# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  TX Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for 9th DWI

## VoluntaryAmerican

I just saw this story on Fox news on Megan Kelly's show and they were agreeing with the judges decision. Complete insanity!


T.X. -- The ninth conviction was the breaking point for one Texas judge who earlier this week sentenced a habitual drunken driver to life in prison.

Bobby Stovall, 54, was driving his truck in Round Rock, Texas, in early July when he weaved through several lanes of traffic and hit another vehicle, injuring the driver. It was later determined that Stovall had a blood alcohol concentration of .32, four times the legal limit in Texas.

And while that DWI was certainly enough to get Stovall in trouble with the law, when the judge found out the defendant had eight prior DWI convictions across several different counties in Texas, he ordered up a life sentence for Stovall.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-man-l...8#.UK07zeTokbA

----------


## torchbearer

shouldn't you have to infringe on another persons life, liberty, or property before having yours removed permanently?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> shouldn't you have to infringe on another persons life, liberty, or property before having yours removed permanently?


Yes, I agree, but apparently he did do some of that.  From what has been reported though, certainly not enough for life imprisonment.  wow




> Bobby Stovall, 54, was driving his truck in Round Rock, Texas, in early July when he weaved through several lanes of traffic and hit another vehicle, *injuring the driver*. It was later determined that Stovall had a blood alcohol concentration of .32, four times the legal limit in Texas.

----------


## AFPVet

Many states have such laws... they are called HTV or habitual traffic violator laws. Should he get a felony? Yes; life, no.

In my state, he would receive a class D felony and be banned from driving for life. If he drives again, he will receive a class C felony.

----------


## jkr

why is this dangerous substance "legal" then?

life sentence...but not for sandusky, corizone, or teh bernack...

----------


## TheTexan

Or just sell his car and give him a horse / bicycle.

Oh wait, it's probably illegal to ride horses nowadays

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

Could this not have been resolved by barring him from having a drivers license?

----------


## torchbearer

> Could this not have been resolved by barring him from having a drivers license?


reason has no place in the court of law.
the judge gas gotten laid in awhile, had a bad game of golf saturday... so take it.

----------


## acptulsa

There's still a little Old West in the West.

Mostly, you get to the southwest and not much is required of you.  For example, if jaywalking is illegal in Round Rock, I'd be very surprised.  But if you're a constant menace, and especially if you're a continuing deadly menace, you're just liable to get dealt with.

I ain't sayin' it's right.  I'm just sayin'.

----------


## devil21

That's pretty harsh but he did hit someone and Id want to know the details of his prior DWI convictions.  Does he have a history of damaging other's property and health?  .32 is VERY drunk...like blackout drunk.  Im not a fan of DWI laws overall but his situation is to the extreme.




> Could this not have been resolved by barring him from having a drivers license?


Not sure if serious.

After that many convictions it's pretty safe to say he doesn't have a driver license.

----------


## AFPVet

> That's pretty harsh but he did hit someone and Id want to know the details of his prior DWI convictions.  Does he have a history of damaging other's property and health?  .32 is VERY drunk...like blackout drunk.  Im not a fan of DWI laws overall but his situation is to the extreme.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if serious.
> 
> After that many convictions it's pretty safe to say he doesn't have a driver license.


In my state, HTV is after three OWI judgments in a 10 year period. Once you receive HTV, you may be banned from driving. If you continue to drive, they keep stacking felonies. Now I suppose you could end up with life if you use a "revolving door"; however, you won't be handed a life sentence.

----------


## thoughtomator

This is the kind of thing that the penalty of exile would be ideal for.

----------


## Agorism

Did he have a driver's license to remove?

----------


## tod evans

Here's one got life for his 3rd DWI;

http://video.foxnews.com/v/198206713...tcmp=obnetwork

----------


## carclinic

Good.

----------


## tod evans

> Good.


Me thinks you have a misguided sense of "good".

----------


## carclinic

I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.

Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.

----------


## asurfaholic

Life in prison? 

Seems harsh... How about commitment to a health facility, where he belongs. This is a medical problem as much as it is a behavior problem.

----------


## tod evans

> *I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.
> *
> Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.


Sick dude very sick!

----------


## presence

> I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.
> 
> Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.


He injured somebody through neglegence.  Vehicular battery 2-10.  Call it done.  Strip drivers liscence if need be for life.  But life sentence? Hell, that cop that beat the $#@! out of that innocent janitor -* pummeled to bloody death* -  only got 4 years of Just-Us.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...abled-janitor/




> A Spokane police officer was sentenced to more than four years in  prison for using excessive force against a mentally disabled janitor who  died after being mistakenly suspected of stealing money from an ATM. Six years ago, Zehm was beaten and targeted with a stun gun by Thompson  in a convenience store. He was hog-tied and sat on by other officers  until he passed out. He died two days later without regaining  consciousness.

----------


## presence

> *I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.*






> Premise: Belief in a Deity leads to the following good results. 
> Premise: Rejection of a Deity leads to the following bad results. 
> Therefore, you should believe in a deity.    
> 
> Argumentum ad Consequentiam; Red Herring, 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's raining then the streets are wet.   
> ...


www.fallacyfiles.org

Also... *quite $#@!ing rude.* 

-rep

----------


## paulbot24

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to presence again."

Damn.

----------


## carclinic

> www.fallacyfiles.org
> 
> Also... *quite $#@!ing rude.* 
> 
> -rep


Point is, the laws exist for a reason.

----------


## tod evans

> Point is, the laws exist for a reason.


Laws are written and rewritten daily, they're perverted and twisted by prosecutors/judges and lawyers to fit agendas. 

Public sentiment, such as you have expressed regarding drunk drivers, contributes drastically to their perversion. 

Whether or not you realize it you are being played like a fiddle by the propaganda arm of government.

----------


## torchbearer

> Point is, the laws exist for a reason.


 Don't advocate for pre-crimes. The very fact that you bought a gun means you could kill someone. With the DWI/DUI logic, you are already guilty because of the potential damage you could cause by buying a gun.

----------


## carclinic

IMHO, you do it 9 times you're a white trash degenerate. And, granted the legal limit should be set higher, but to do it 9 times and hurt people, he is not going to be "corrected" by a correctional facility. He should be locked away with the key thrown away. Preferably, the US prison system should be a series of gulags that produced cheap goods, where murderers and degenerates can be the opposite of a drain on society.

----------


## FindLiberty

> Could this not have been resolved by barring him from having a drivers license?


No, not for sure, he might still drive w/o license while hammered...

Got to lock him up for a while (or take off his hands and legs ...and/or remove both eyes).
That seems about as excessive as just getting locked up for LIFE!

The loss of innocent life at the hands of this guy is even more horrible to imagine.

_A few years to dry out while locked up seems more reasonable_... He should stop drinking. Maybe it's unlikely he can ever quit. Maybe he's a dangerous driver even while sober. I'd give him a chance to ponder over that for a few years.

Upon release, he gets conditional parole: Any connection between booze and even going near a car with car keys gets him another few years. If that does not work, try a decade or two in prison. Repeat if necessary with three or four decades, etc.

The problem goes away eventually.

----------


## paulbot24

> IMHO, you do it 9 times you're a white trash degenerate. And, granted the legal limit should be set higher, but to do it 9 times and hurt people, he is not going to be "corrected" by a correctional facility. He should be locked away with the key thrown away. Preferably, the US prison system should be a series of gulags that produced cheap goods, where murderers and degenerates can be the opposite of a drain on society.


Sounds like something China would endorse while they're digging a new graves trench. Jesus, take a Valium.

----------


## carclinic

I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

> Here's one got life for his 3rd DWI;
> 
> http://video.foxnews.com/v/198206713...tcmp=obnetwork


Thats how it should be. 

