Re "Driven to rethink this law," Column, July 21
I was touched by the sad saga of Sharon Warmack, who was a victim of a well-meaning boyfriend and an unsympathetic legal system.
But what really astounded me was reading that the dentist told her the extraction was going to "hurt a lot" but that her insurance didn't cover the entire cost of the anesthesia.
I shudder at the thought that my doctor might warn me, before an appendectomy, that "it's going to hurt a lot" because not all of the cost of the anesthesia was covered.
I couldn't disagree more with Hector Tobar's take in the column he wrote about the Safe Streets Act.
He attempted to deflect the blame and make the story about a single mother with three kids who makes less than $500 a week.
I don't see why that's relevant when her "well-meaning" boyfriend drove her car with a suspended license. Now everyone is shocked that the car was impounded?
I don't know anyone who would drive with a suspended license. Her boyfriend knew he did something illegal and should have paid to get her car out of the impound lot if he is so well-meaning.
This is an important law to prevent people from driving any car when their licenses are suspended.
Regardless of motivation, driving with a suspended license is illegal for a reason.
I read your article about the working single mom who had to pay about $1,400 to get her car back.
Did this happen in the same great city, per our mayor, that spent over a million dollars for a private funeral?
I remember when the police really did serve and protect, but no more.
This impound law actually punishes the wrong people; the police and courts know it, and yet they go ahead anyway. They will say: "She was not punished, her car was impounded."
So what is the difference, and what did she do to deserve that? Warmack has not violated a single law.
She and all others similarly affected should be reimbursed for their expenses -- and double for their inconvenience and mistreatment under this misguided law.