State’s Attorney Scott Larson negotiated an agreement that calls for Staples to serve 180 days in jail with 160 in remission, two years of probation, a $1,000 fine, restitution of $1,609 to the two teens in the vehicle, 150 hours of public service and the dismissal of felony charges of knowingly making a false application for a drivers license.
Because Staples has not yet had a substance abuse evaluation, Judge Jeff Ford conditionally accepted the agreement pending the outcome of the evaluation. He set sentencing for June 13. Staples will have to serve 20 days in jail then. Holding the rest in remission means that Ford can impose as few or as many of the 160 remaining days as he sees fit should she violate the terms of her probation.
Staples remains free on bond. As a condition of her bond, Ford ordered her to use no drugs or alcohol and to wear an alcohol-monitoring bracelet starting Wednesday.
I like how the News Gazette will allow comments for this but wouldn't allow for the shooting at the mall. For the ANIMAL that obviously didn't care about the thousands of people who might have been in harms way when he went on his shooting/retaliation shooting spree. I suppose this will get deleted soon so ENJOY!
Umm,did you not read the article? Looks like she'll be getting jail time but I do not have my glasses on. Maybe I read it wrong.
Moving on..
I think if there were stricter laws on dui's people wouldn't get behind the wheel of a car. Perhaps start off with jail time for the first offense. I do not drink and drive because I do not want to be responsible for killing someone and it's against the law but maybe, just maybe if we would put people in jail for their first offense, that people might think twice about it but who knows?!
I just tweaked the story to explain the jail sentence and what holding days in remission means. She'll have to do 20 upfront but will be given credit for two already served. The judge gets to hold the rest over her head during the term of probation. Sorry it wasn't clearer initially.
I think we also need to start dividing DUIs into classes based on the nature of the offense. I know we already seperate aggravated DUIs (ones with injuires/fatalities), but simply blowing a .08 at a checkpoint versus being stopped for a traffic infraction (which displays inability to properly operate a motor vehicle) and blowing a .15 is a very different situation. Many reaserchers have demonstrated that .08 is hardly an intoxicated state and that there are several other legal activities that people do while driving that lead to greater levels of distraction.
You have got to be kidding me!!!! Really???? Have these people lost their minds?? She has done this twice. Lied to the government about her drivers license and if memory serves me correctly at one time worked in a bar. This all coming from a former law enforment officer. I am no rocket scientist but she does not get it and appears will never get it. To the families of the girls that were hit on Route 10 do not let her get off with another slap on the wrist. Something needs to be done before its too late.
I found it amusing that the Pantagraph allowed for comments on the MPM shooting, but the home town paper thought that the good citizens would be up in arms and vocal about the shooting, so there were no comments. If its the least bit controversial and puts one group in a bad light due to their actions... well,... then we cant talk about it now can we.
Thanks for writing. Actually, comments have been allowed on several of our stories about the mall shooting.
Comments are open here: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/courts-police-and-fire/2011-05-14/man-a... and here: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/courts-police-and-fire/2011-05-08/train... and here: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/courts-police-and-fire/2011-05-16/man-f...
Mike Howie
online editor
If its the least bit controversial and puts one group in a bad light due to their actions...
Don't you see the problem with selecting 'a group,' however you define that group, and judging all people who fit your definition of that group by the actions of some people in that group?
How would you like to be judged by the actions of everyone who is in some group someone else lumps you in with? This can done regarding 'race,' ethnicity, religion, geographic origin, national heritage, education level, gender, sexual preference, and on and on and on.
There was even an experiment in which researchers told participants that people with green eyes were devious, people with blue eyes were noble, and people with brown eyes were inferior. It was all made up, but many participants believed it and told stories of personal experience that purportedly backed up the results. By talking, in coded dog whistle terms, about all members of a certain 'group' somehow being collectively responsible for the actions of some members, you are doing nothing better. Timothy McVeigh, Dallmer, Gasey, the Unibomber, were all white -- do you think all white people collectively bear the burden for their behavior? I for one certainly don't believe I'm to blame for the actions and crimes of fellow white men like Bush and Cheney.