Revoke license after second. Life in prison after third.

----------


## tod evans

> the US prison system should be a series of gulags that produced cheap goods, where murderers and degenerates can be the opposite of a drain on society.


Oh they still drain society....But you'll be glad to know that members of the "Just-Us" department profit handsomely from not just prisons but from the taxpayers they suck their salary from.All profits from prison labor pay stock options to the Just-Us dept shareholders, "society" doesn't see any return what-so-ever..

If you'd like to learn more about prison labor today in the USA do a google search for UNICOR..

----------


## tod evans

> I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.


Back to;

Sick dude, very sick!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> *I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.*
> 
> Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.


What the $#@!?

So, if people point out that life in prison for a habitual drunk driver (that, as far as I know never killed anybody) is harsh and indicative of a police state, they should have death wished on their family?

----------


## carclinic

Hey, countries with that have less crime, which means less aggregate cruelty.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

> Bradley said that in addition to the multiple DWI convictions , Stovall also had a extensive rap sheet for other crimes, including burglary, credit card abuse and supplying alcohol to a minor.


Clearly shows the guy has no respect for other people. The judge did the right thing.

----------


## carclinic

> What the $#@!?
> 
> So, if people point out that life in prison for a habitual drunk driver (that, as far as I know never killed anybody) is harsh and indicative of a police state, they should have death wished on their family?


Not seriously, I don't want anyone to get hurt, which is why that guy should be in jail.

----------


## carclinic

> Clearly shows the guy has no respect for other people. The judge did the right thing.


No, its his human losertarian right to take a $#@! on everyone everyday.

----------


## paulbot24

Are you a troll or do you just have a "talent"?

----------


## tod evans

> Thats how it should be. 
> 
> Revoke license after second. Life in prison after third.


And what other offences should carry life in prison as their sentence?

For most of our countries existence only murder and treason carried so harsh a penalty...

I fear you too may have fallen victim to the propaganda arm of our government..

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.


Wow.

We have one of the harshest prison systems in the world.

More people are in prison in the US than any other place in the world.

We execute more people that any other place in the world.

We routinely execute and imprison innocent people.

And you want *more* of this???

----------


## KingRobbStark

People are idiots.

----------


## tod evans

Repless




> Wow.
> 
> We have one of the harshest prison systems in the world.
> 
> More people are in prison in the US than any other place in the world.
> 
> We execute more people that any other place in the world.
> 
> We routinely execute and imprison innocent people.
> ...

----------


## carclinic

> Are you a troll or do you just have a "talent"?


Talent at what? I think I have valid opinions.

----------


## carclinic

> Wow.
> 
> We have one of the harshest prison systems in the world.
> 
> More people are in prison in the US than any other place in the world.
> 
> We execute more people that any other place in the world.
> 
> We routinely execute and imprison innocent people.
> ...


Not more imprisonment per se, the drunk aside, but crueler punishments that cost the tax payer less.

----------


## amy31416

> Not more imprisonment per se, the drunk aside, but crueler punishments that cost the tax payer less.


Rape is cheap, and that already happens to a lot of men who end up in prison.

----------


## Pericles

> Point is, the laws exist for a reason.


And that reason is nit always a good one. See Jim Crow laws for examples.

----------


## carclinic

> Rape is cheap, and that already happens to a lot of men who end up in prison.


But then the rapists are having the times of their lives, getting laid left and right. Rape is actually cruel and unusual punishment. Flogging people instead of locking them up forever or putting people to work is on the surface crueler, but in reality much more humane than what we have.

----------


## torchbearer

> But then the rapists are having the times of their lives, getting laid left and right. Rape is actually cruel and unusual punishment. Flogging people instead of locking them up forever or putting people to work is on the surface crueler, but in reality much more humane than what we have.



an anonymous tip to you local PD is in order.
I think you'll enjoy the ride, and there will be people just like you who get off on the violence that is force on you... whether you did anything to anyone or not.
the state allows psychos to enact their fantasies without feeling personally responsible. let's play.

----------


## tod evans

> But then the rapists are having the times of their lives, getting laid left and right. Rape is actually cruel and unusual punishment. Flogging people instead of locking them up forever or putting people to work is on the surface crueler, but in reality much more humane than what we have.


You're starting to _think_.......that's good, you'll get there.. maybe?

Be advised though, your government does not like people who think..

Emotional reactions to perceived threats are what the propaganda arm banks on..

----------


## carclinic

> an anonymous tip to you local PD is in order.
> I think you'll enjoy the ride, and there will be people just like you who get off on the violence that is force on you... whether you did anything to anyone or not.
> the state allows psychos to enact their fantasies without feeling personally responsible. let's play.


Huh?




> You're starting to think.......that's good, you'll get there.. maybe?


So, it's time to bring back the flogging, right?

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> We execute more people that any other place in the world.
> 
> We routinely execute and imprison innocent people.


First off, China executes more people than the rest of the world _combined_.  Secondly, there has never once been a conclusively proven case of an innocent person being put to death since the modern dealth penalty era began in the 1970s, and you're saying "routinely"?  I guess if one simply wants to believe that, then one can look for any slight sliver of doubt in any execution case and automatically declare it "another innocent person executed!"  It's about as much evidence as conspiracy theory types use before making their absurd declarations.

Yet again, we have another example of why Libertarians are not taken seriously.  Was this penalty too harsh?  Debatable.  But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity.  This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts.  What happens when they kill someone?  "Oh, that's just freedom at work"?  What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?

Just once, I wish a major political party would nominate a true Libertarian to run nationally.  That way when they flame out, there's no "Americans don't support third parties" excuse.  Run on the 'legalize child porn and drunk driving' platform, please.

----------


## tod evans

> So, it's time to bring back the flogging, right?


What in the sam-hell gave you the idea I agreed with you?

I'm trying to be diplomatic and give you credit for not repeating blather...

Keep trying it's obviously going to take you longer than the average bear to grasp some of the concepts discussed on this forum..

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Could this not have been resolved by barring him from having a drivers license?





> That's pretty harsh but he did hit someone and Id want to know the details of his prior DWI convictions.  Does he have a history of damaging other's property and health?  .32 is VERY drunk...like blackout drunk.  Im not a fan of DWI laws overall but his situation is to the extreme.
> 
> After that many convictions it's pretty safe to say he doesn't have a driver license.





> Did he have a driver's license to remove?


Yeah, there's a couple of very relevant questions. Did he have a license, and did he get into any previous accidents while drunk?

----------


## tod evans

> Was this penalty too harsh?  Debatable.  But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity.  This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts.  What happens when they kill someone?  "Oh, that's just freedom at work"?  What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?


Cops kill more people every year than drunks.

Try that with your twisted logic...

----------


## carclinic

> First off, China executes more people than the rest of the world _combined_.  Secondly, there has never once been a conclusively proven case of an innocent person being put to death since the modern dealth penalty era began in the 1970s, and you're saying "routinely"?  I guess if one simply wants to believe that, then one can look for any slight sliver of doubt in any execution case and automatically declare it "another innocent person executed!"  It's about as much evidence as conspiracy theory types use before making their absurd declarations.
> 
> Yet again, we have another example of why Libertarians are not taken seriously.  Was this penalty too harsh?  Debatable.  But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity.  This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts.  What happens when they kill someone?  "Oh, that's just freedom at work"?  What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?
> 
> Just once, I wish a major political party would nominate a true Libertarian to run nationally.  That way when they flame out, there's no "Americans don't support third parties" excuse.  Run on the 'legalize child porn and drunk driving' platform, please.


That's the difference between libertarians and losertarians.

