Published January 23, 2016

WEATHERFORD, Texas – A judge concerned about public safety sentenced a 62-year-old North Texas man to life in prison for his 10th drunken driving conviction since the 1980s.

Ivy Ray Eberhardt, of Weatherford, Texas, was sentenced Wednesday. Eberhardt would be eligible for parole after serving 15 years.

"Part of my job is to protect the citizens of Parker County, and the only way that I can think of to do that from somebody that has 12 DWI arrests and 10 DWI convictions is to put you in a place that you can't drive for as long as I possibly can," Judge Craig Towson told Eberhardt.

The case involved an April 2014 driving while intoxicated stop in Parker County in which Eberhardt's blood alcohol level was almost four times the 0.08 legal limit for driving in Texas.

While free on bond in that DWI case, Eberhardt cut off an electronic ankle monitor and fled to Colorado, where he was again arrested for drunken driving, prosecutors said.

Eberhardt also had drunken driving conviction in Tarrant and Runnels counties in Texas, records show, and he served three prison terms for the convictions.

Film at 11... 🤔

He can't be in very good heath anyway right..?? 🤔

How did he still have a license? Or money for a car? Or even money for boos?

He is determined to kill someone.

speaking of which.. I heard there's a movement to lower the DUI level to .05... 🤔

as much as I try to be fair and allow our beautiful justice system work to protect the accused, by now this moron should have transformed into a sober individual.

just curious...

I was starting to wonder if I had to be the tough guy here!

I do share your concerns about what may be arbitrary and changing legal guidelines...if that is even a concern for you.

But I tell ya what...I'm not driving nowhere tonight, and I know I could but the potential arresting officer may disagree.

I'm not even slurring my typing.

55

Amen, Frank. 3 strikes and you're out... this dude had TEN. Lock his dumb ass up and don't let him out.

true... true... 😟

true... true... 😟

We must presently be in an alternate universe. It's the only explanation.

I do take issue with the hard number of whatever as the legal definition of intoxication. And that's not me defending drunk driving.

I've seen hardened alcoholics that hit 100 (0.10) and are damn near seizure threshold, but above that are perfectly functional rational individuals.

Not saying that's acceptable, but they are not at all impaired at that level.

Then there's others who rarely drink, and are definitely impaired at 0.05 or 0.08. Certainly they need a threshold for prosecution and to define intoxication. But the nature of alcohol abuse is that higher and higher concentrations are needed for impairment. For them, 0.08 is too low. But then if adjusted for well conditioned drinkers, you couldn't prosecute the person at 0.08 that's crapping their pants and speaking incoherently.

I think 0.05 is too low. I can't argue for protecting impaired drivers, but I think this opens prosecution for many who are not in the least bit impaired. 0.08 is a pretty happy medium imo.

The way a threshold works is that it is used to pressume impairment. The drinker then has the opportunity to disprove impairment. It is just a burden of proof legal matter.

Most don't know it, but one can be convicted of impairment with a sub-threshold blood acohol level. The burden of proof then lies with the state as the drinker is presummed not impaired.