First, the Bush/Cheney comment being introduced about Staples is cute but totally irrelevant and devoid of fact. Way to go! Bravo on finding white criminals and even Gacey, not Gasey, or Unabomber, not Unibomer! Heck, you could have even mentioned Staples.
"If its the least bit controversial and puts one group in a bad light due to their actions... well,... then we cant talk about it now can we." Then you answer, "Don't you see the problem with selecting 'a group.'" Excuse me, but the poster never said select a group. You did. You try to make this about the poster's racism. Ridiculous and totally unsourced. Unless you have psychic powers, there is no basis for your rant. He said that if the actions of an individual puts a group in a bad light, then he feels the NG limits debate. You're the one that brought up making this about a group first and the person second. This is disingenuous in the best case scenario, false in the worst. He never did -- and you can't quote him -- where he said select groups and then look for individuals. Indeed, he is stating he feels the limits on the mall shooting, Carrington, and others, is slanted. Imagine a newspaper that reported the truth!
How would he like to be judged by the actions of others or partake in an experiment? He never mentioned anything about that, so we are left to wonder. This is, of course, all tangential to the point he is making: He wants to NG to be fair on all postings and not seemingly limit postings when they believe it is not politically correct. Obviously you disagree, and think selections, blue eyes, and white crime are issues you want to make this about. And Republicans. Why not add the faked moon landing?
Thanks for calling out my typos; that was very helpful and illuminating. And of course you're being disingenuous -- he was clearly referring to articles that feature allegations of criminal activity by African Americans either having the comments shut down or not activated in the first place. Anyone who has followed the comments section in the NG knows this happens because many of these articles draw the most blatant and appalling racist comments imaginable.
The point of my comment was clearly to call out the commenter for saying that a large and diverse group is collectively to blame due to the actions of individuals who fit that group description. If you're fine with labeling an entire group based on the actions of a few, that's fine. But don't pretend that it's not bigotry.
You're the one with the bigotry infatuation. The original poster stated: "If its [sic] the least bit controversial and puts one group in a bad light due to their actions... well,... then we cant [sic] talk about it[,] now can we.[?]" You state it is because of "blatant and appalling racist comments." What is your proof for this? Again, facts please. The poster, and you can read his quote again, is directly calling out that he believes the News-Gazette has a double standard. If the truth is bigotry, then I would hope we are all bigots. Again, you state your comment was to call out a commentator "for saying that a large and diverse group is collectively to blame." Excuse me! The commentator did NOT say that! Joe Wilson would shout at you right now if he heard you state that. John O'Connor is the one that made this broad, sweeping generalization that is wholly unsupported by facts. You are the one to read innuendo that is simply not there. He said, and I repeat for a second time, that when the action of an individual portends poorly on certain groups, the NG treats the case differently. Stop pretending that the poster stated that one should select a group based off of the actions of one!
Here is my challenge: Quote exactly where the poster made the comment that collectively a group is to blame for the actions of the few. I must have overlooked the comments by the original author. Maybe someone else can offer a reading lesson here? Certainly, I see your stretching comments to make the case for your world view, but that is disingenuous to act like the poster said this. Maybe the poster does believe it, but without outside information or psychic powers, there is no way for someone to gleam all your views without fiction. My problem is not that you feel two different treatments are warranted, but that you unfairly malign someone who believes two different treatments are unfair and capricious. The original poster did not malign you, and for you to twice twist the facts and act like the poster is "fine with labeling" is really your words. No one but you conjure up such facts; only you talk about labeling! Yes, labeling and selecting groups are wrongs, but that is and was not the clear language of the poster. We do not have two sets of facts here. The sentence quoted is simple enough to take on face value. Please, quote the original poster to prove the horrible "selecting" and "labeling" so we "don't pretend that it's not bigotry" (of course, all these accusations are your quotes assigning meaning not present).
...bigotry infatuation...
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. It's illuminating that you mention Wilson in a positive light -- he was wrong in so many ways, far beyond just being factually inaccurate, when he screeched at President Obama "You lie" during the State of the Union address.
Disingenuous denials are not effective -- exactly who do you think the commenter was referring to when he said the following?
If its the least bit controversial and puts one group in a bad light due to their actions...