My extreme opinions aside, I'm not going to seriously pursue a change in the corrections system, I'm just having fun talking about it. But talk to some losertarians and we don't need driver's licenses, police, and laws regulating anything, but circumcision should be illegal. Strange and extreme on the issues.

----------


## carclinic

> Cops kill more people every year than drunks.
> 
> Try that with your twisted logic...


We have about 40,000 road fatalities a year, I'd bet at least 25% are related to being intoxicated with something.

----------


## tod evans

> We have about 40,000 road fatalities a year, I'd bet at least 25% are related to being intoxicated with something.


Use the same criteria to attribute death to cops....More than half of the "drug related" deaths could be directly attributed to cops, and for that matter a substantial portion of alcohol related deaths could be attributed to both categories cop/booze..Death in prison for such things as weed must also be attributed to cops, suicides due to arrest--cops....

----------


## Anti Federalist

> First off, China executes more people than the rest of the world _combined_.  Secondly, there has never once been a conclusively proven case of an innocent person being put to death since the modern dealth penalty era began in the 1970s, and you're saying "routinely"?  I guess if one simply wants to believe that, then one can look for any slight sliver of doubt in any execution case and automatically declare it "another innocent person executed!"  It's about as much evidence as conspiracy theory types use before making their absurd declarations.


China's numbers are not released, so we don't know.




> 1 China 	People's Republic of China 	Officially not released.[54][55] In the thousands, may be up to 4,000.[56]
> 2 Iran 	Iran 	360+
> 3 Saudi Arabia 	Saudi Arabia 	82+
> 4 Iraq 	Iraq 	68+
> 5 United States 	United States 	43


A fair criticism, I should have said maybe "In the Western World" or some such.

The fact remains that we have more people in prison than any other nation on earth.




> Yet again, we have another example of why Libertarians are not taken seriously.  Was this penalty too harsh?  Debatable.  But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, *until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity.*  This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts.  What happens when they kill someone?  "Oh, that's just freedom at work"?  What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?


So, using that logic, what is to prevent government from installing cameras in everybody's home to monitor them for compliance with all laws?

Banning guns?

Or any other measure designed to prevent things happening "before they cause injury".




> Just once, I wish a major political party would nominate a true Libertarian to run nationally.  That way when they flame out, there's no "Americans don't support third parties" excuse.  Run on the 'legalize child porn and drunk driving' platform, please.


You want to see freedom die off?

----------


## Anti Federalist

*8 People Who Were Executed and Later Found Innocent*

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/8-peo...-innocent.html

----------


## Anti Federalist

> We have about 40,000 road fatalities a year, I'd bet at least 25% are related to being intoxicated with something.


32,885 in 2010.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Recently, the case of Cameron Willingham (pictured) has been in the news. He was convicted of murdering his three children by arson in a 1991 house fire.  He was executed in 2004.  *A new report from a national arson expert, prepared for the Texas Forensic Science Commission, has concluded that the original investigation of Willingham's case was seriously flawed and could not support a finding of arson*

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/inno...-death-penalty

----------


## Philhelm

I'm glad that I live in a country in which I can murder people and molest children without getting a life sentence.

----------


## Anti Federalist

There have been hundreds of exonerated of death penalty cases, *after* the fact that these innocent people had gone through what is supposed to be the _ne plus ultra_ of American Jurisprudence.

I just posted a story that chronicled 8 cases of innocent people that were executed.

Hundreds of false convictions...

Convincing evidence of innocent people being executed...

Thousands of stories yearly of corrupt cops, prosecutors and judges...

I'm sorry if it upsets some of you law and order types, but I stand by it:
*
The United States routinely executes and imprisons innocent people.*

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.


Prison only deters vices and other "non-violent crimes" to a (low) degree. We already have the highest prison population in the world for this very reason:

----------


## phill4paul

> We have about 40,000 road fatalities a year, I'd bet at least 25% are related to being intoxicated with something.


  Lies, damned lies and statistics....

http://www.getmadd.com/REALnumbers.htm

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Not more imprisonment per se, the drunk aside, but crueler punishments that cost the tax payer less.


Amendment 8:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, *nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted*.

Of course, billion dollar fines, and million dollar bails happen all the time.

No surprise there, the rest of the Amendments are not paid any mind to, so why not?

Drawing and Quartering in the public square, right?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Yet again, we have another example of why Libertarians are not taken seriously.  Was this penalty too harsh?  Debatable.  But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity.  This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts.  What happens when they kill someone?  "Oh, that's just freedom at work"?  What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?


Legitimate drunk driving has always been illegal. But how is "drunk" determined? The presence of alcohol, or so impaired that driving is obviously effected? 

Most of us want drivers to be safe, but this can go too far, and we are already going down the road you want to take us. How many texting while driving incidents before life in prison? How about putting on make-up while driving? Shaving? Or how about the true number one cause of accidents, driving while tired?

And while we are at it, let's make getting a license a true test of competency. No more bad drivers on the road. No more beginner drivers on the road. No more drivers that come to complete stops in the fast lane of the freeway so they can slowly cut across all lanes of traffic to make an exit that they are missing.

And when you start down this path there is only one outcome: more draconian laws, more law enforcement, bigger budgets, and more people in jail. And in the end, the worse drivers on the road will probably still be out there, because you can't outlaw stupid.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> We have about 40,000 road fatalities a year, I'd bet at least 25% are related to being intoxicated with something.


Thanks for reminding me. No driving while on prescription drugs either. 

(And don't leave out driving while tired).

----------


## amy31416

> But then the rapists are having the times of their lives, getting laid left and right. Rape is actually cruel and unusual punishment. Flogging people instead of locking them up forever or putting people to work is on the surface crueler, but in reality much more humane than what we have.


Would you like to have that flogging job or something?

Rape will still happen, whether you get to flog men's nether regions or not. So you'd sentence them to both.

And mind you, I'm not even on the side of letting a drunk driver like this fellow go free without effectively addressing the problem. I just don't think that your solution or the state's is a good one.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Not seriously, I don't want anyone to get hurt, which is why that guy should be in jail.





> Hey, countries with that have less crime, which means less aggregate cruelty.


You're predicting consequences that have not happened. For all we know this guy could go to rehab and clean up his act the next day.

 (Granted I agree with you this guy seems like a scumbag)

AF said it well "pre-cime", this man has not killed anyone. 

As you put it, the "aggregate cruelty" is a utilitarian approach to morality. This collective moral concept rejects individual liberties and is a big reason this country has lost its freedom - most people in power think the same way you do.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Lies, damned lies and statistics....
> 
> http://www.getmadd.com/REALnumbers.htm


Good info.

It helps to remember that MADD is a neo-Prohibitionist organization. Driving is not their primary concern. Banning alcohol is. The founder of the organization left for that reason.

Separating neo-prohibition from driving is helpful when debating and dissecting this topic.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.
> 
> Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.


c'mon...really?.....how about this karmic possibility. You receive a 'no knock' visit from SWAT...oops...wrong house. Sorry for killing your dog and shooting your wife/husband. 

Ain't law and order wunnerful....?

----------


## tod evans

> c'mon...really?.....how about this karmic possibility. You receive a 'no knock' visit from SWAT...oops...wrong house. Sorry for killing your dog and shooting your wife/husband. 
> 
> Ain't law and order wunnerful....?


Aw come on man.......He's one of those folks with nothing to hide...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> shouldn't you have to infringe on another persons life, liberty, or property before having yours removed permanently?


Well, he did injure someone, and there's no telling how many other people he may have injured during his 8 prior DWIs, but you are correct in that it's not justifiable to put him in prison for life just because of that.

----------


## MelissaWV

> ...
> Yet again, we have another example of why Libertarians are not taken seriously.  Was this penalty too harsh?  Debatable.  But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity.  This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts.  What happens when they kill someone?  "Oh, that's just freedom at work"?  What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?
> 
> Just once, I wish a major political party would nominate a true Libertarian to run nationally.  That way when they flame out, there's no "Americans don't support third parties" excuse.  Run on the 'legalize child porn and drunk driving' platform, please.


I find this interesting.  Very few people on the forums are in favor of "letting people drive impaired on the road."  There are some, but not many.  Your assumption is that DWI/DUI laws will prevent this from happening.  Why not just change the "I" from "Intoxicated" to "Impaired" or "Distracted"?  Those laws already exist in most places (if not all).  It is not somehow worse to be driving two beers than to be driving with a cheeseburger in one hand, your phone in the other, and a 5-hour Energy in your system.  If there is a car weaving or driving in a massively dangerous fashion, then by all means, stop them from doing so.  The REASON they were doing that is a matter for them to raise at their defense.  Maybe they were suffering a medical emergency.  Or maybe they were just really sleepy.  

You see, what I'm bothered by is police checkpoints that assume SOMEONE is going to be guilty of SOMETHING, so why not pull everyone over and test them?  And if you are over some arbitrary "legal limit," even if you are driving just fine, you are in some deep $#@!.  That's okay, right?  Totally Constitutional!  There is also the scenario where they pull you over and "smell alcohol in the car" or spot an "open container," even though you are driving no worse than your average sober driver, and were endangering no one.  There is a focus on singling out alcohol as the end-all-be-all of substances that cause accidents.  That's dangerous for *everyone* involved.  If you willingly decide you are going to read a book while driving --- and I have seen that more times than I thought I ever would --- and you rearend someone, I fail to see how that is somehow more excusable than if you were drunk and did the same.

Incidentally, the blind do not drive, but the deaf do.  The "they might kill someone" argument could be used for any number of things, including ANYONE getting behind the wheel of a car, since MOST of us will be in some kind of accident at some point, which only needs a few variables tweaked to become a fatal one.  This is one of the rationales behind things like seatbelt laws, even though I get the uncanny feeling that the seatbelt slipping upwards and half-choking me is not going to be a good thing if I am ever in an accident.

----------


## torchbearer

if you kill/injure someone(or property) while driving impaired, you have committed a crime.
to drive in a state that increases your chance to commit such a crime is not a crime.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.
> 
> Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.


The law wasn't made for order.  Order doesn't arise from the government ordering people around.  Laws are meant to provide justice, not to protect you from anything.  What's more, laws CANNOT protect you.  It didn't work with Prohibition, it didn't work with drugs, it doesn't work with speeding, it obviously doesn't work for DWIs either.  Nobody is being protected just because there is "law and order".  The only purpose of the law is punishment and due justice for injuries someone has caused.  

Taking away someone's right to life just because they engaged in some dangerous behavior is insanity.  Do you think that guy had any reason to believe that he would get life in prison for a stupid DWI?  The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

On another note, aren't there laws that set a maximum sentence for a DWI?  I thought there were a certain number of years you could be imprisoned, even for repeat offenders?  I know there are in my state.

----------


## carclinic

> You're predicting consequences that have not happened. For all we know this guy could go to rehab and clean up his act the next day.
> 
>  (Granted I agree with you this guy seems like a scumbag)
> 
> AF said it well "pre-cime", this man has not killed anyone. 
> 
> As you put it, the "aggregate cruelty" is a utilitarian approach to morality. This collective moral concept rejects individual liberties and is a big reason this country has lost its freedom - most people in power think the same way you do.


Punishments are meant to be deterrents, period. That's the means in which we need to be evaluating our criminal justice system.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.





> Would you like to have that flogging job or something?
> 
> Rape will still happen, whether you get to flog men's nether regions or not. So you'd sentence them to both.


The reality isn't nice. For those who would advocate this, here's an example (Warning: graphic!):

http://m.worldstarhiphop.com/video.p...l8iVo4mHVZZC8k

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Point is, the laws exist for a reason.


And that reason was never to protect you.  It was also never to give unjust sentences to a non-malicious crime.  Life for a non-malicious crime is not justice.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> You see, what I'm bothered by is police checkpoints that assume SOMEONE is going to be guilty of SOMETHING, so why not pull everyone over and test them?  And if you are over some arbitrary "legal limit," even if you are driving just fine, you are in some deep $#@!.  That's okay, right?  Totally Constitutional!


Good point. We can't forget the creation of Checkpoints and elimination of the Bill of Rights as an (un?)intended consequence of this war on drugs (alcohol being the excuse in this case).

----------


## carclinic

Rulers are given to us to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. The ruler is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> IMHO, you do it 9 times you're a white trash degenerate. And, granted the legal limit should be set higher, but to do it 9 times and hurt people, he is not going to be "corrected" by a correctional facility. He should be locked away with the key thrown away. Preferably, the US prison system should be a series of gulags that produced cheap goods, where murderers and degenerates can be the opposite of a drain on society.


Don't kid yourself.  Gulags will still be a drain on society.  Slaves don't work hard, and they certainly can't produce much of anything worth value.  What are you going to do, force them to become teachers, doctors, mechanics for no pay?  Banging rocks won't help society.  Think of how much it costs to run this gulag system you want, then think of how much will be produced by a bunch of degenerates doing dirt cheap labor?  

Nobody goes to jail to be "corrected."  They go there to be served with justice, nothing more.  When we put thousands upon thousands of people in jail, it's the law that's the problem because the law is what's causing our prison system to be overcrowded with petty criminals and people not guilty of any crime except the RISK of injury.  It's not up to you to judge who's white trash and who's not.  In someone else's eyes, you may be white trash.  The point is, when you think the law should reflect your opinion of people, it only leads to more problems.  The law was made to punish real criminals who commit aggressive crimes, not to prevent crimes.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks someone should serve life for any amount of DWIs is a white trash degenerate.  And guess what, that doesn't mean I think you belong in jail.  Know why?  Because putting you in jail is a waste of taxpayer money, just like putting Bubba with 9 DWIs in jail for life is a waste of taxpayer money.

----------


## tod evans

> Rulers are given to us to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. The ruler is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.


Is this blather in some way equating cops with God?

----------


## carclinic

> Is this blather in some way equating cops with God?


It's Romans 13:4. Government exists and exercises force for a reason. We should not be advocating anarchy. The government has a role in punishing people who are a danger to society. Being that we have a democratic republic of sorts, its up to us to decide what the government should rightfully be regulating. But, letting drunks go hog wild is not a matter of human freedom, necessarily.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.


No prison can deter crime.  Why do you think ours hasn't?  Because throwing people in cages doesn't make them want to be better people.  That's why most people who go to prison will get out and continue to be criminals.  You can't prevent it.  It's just a part of life.

----------


## tod evans

> It's Romans 13:4. Government exists and exercises force for a reason. We should not be advocating anarchy. The government has a role in punishing people who are a danger to society. Being that we have a democratic republic of sorts, its up to us to decide what the government should rightfully be regulating. But, letting drunks go hog wild is not a matter of human freedom, necessarily.


With our form of government it is up to us, the citizens, to reign in tyrannical behavior of our government and its agents.

Now answer my question please.

[edit]
Try reading all of Romans 13 in context instead of quoting one verse..

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Not more imprisonment per se, the drunk aside, but crueler punishments that cost the tax payer less.


If you're concerned about the taxpayer, then *stop putting people in prison for non-aggressive and petty crimes.*

----------


## carclinic

> No prison can deter crime.  Why do you think ours hasn't?  Because throwing people in cages doesn't make them want to be better people.  That's why most people who go to prison will get out and continue to be criminals.  You can't prevent it.  It's just a part of life.