You know as well as anyone he was referring to African Americans and holding all African Americans collectively responsible for the alleged crimes of a few. At least be intellectually honest enough to admit that. Do you honestly think your feigned ignorance is fooling anyone?
You said:
...that when the action of an individual portends poorly on certain groups, the NG treats the case differently.
Clearly, my response to him criticized the way he also attempts, just as you do here, to hold an entire group responsible for the alleged crimes of a few. This is bigotry, pure and simple.
As you know, the NG removes the racist comments. If you are seriously arguing that racist comments do not appear on here then we have nothing to talk about. I'll let other commenters and readers draw their own conclusions about the credibility of your denial that racist comments abound on certain articles.
This is the NG's site -- they, like anyone who runs a site or other publication venue, does not owe anyone a platform. They have the right to remove racist drivel from their site just as they have a right to prevent certain commenters from posting such racist drivel by deactivating comments.
Again, the commenter posited that an entire group is to blame for the alleged crimes of some members of that group. What other meaning can a reasonable person draw from the comment I quote again here? And how, exactly, is that not bigotry?
I guess I just don't assume -- I read it for what it is. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You find whatever you want whether the person said something or not. Of course, the author never stated that "an entire group is to blame for the alleged crimes of some." Quite the opposite! Believe it or not, this is your quote! Your thoughts! Not ignorance, but stating exactly the facts as presented. The poster stated that if a reader could in any way, shape, or form, infer that, then NG created a double standard. Mind you, the double standard was for some groups and not others. Then you act like I and the poster continues the mindless bigotry.
What did the author mean when he stated the following: "If it's the least bit controversial and puts one group in a bad light due to their actions..."? Well, inferences are by definition drawn from the reader's perspective, not the authors. What is implied? That if the NG thinks they might get bad press and, or responses that they deem politically incorrect, then they censor the person. That is their right! Once again, the mention is not of racists drivel, bigotry, or all the other things you would like to read into it. I will offer an inference: You seem mad and will say anything, no matter how wild and without facts, to support your inferences. Of course, I cannot say you directly stated this because you could use the same method on me -- ask me to quote you and explain in plain English exactly what was said. That I could no more do than you. Of course, even the NG author tried to discount your claim by saying there is not a double standard. Is the NG author wrong, too? He even tried to offer proof instead of wild accusations.
Yes, he clearly did say that if an individual is attached to certain groups, the NG is not fair. I've never denied this! John, apparently you don't remember the conversation. Before I QUOTE our conversation because you apparently forgot it or just plain ignored it, let me point just how ridiculous your comment is and how illuminating this is. EVERY arrest has the potential to make some group look bad. If we followed your logic, then no crime could ever be reported. For example, Staples' arrest might mean women, whites, middle class, PTSD, and cops look bad. Heck, I'm sure we could do whatever it takes to make someone look bad and anyone can make such wild inferences with great stretching of the truth, as you have done. Again, that is your right! I'm pleased the NG allows such rants. Look at Netanyahu's recent comment about hecklers.
Here are your quotes, which state that there is a bent to make groups look bad. The original poster stated: "If its the least bit controversial and puts one group in a bad light due to their actions... well,... then we cant talk about it now can we."
Your thoughts showing your accusations of selection and bigotry:
1. Don't you see the problem with selecting 'a group,' however you define that group, and judging all people who fit your definition of that group by the actions of some people in that group? [ME: John wants to make this about "selecting" and judging others unfairly. Original poster never said "select" or prejudice. Nice diversion!]
2. The point of my comment was clearly to call out the commenter for saying that a large and diverse group is collectively to blame due to the actions of individuals who fit that group description. [ME: John wants to make this about collectively blaming a group. The poster said that if something is controversial and puts one group in a bad light, the NG isn't fair.]
3. Clearly, my response to him criticized the way he also attempts, just as you do here, to hold an entire group responsible for the alleged crimes of a few. [ME: John says I always attempt to blame the entire group. Blame and select are John's words, not mine or the original poster. John has a recurrent theme here; too bad no one else does.]