By that logic, society would be best served be executing them then.

I refuse to believe then our options are mass executions or just letting everyone go to create havoc. We SHOULD be making a system that deters crime, somehow.

----------


## itshappening

Conrad Black (look him up) after his release from prison said that US prosecutors have a 97% conviction rate as they offer plea bargains that are very lenient compared to what you'd get if found guilty (i.e 15 months in prison as opposed to 15 years), not to mention the lawyers making you bankrupt should you be charged. 

That's a higher conviction crate than the Soviet Union.

Most of Black's convictions were appealed to the Supreme Court and he only has one left outstanding that he is still contesting.

----------


## carclinic

> If you're concerned about the taxpayer, then *stop putting people in prison for non-aggressive and petty crimes.*


Drunk driving is not petty, though.

----------


## carclinic

> With our form of government it is up to us, the citizens, to reign in tyrannical behavior of our government and its agents.
> 
> Now answer my question please.
> 
> [edit]
> Try reading all of Romans 13 in context instead of quoting one verse..


Yes, we shouldn't have the government punishing non-violent crimes and behaviors that are not dangerous, I agree.

Are cops God, no.

----------


## amy31416

> Rulers are given to us to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. The ruler is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.


Yet another reason to not believe in the bible or elect anyone with a theocratic bend.

Hey--is this Rick Santorum's sock puppet account...c'mon, 'fess up!

----------


## amy31416

> Rulers are given to us to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. The ruler is Gods servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.


Yet another reason to not believe in the bible or elect anyone with a theocratic bend.

Hey--is this Rick Santorum's sock puppet account...c'mon, 'fess up!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But then the rapists are having the times of their lives, getting laid left and right. Rape is actually cruel and unusual punishment. Flogging people instead of locking them up forever or putting people to work is on the surface crueler, but in reality much more humane than what we have.


Are you $#@!ing serious?  You think rapists are "having the time of their lives"?  What kind of stupid $#@! are you?

Seriously, who is this dumb as $#@! turd?  You think people in prison LIKE raping other men?  You think an alcoholic LIKES his addiction?  What the $#@! is wrong with you?

----------


## AGRP

People like this dont deserve to be thrown in the same types of prisons as murderers complete with shackles and bad living conditions.  They arent the same people.  They need to be confined so they cant drive.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> First off, China executes more people than the rest of the world _combined_.  Secondly, there has never once been a conclusively proven case of an innocent person being put to death since the modern dealth penalty era began in the 1970s, and you're saying "routinely"?  I guess if one simply wants to believe that, then one can look for any slight sliver of doubt in any execution case and automatically declare it "another innocent person executed!"  It's about as much evidence as conspiracy theory types use before making their absurd declarations.
> 
> Yet again, we have another example of why Libertarians are not taken seriously.  Was this penalty too harsh?  Debatable.  But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity.  This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts.  What happens when they kill someone?  "Oh, that's just freedom at work"?  What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?
> 
> Just once, I wish a major political party would nominate a true Libertarian to run nationally.  That way when they flame out, there's no "Americans don't support third parties" excuse.  Run on the 'legalize child porn and drunk driving' platform, please.


What makes you think laws against driving blind are actually going to help anything?  Blind people usually don't drive because, well, they're blind.  If that's not enough of a deterrent, do you really think a law is going to help?  Ruining someone's life isn't going to make them want to turn it around.  Let people suffer their own consequences and only imprison people for truly aggressive crimes.  

Laws are for justice, NOT for prevention.  Like I said before, prevention hasn't worked with alcohol prohibition, it hasn't worked with drug prohibition, it hasn't worked with speedling laws or any other traffic laws, it hasn't worked with DWIs, and it hasn't worked with guns.  Laws don't prevent $#@!.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Don't kid yourself.  Gulags will still be a drain on society.  Slaves don't work hard, and they certainly can't produce much of anything worth value.  What are you going to do, force them to become teachers, doctors, mechanics for no pay?  Banging rocks won't help society.  Think of how much it costs to run this gulag system you want, then think of how much will be produced by a bunch of degenerates doing dirt cheap labor?  
> 
> Nobody goes to jail to be "corrected."  They go there to be served with justice, nothing more.  When we put thousands upon thousands of people in jail, it's the law that's the problem because the law is what's causing our prison system to be overcrowded with petty criminals and people not guilty of any crime except the RISK of injury.  It's not up to you to judge who's white trash and who's not.  In someone else's eyes, you may be white trash.  The point is, when you think the law should reflect your opinion of people, it only leads to more problems.  The law was made to punish real criminals who commit aggressive crimes, not to prevent crimes.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks someone should serve life for any amount of DWIs is a white trash degenerate.  And guess what, that doesn't mean I think you belong in jail.  Know why?  Because putting you in jail is a waste of taxpayer money, just like putting Bubba with 9 DWIs in jail for life is a waste of taxpayer money.


Thread winner?

----------


## carclinic

> Are you $#@!ing serious?  You think rapists are "having the time of their lives"?  What kind of stupid $#@! are you?
> 
> Seriously, who is this dumb as $#@! turd?  You think people in prison LIKE raping other men?  You think an alcoholic LIKES his addiction?  What the $#@! is wrong with you?


It's okay not to like me, I'm not mad at you or anyone here. But, I want you to think of something. If you are that angry about anything, maybe you should be angry at the guy with 9 DWIs who put people's lives in danger. Think of that.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> It's okay not to like me, I'm not mad at you or anyone here. But, I want you to think of something. If you are that angry about anything, maybe you should be angry at the guy with 9 DWIs who put people's lives in danger. Think of that.


Your ideas help imprison innocent people who have not hurt anyone but themselves - think of that.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It's Romans 13:4. Government exists and exercises force for a reason. We should not be advocating anarchy. The government has a role in punishing people who are a danger to society. Being that we have a democratic republic of sorts, its up to us to decide what the government should rightfully be regulating. But, letting drunks go hog wild is not a matter of human freedom, necessarily.


Ah, Romans 13.

The biblical "fall back" position for tyrants and demagogues alike.



13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

----------


## MelissaWV

> It's okay not to like me, I'm not mad at you or anyone here. But, I want you to think of something. If you are that angry about anything, maybe you should be angry at the guy with 9 DWIs who put people's lives in danger. Think of that.


Okay, I did think of it.  My conclusion is that he wasn't "corrected" by his previous punishments, and somehow managed to get behind the wheel of another automobile while intoxicated enough to wreck his car.  My conclusion is that sending him to jail for the rest of his life is probably not going to solve a thing for anyone involved, and definitely isn't going to teach anyone a lesson since it didn't happen until his 9th DWI which, to someone actually doing this regularly and watching the news, is simply going to tell them "Hey, if I stop at 8, I totally won't go to jail for life."

My conclusion is that I was so correct in my earlier assessment, that you haven't even bothered to address it lol

----------


## torchbearer

> Ah, Romans 13.
> 
> The biblical "fall back" position for tyrants and demagogues alike.



God Emperor Constantine Approves.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*Rethinking Romans 13*

Published: 04/14/2001 at 1:00 AM

http://www.wnd.com/2001/04/8841/

In recent years, Christians have interpreted Romans 13 as a command for unlimited submission to government by God. Many proponents of this belief have sat passively by, in the soft pews of their place of worship, while evil has triumphed in most areas of family and church life. In our pacifistic smugness, many have allowed government to become god without even knowing.

Yet, when confronted with the true meaning of Romans 13, absurd accusations are shouted in religious rhetoric toward those who would dare to break an unjust law or even to question the almighty government. The opponents of unlimited submission to government are deemed as rebellious, anarchist and disobedient. However, there is no practical, historical or biblical consistency in the shallow agreements of these simpletons.

First, unlimited submission to government is not practical. For a philosophy to be a valid philosophy, it must be consistent. As a result, it does not make practical sense to blindly obey a tyrant like Adolph Hitler or deem a law such as abortion-on-demand a legitimate law just because one’s government says it is public policy. However, if Romans 13 teaches unlimited submission to government, then we must obey and acknowledge all laws, good and bad, as the will of God. If all governments are of God, then all laws are of God. This in not practical from any point of view.

Second, it is not historical. Our founding fathers recognized and understood tyranny and despotism. They perceived the ultimate end of the king’s actions. Thus, they besought George III to relent in his persecutions and implored him to uphold his covenant agreement.

In July of 1774, our forefathers met in Fairfax County, Va., and considered ways of forcing Great Britain to redress American grievances. George Washington and George Mason were the instrumental agents in drafting what has come to be known as the “Fairfax Resolves.”

Ponder for a moment Resolves five and six:

    “Resolved that the claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament, of making all such Laws as they think fit, to govern the people of these colonies, contrary to the first Principles of the Constitution, and the original Compacts by which we are dependent upon the British Crown and Government; but is totally incompatible with the privileges of a free people, and the natural Rights of Mankind; will render our own Legislatures merely nominal and nugatory, and is calculated to reduce us from a state of freedom and happiness to slavery and misery.”

    “Resolved that Taxation and Representation are in their nature inseparable; that the right of withholding, or of giving and granting their own money is the only effectual security to a free people, against the encroachments of Despotism and Tyranny; and that whenever they yield to one they fall prey to the other.”

All of the Resolves are loaded with bullets that explode against a tyrannical and despotic government. The “shot that was heard around the world on Lexington green was loaded in the “Fairfax Resolves.” How can one make that statement? After pleading with George III to uphold his covenant agreement and after seeking for a redress of grievances, the “coup de grace” is plainly stated in the 23rd Resolve:

    “Resolved that it be recommended to the Deputies of the general Congress to draw up and transmit an humble and dutiful petition and remonstrance to his Majesty, asserting with decent firmness our just and constitutional Rights and Privileges, lamenting the fatal necessity of being compelled to enter into measures disgusting to his Majesty and his Parliament, or injurious to our fellow subjects in Great Britain; declaring the strongest terms of duty and affection to his Majesty’s person, family and government, and our desire to continue our dependence upon Great Britain; and must humbly beseeching his Majesty, not to reduce his faithful subjects of America to a state of desperation, and to reflect, that from our Sovereign there can be but one appeal.”

In simple terms, the Resolves offered George III two obvious choices. One was to fulfill his covenant obligations and be the king and ruler to the American Colonies that he had agreed to be or, second, to prepare for war. George III was asked to reflect upon the fact, that if he did not keep his end of the covenant, there could “be but one appeal.”

*Last –and most important — it is not biblical. Daniel disobeyed Darius and went to the lions den. The three Hebrew children broke the law for not bowing. The parents hid baby Moses from Pharaoh. Rahab lied to protect the Hebrew spies. The Apostles went to prison for preaching Christ in the authority of Heaven. Paul and his followers in Acts 17 did contrary to all the decrees of Caesar in order to make Jesus the King. Even Jesus lived in direct opposition of the political religious leaders of his day and went to the cross for us.*

Romans 13 is a treatise by Paul and the Apostles on the institution of model government. As we rightly divide the word of truth and take this passage in its total context, we will discover seven truths:

    Good government is ordained by God.

    Government officials are to be good ministers who represent God.

    We the people must obey good and godly laws.

    As we relate Romans 13 to America, our Constitution is the higher power — not the IRS tax code.

    Good government is not to be feared.

    In America, we are to pay honor and custom and constitutional taxes to whom it is due.

    Government is to protect the righteous and punish the wicked.

As a result, we have a practical, historical and biblical mandate to fervently disobey any unconstitutional laws and all government officials who cease to be good ministers of Jesus Christ. God almighty is the only power that deserves unlimited obedience.

----------


## carclinic

> Your ideas help imprison innocent people who have not hurt anyone but themselves - think of that.


Seriously, the man negligently put people's lives at risk.


Let me just understand your opinion. Being that it is legal to own guns (for now) and legal to shoot them, just not at people, humor me this:

Should it be legal to walk around with my gun in an open space and start firing near people, but never aim at them. I don't destroy anyone's private property when I do it, let's say.

How's that any different than drunk driving?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Punishments are meant to be deterrents, period. That's the means in which we need to be evaluating our criminal justice system.


No, they're not.  Punishments are meant to satisfy our sense of justice.  That's it.  They don't serve any other purpose.

----------


## donnay

> I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.


You sound like a good little neocon.

Law and order and life prison sentences is exactly what the doctor for the Prison Industrial Complex ordered.  Especially in Texas where prisons are privately owned, *profit-driven,* to slave out better things than the Chinese slave labor does.

----------


## tod evans

Thanks AF!

----------


## carclinic

> Okay, I did think of it.  My conclusion is that he wasn't "corrected" by his previous punishments, and somehow managed to get behind the wheel of another automobile while intoxicated enough to wreck his car.  My conclusion is that sending him to jail for the rest of his life is probably not going to solve a thing for anyone involved, and definitely isn't going to teach anyone a lesson since it didn't happen until his 9th DWI which, to someone actually doing this regularly and watching the news, is simply going to tell them "Hey, if I stop at 8, I totally won't go to jail for life."
> 
> My conclusion is that I was so correct in my earlier assessment, that you haven't even bothered to address it lol


I thought I did answer you question, but being that you don't believe this man really should be punished, just what should we do with him? Put him in a out=patient rehab. Oh oh, he did it a tenth time! Lock him up in a rehab? Oh no, he got out again and did it. Should we really just wait until someone dies?


Hence my earlier comment. Its easy to have these pie in the sky discussions, but if your brother let's say was killed by a drunk driver, you'd feel totally different.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Rulers are given to us to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. The ruler is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.


And so carclinic exposes his true self.  He worships the state.  He thinks government was sent by God to do good, regardless of how abysmally bad they are at it.  Wake up, man.  Cops were not sent by God.  They are tyrants and they do no good that you or I couldn't do.

----------


## carclinic

> You sound like a good little neocon.
> 
> Law and order and life prison sentences is exactly what the doctor for the Prison Industrial Complex ordered.  Especially in Texas where prisons are privately owned, *profit-driven,* to slave out better things than the Chinese slave labor does.


For what it is worth, I've voted Badnarik, Baldwin, and Goode the last three elections. I've vote for Paul since 2008. I just believe the government should have a criminal justice system that acts as a deterrent.

----------


## tod evans

> Seriously, the man negligently put people's lives at risk.
> 
> 
> Let me just understand your opinion. Being that it is legal to own guns (for now) and legal to shoot them, just not at people, humor me this:
> 
> Should it be legal to walk around with my gun in an open space and start firing near people, but never aim at them. I don't destroy anyone's private property when I do it, let's say.
> 
> How's that any different than drunk driving?


You are able to hunt wherever it's legal including "firing near people" but it's only when you actually hit someone with your bullet that you're subject to law.
Following your expressed logic about drunk driving, a hunter who takes a shot while another person is in the woods jeopardized his safety and should be subject to punishment..

----------


## truelies

> shouldn't you have to infringe on another persons life, liberty, or property before having yours removed permanently?


WHICH THIS PILE OF $#@! CLEARLY DID!!!!!!

Truth be known he should have been separated from Society FOREVER at the first offense.

That said I would not if it were my pick use prison for such dregs. A reservation for malefactors where they are able to harm ONLY eachother and get killed on sight if they attempt to leave is I believe the most Liberty consistent solution for a Society such as ours.