My quotes, again illuminating that I simply did not say what you are acting like was said:
1.He said that if the actions of an individual puts a group in a bad light, then he feels the NG limits debate. You're the one that brought up making this about a group first and the person second. This is disingenuous in the best case scenario, false in the worst. [ME: Again, I'm talking about the need to treat all groups equally on blogs. Again, you apparently think a double standard is necessary or there is some invisible, nefarious scheme no one else can see.]
2. He said, and I repeat for a second time, that when the action of an individual portends poorly on certain groups, the NG treats the case differently. Stop pretending that the poster stated that one should select a group based off of the actions of one! [ME: Please don't infer or imply! Read my writing for what it says.]
3. The poster stated that if a reader could in any way, shape, or form, infer that, then NG created a double standard. Mind you, the double standard was for some groups and not others.
Where are the facts that I continue to deny your wild accusations? PLEASE QUOTE ME TO PROVE I'M WRONG! I WOULD LOVE TO READ IT!
I never acknowledged or disavowed that comment because that is what you tried to make this argument about! No one except you ever stated that! I agree that it is not legitimate. Indeed, it is downright stupid. Yet, no one except you act like that is my point or the original poster's! Indeed, I wonder if you ever read anything else before you jumped to wild, baseless accusations. Why you REFUSE to admit that is beyond me! There is one set of facts and I have been especially clear (including repeatedly quoting exactly what I said and restating the same thing over and over). PLEASE TELL ME WHEN I SAID I BELIEVE IT IS VALID!
Here is my offer (anyone else besides Mr. O'Connor is welcome to point out what should be all too easy): If you can quote me where I said it is, "legitimate to hold an entire group responsible for the alleged actions of a few," then I will apologize for misstating my position. Mind you, to win the easy offer of reading through my comments -- something that you've noticed I've repeatedly done and quoted again and again. Just be accurate, because the quote in this paragraph is your quote with the "not" chopped off -- I point this out because I do not want to misconstrue what you said. No matter what I say, you pretend I said something else. There it is! Prove me wrong and I will apologize profusely. Also, the quote in this paragraph is again Mr. O'Connor's view (sans the "not"). Of course, I know that no such quotes of mine exist. You lose!
Here is the quote in context: "the poster, and you can read his quote again, is directly calling out that he believes the News-Gazette has a double standard. If the truth is bigotry, then I would hope we are all bigots. Again, you state your comment was to call out a commentator "for saying that a large and diverse group is collectively to blame." Excuse me! The commentator did NOT say that! . . . John O'Connor is the one that made this broad, sweeping generalization that is wholly unsupported by facts. You are the one to read innuendo that is simply not there. He said, and I repeat for a second time, that when the action of an individual portends poorly on certain groups, the NG treats the case differently. Stop pretending that the poster stated that one should select a group based off of the actions of one!"
Your summation is this: "I await with much anticipation your denial that this is holding an entire group responsible for the alleged actions of a few." I hate to tell you this, John, but this is about a double standard. Any action by any person can make a group look "poor." Again, that is my word. The next sentence clearly stated that this is at odds with your selective quote. The two sentences read together: "You are the one to read innuendo that is simply not there. He said, and I repeat for a second time, that when the action of an individual portends poorly on certain groups, the NG treats the case differently. Stop pretending that the poster stated that one should select a group based off of the actions of one!" [Of course, the sentence by itself states that if the actions of one might reflect poorly on certain groups, the NG does not play fair. Again, you, not me, said responsibility.] In context, my two sentences beg the opposite. There is simply no way to reconcile your idea with both sentences together! It is almost as if you read something else and attributed to me. How this translates into responsibility of millions by one is no where to be found EXCEPT in YOUR INFERENCES. I think this is because you desperately want to prove your point regardless of the facts.
I could pick out small parts and act like you said things that in context you really didn't. My last comment anticipated this canard on your part. Heck, I could just as easily quote you as saying that you are a racist because you believe it is, "legitimate to hold an entire group responsible for the alleged actions of a few." Of course, this selective treatment would also be out and out lying because I chopped the word "not" off from the beginning. Nice try John! At least, for the first time in a long time, you actually went off of what I said instead of what you thought I said!! Thanks!