----------


## donnay

> For what it is worth, I've voted Badnarik, Baldwin, and Goode the last three elections. I've vote for Paul since 2008. I just believe the government should have a criminal justice system that acts as a deterrent.


Then I think we need to start with the REAL criminals in DC!

----------


## MelissaWV

> I thought I did answer you question, but being that you don't believe this man really should be punished, just what should we do with him? Put him in a out=patient rehab. Oh oh, he did it a tenth time! Lock him up in a rehab? Oh no, he got out again and did it. Should we really just wait until someone dies?
> 
> 
> Hence my earlier comment. Its easy to have these pie in the sky discussions, but if your brother let's say was killed by a drunk driver, you'd feel totally different.


You not only did not answer, but you misrepresented my position.  I can't help but think it's malicious.  I don't think he should be punished?  Where did you get that from?  I think he should be punished based on the fact that he drove wrecklessly and damaged property, REGARDLESS of what caused him to do it.  Do you think someone who negligently drives a vehicle and strikes someone else's property should go to jail for life?  No?  Then why's the fact he did it drunk enough to punish him more severely than just about for any other crime?

----------


## tod evans

> WHICH THIS PILE OF $#@! CLEARLY DID!!!!!!
> 
> Truth be known he should have been separated from Society FOREVER at the first offense.
> 
> That said I would not if it were my pick use prison for such dregs. A reservation for malefactors where they are able to harm ONLY eachother and get killed on sight if they attempt to leave is I believe the most Liberty consistent solution for a Society such as ours.


You realize you're talking about some guy who got caught drunk driving right?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> By that logic, society would be best served be executing them then.
> 
> I refuse to believe then our options are mass executions or just letting everyone go to create havoc. We SHOULD be making a system that deters crime, somehow.


No, by that logic, we should stop putting people in cages for petty crimes and pre-crimes.  Nobody has to be executed.  Death is a part of life.  Accidents happen.  Most people don't drive drunk because they know it's a bad idea and they know they can die or cause others to die.  Stupid people will happen.  If they do kill someone, by all means, serve some justice.  But don't put people in prison for something they didn't do.  Our options are to make the punishment fit the crime.  There is no just punishment for someone who has hurt nobody.  What makes you think that, just because we let some people go who haven't killed anybody, that that's going to "wreak havoc"?  It will be no worse than executing thousands of people for petty crimes.  The better option is to let them be.  You can't save people by trying to guess who's going to kill someone before it happens.  That only causes more deaths than it would if we just let nature run its course.  We have laws for justice, we don't have laws to protect people.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Drunk driving is not petty, though.


That's debatable.  It is non-aggressive, though.  Aggressive means hurting someone.  Driving in a state that increases the likelihood of hurting someone is not hurting anyone.  If and when they do hurt someone, they can be charged, but not until then.  Any other policy is asking for more death and destruction, and a higher tax burden and overcrowded prison systems.

----------


## carclinic

> You are able to hunt wherever it's legal including "firing near people" but it's only when you actually hit someone with your bullet that you're subject to law.
> Following your expressed logic about drunk driving, a hunter who takes a shot while another person is in the woods jeopardized his safety and should be subject to punishment..


You just caught yourself.

You can go drive drunk in a parking lot, or in your driveway. Anywhere in private property. No one questions that. You cannot and should not in public.

That's the difference between firing weapons where it is designated to do so (private property, with a permit in the woods) and not walking around on main street.

----------


## truelies

> You are able to hunt wherever it's legal including "firing near people" but it's only when you actually hit someone with your bullet that you're subject to law.
> ..............................


Simply not true. You can't hunt in town. You can't hunt from a public highway. You can't hunt on the Private Property of others without their permission. Guaranteed getting caught firing in a manner which crosses the boundaries of a town, Private Property or a public road will lead to a court date. Sooooo sure ya wanna be a fool & drive drunk on YOUR OWN back 40, got for it..........BUT keep your drunk ass from behind the wheel of a vehicle on a highway. Otherwise ya just may get to be someone's prison bitch and guess what- not may of us will care about your lost 'liberty'.

----------


## carclinic

> You not only did not answer, but you misrepresented my position.  I can't help but think it's malicious.  I don't think he should be punished?  Where did you get that from?  I think he should be punished based on the fact that he drove wrecklessly and damaged property, REGARDLESS of what caused him to do it.  Do you think someone who negligently drives a vehicle and strikes someone else's property should go to jail for life?  No?  Then why's the fact he did it drunk enough to punish him more severely than just about for any other crime?


Very good point. I think, when sentenced, it should be taken into account whether this is the first time the individual put people at danger. This man clearly was a threat to society.

----------


## torchbearer

> Simply not true. You can't hunt in town. You can't hunt from a public highway. You can't hunt on the Private Property of others without their permission. Guaranteed getting caught firing in a manner which crosses the boundaries of a town, Private Property or a public road will lead to a court date. Sooooo sure ya wanna be a fool & drive drunk on YOUR OWN back 40, got for it..........BUT keep your drunk ass from behind the wheel of a vehicle on a highway. Otherwise ya just may get to be someone's prison bitch and guess what- not may of us will care about your lost 'liberty'.



another person who needs to have the an anonymous tip dropped to the local PD.
You'll enjoy it.

----------


## carclinic

> Simply not true. You can't hunt in town. You can't hunt from a public highway. You can't hunt on the Private Property of others without their permission. Guaranteed getting caught firing in a manner which crosses the boundaries of a town, Private Property or a public road will lead to a court date. Sooooo sure ya wanna be a fool & drive drunk on YOUR OWN back 40, got for it..........BUT keep your drunk ass from behind the wheel of a vehicle on a highway. Otherwise ya just may get to be someone's prison bitch and guess what- not may of us will care about your lost 'liberty'.


MAKES...TOO...MUCH...SENSE...BRAIN...HURTS

----------


## truelies

> You realize you're talking about some guy who got caught drunk driving right?


absolutely!!!!!!

What is the problem with some supposed 'liberty' lovers here????? Y'all sound like useless 20 somethings still living in mom's basement who never had a Dad to kick some personal responsibilty into your empty heads thru the medium of a work boot planted up your sorry asses

----------


## torchbearer

lovers of state violence must want it for themselves also.

----------


## carclinic

> absolutely!!!!!!
> 
> What is the problem with some supposed 'liberty' lovers here????? Y'all sound like useless 20 somethings still living in mom's basement who never had a Dad to kick some personal responsibilty into your empty heads thru the medium of a work boot planted up your sorry asses


Work boot? Maybe their dad's never got their hands dirty.


Anyway, I gotta run guys, enjoy your thanksgiving.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yet another reason to not believe in the bible or elect anyone with a theocratic bend.
> 
> Hey--is this Rick Santorum's sock puppet account...c'mon, 'fess up!


That's a non sequitur.  Believing the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is going to be a bad representative.  Even if more people who are Christians do support that kind of thing, that doesn't mean the two necessarily go hand in hand.  The Bible never encouraged this kind of insanity.

----------


## truelies

> another person who needs to have the an anonymous tip dropped to the local PD.
> You'll enjoy it.


Pathetic wants to drive DRUNK and makes threats of false testimony to harm those who call him on his public stupidity.

Whatever you are troll you sure aren't a friend of Liberty or even worthy of much in the way of personal freedom. Probably voted for Obama didn't ya. Make many crank calls on your obama phone?

----------


## torchbearer

> That's a non sequitur. Believing the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is going to be a bad representative. Even if more people who are Christians do support that kind of thing, that doesn't mean the two necessarily go hand in hand. The Bible never encouraged this kind of insanity.


but it produced this kind of insanity.