Both you and the other commenter said the alleged actions of a few can make an entire group look bad. That is holding the entire group responsible for the alleged actions of a few. And we all know that both he and you are referring to African Americans, your denials notwithstanding. Arguing that all African Americans somehow look bad because of the alleged actions of some African Americans is bigotry. I'll let you have the last word with another rambling comment that has nothing to do with the subject of my original comment that you responded to. Keep digging.
We said that if alleged actions can make certain groups look bad, then the NG has a double standard. You think if something makes someone look bad, that makes them responsible. Too funny! I don't know how someone comes up with if someone CAN look bad, then that is "holding the entire group responsible." Wow! That is quite a stretch from a little statement about if something can do something, bam, everyone is responsible and bigotry. Actually, that is, sadly, once again, John O'Connor's stretch and is no where to be found as my idea or the original poster's idea. The statement that "Arguing that all . . ." is true. Heck, any group, no matter because you want to make this about selections, would make that true. I guess we will have to agree that alleged actions of a few can make any entire group look bad, er responsible (LOL! too funny!), and yet the NG still allows comments on some pages and not others. That's called a double standard, the original poster's problem. Even Mike Howie got that this was about a double standard, not some wild inference that you made up (hey, you could read his posts where he didn't go on and on about the inferences you did; indeed, no one understood the quote like you did)! My ramblings seem to keep quoting the material while you just go off and make up all kinds of stuff to fit what you wish you would have read. It is a shame you didn't actually read what was written instead of what you wanted to be written. It was nice where you actually quoted me once, but apparently it is illuminating that you did not respond to my quotes in context after I pointed out that you just didn't even get that simple sentence correct. What a denial and admission of being flat out wrong, er responsible, for not being able to find one quote to support your position. I take it that is why you did not respond back to that and could only come up with, "Keep digging," and "another rambling comment." Heck, I've quoted you so many times because what was said is what it is. You can't do that! Nice diversion, John, but wrong again.
Thanks for writing. Actually, comments have been allowed on several of our stories about the mall shooting.
Comments are open here: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/courts-police-and-fire/2011-05-14/man-a... and here: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/courts-police-and-fire/2011-05-08/train... and here: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/courts-police-and-fire/2011-05-16/man-f...
Mike Howie
online editor
Mike-
Yes or No.. Were on line comments allowed the day of the shooting? Or in the initial story? How about the story on Joshua Manning Carter? All of these are stories of interest that you did not allow comments on, but yet this is front page news. She left the department 3 years ago. Will you then publish articles about former Illinois professors who have gotten DUI's three years after they leave the U of I?
I doubt it.
.
Thanks again for writing.
Comments were enabled on the day of the shooting and several comments were posted. (I have copies of them.) Some of the comments violated our policy. We try first to delete the comments that don't meet our policy. When there are comments deleted, all replies to those comments are deleted as well. That happened on the day of the shooting, and ultimately, we decided to make comments inactive.
With the Manning-Carter story, we are guided by our experience with the nature of those comments on previous stories.
We are following this story because the case has not yet concluded. We feel that if we write about the start of a case, we must follow it to its conclusion.
Hope this helps.
Mike
Way to go again champaign county! 2nd DUI and once again a slap on the wrist! Maybe next time when she kills someone she will be given a real sentance because we all know she will do it again. What a total waste of taxpayer dollars, I hope the families of the 2 teens she hit sues her to where she will have to work till shes 90 to pay it off!!!!
I found it interesting that Staples may be able to have the felony charges dropped in exchange for a plea. Would someone, who is not a former officer, be given similar treatment within the court system? Even though she is no longer on the force, she may still have friends and connections within both the police department and state attorneys office. The young women she hit are undergoing physical therapy for injuries they received in the accident, and they have the choice to hire an attorney and sue the insurance company.
My understanding of Judge Ford is that he is consistent about ordering people to undergo some type of treatment and counseling, and perhaps Ms. Staples will have the opportunity to turn her life around. She is still young enough to be able to go back to school and learn a new career that will help her to move forward in life. Plus the skill sets she has picked up as a detective may be transferable to other positions. While I don't condone her actions, I can hope that this will be a positive catalyst for her.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.