----------


## torchbearer

> Pathetic wants to drive DRUNK and makes threats of false testimony to harm those who call him on his public stupidity.
> 
> Whatever you are troll you sure aren't a friend of Liberty or even worthy of much in the way of personal freedom. Probably voted for Obama didn't ya. Make many crank calls on your obama phone?


would you mind if the local thugs in costume come $#@! your $#@! up?
Based on your attitude, I think the likelihood of you possibly hurting someone is very high... and based on that alone, state violence should be used against you.
your other sock account thinks raping people is good medicine, perhaps you can get in on the action and $#@! yourself.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It's okay not to like me, I'm not mad at you or anyone here. But, I want you to think of something. If you are that angry about anything, maybe you should be angry at the guy with 9 DWIs who put people's lives in danger. Think of that.


No, the guy with 9 DWIs didn't do anything to me.  The guy who thinks my freedom should only go as far as his opinion allows is insulting me by suggesting my freedom isn't a valid concern.  

Believe it or not, I am incapable of being angry at someone who has done nothing to me.  I am angry at the state because I know they cause this madness, not the guy with 9 DWIs.  They make everyone's lives more difficult, not just the criminal's.  I have no place to judge the criminal, but I damned well have a place to criticize the system that affects me and my family.  Decisions made by the few on a large scale are always worse than decisions made by the many on a small scale. 

By the way, you can quote me on that.  Just give credit where credit's due.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Rulers are given to us to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. The ruler is Gods servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.


Ah, isn't that cute? The little guitar player is old enough now to troll the internet...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Seriously, the man negligently put people's lives at risk.
> 
> 
> Let me just understand your opinion. Being that it is legal to own guns (for now) and legal to shoot them, just not at people, humor me this:
> 
> Should it be legal to walk around with my gun in an open space and start firing near people, but never aim at them. I don't destroy anyone's private property when I do it, let's say.
> 
> How's that any different than drunk driving?


If you don't hurt anyone, then no, it shouldn't be a crime.  But I can't guarantee you that someone won't retaliate and kill you, in which case they would be the criminal, and you would be dead because you're very stupid.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> WHICH THIS PILE OF $#@! CLEARLY DID!!!!!!
> 
> Truth be known he should have been separated from Society FOREVER at the first offense.
> 
> That said I would not if it were my pick use prison for such dregs. A reservation for malefactors where they are able to harm ONLY eachother and get killed on sight if they attempt to leave is I believe the most Liberty consistent solution for a Society such as ours.


How ironic.  Someone who capitalizes the word Society is concerned about "Liberty consistent solutions".

----------


## AFPVet

Like I said before, most states already have laws on the books which take care of HTVs without sentencing them to life. In fact, they can do it themselves by becoming a revolving door. Drive with an HTV, get a felony and prison term... do it again, guess what? You get another class D. If you hurt someone else while driving under banned HTV status, you get a class B and more prison time. Keep doing it, you could sentence yourself to life by recidivism without a judge having to do it. Life sentences should be reserved for only the most heinous crimes.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You just caught yourself.
> 
> You can go drive drunk in a parking lot, or in your driveway. Anywhere in private property. No one questions that. You cannot and should not in public.
> 
> That's the difference between firing weapons where it is designated to do so (private property, with a permit in the woods) and not walking around on main street.


Oh, so now I have the freedom to shoot my gun on my own property, but I can't do it without a permit?  What if I do it without a permit, does that mean I should be locked up?

----------


## torchbearer

> Oh, so now I have the freedom to shoot my gun on my own property, but I can't do it without a permit? What if I do it without a permit, *does that mean I should be locked up*?


for life in a rape pin, and when you aren't getting ass raped, you will be making my electronic goods.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> but it produced this kind of insanity.


No, people did.  Again, non sequitur.

That's like saying guns kill people.

----------


## torchbearer

> No, people did. Again, non sequitur.


if these people didn't read the words, they wouldn't have the thoughts.
non sequitor that.
yes, it probably wasn't the intent... but it is the result.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Seriously, the man negligently put people's lives at risk.
> 
> 
> Let me just understand your opinion. Being that it is legal to own guns (for now) and legal to shoot them, just not at people, humor me this:
> 
> Should it be legal to walk around with my gun in an open space and start firing near people, but never aim at them. I don't destroy anyone's private property when I do it, let's say.
> 
> How's that any different than drunk driving?


I'd rather have private road owners determine what is safe behavior for their roads and deal with it accordingly, not a centralized government.

In your example of firing a gun, it really depends if you are on government or private land. If we continue the line of thinking that it was on private land you are most likely violating the owners will or damaging his property (unless your firing in the air?).

 Unless he allows you to fire a gun on his land, in which case you have entered a voluntary contract with the property owner and he justifies what you are doing, it's assumed all others on the property also justify your behavior. 

If you are firing at someone, there could be a case made that you tried to kill them or they could sue for psychological distress.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> if these people didn't read the words, they wouldn't have the thoughts.
> non sequitor that.
> yes, it probably wasn't the intent... but it is the result.


That's like saying guns kill people.

Does reading words on a page make you do something?  No.  You made the decision to interpret in a way that requires violence, then you made the decision to carry it out.  The written words didn't do anything.

----------


## torchbearer

> That's like saying guns kill people.


the bible was quoted to justify their lust for violence via a third party agency we call government.
not the same because I didn't say the bible killed people, I said it influenced their thoughts. ideas are powerful, and reading things give people ideas.
unless you want to contest that point?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> the bible was quoted to justify their lust for violence via a third party agency we call government.
> not the same because I didn't say the bible killed people, I said it influenced their thoughts. ideas are powerful, and reading things give people ideas.
> unless you want to contest that point?


The Bible didn't make the decision to be interpreted in such a way that justifies that stuff.  Tell me with a straight face that nobody would have had power lust and used it for evil without the Bible.  You would be wrong.  The Bible didn't cause people to do anything.  It's the same kind of logic that says guns are responsible for murders.

People who kill and abuse power are going to do it with or without the Bible.

----------


## paulbot24

Oh Lord, here we go. Oops. Did I say Lord?

----------


## torchbearer

> The Bible didn't make the decision to be interpreted in such a way that justifies that stuff. Tell me with a straight face that nobody would have had power lust and used it for evil without the Bible. You would be wrong. The Bible didn't cause people to do anything. It's the same kind of logic that says guns are responsible for murders.


ideas are not objects. the bible itself is an object in that is just a physical printed book(or online data on disk).
but the ideas expressed in some of the books of the bible can cause people to act in violent ways.
you aren't talking to some rube. stop trying to changed my argument of one of ideas to one of objects. it isn't going to work.

hitler didn't make people slaughter others, the ideas of socialist nationalism did.

----------


## AGRP

Ya'll being trolled.

----------


## Origanalist

> Oh Lord, here we go. Oops. Did I say Lord?

----------


## torchbearer

> Ya'll being trolled.


with sock puppets, but its fun to pretend.

----------


## tod evans

> absolutely!!!!!!
> 
> What is the problem with some supposed 'liberty' lovers here????? Y'all sound like useless 20 somethings still living in mom's basement who never had a Dad to kick some personal responsibilty into your empty heads thru the medium of a work boot planted up your sorry asses


*BOY*, and I use the term in the most snide and derogatory sense possible, you have some learning as well as growing up to do.

I'll stop there.....

----------


## youngbuck

If it hasn't been already, it should be noted that he may not necessarily serve a life sentence:




> Stovall would be eligible for parole in five years, but depending on his  conduct in prison and other factors, that could be as long as 10 to 15  years.


I do realize that many so-called life-sentences work this way.

----------


## FindLiberty

> with sock puppets, but its fun to pretend.


Not fun, just a waste of time.

----------


## MelissaWV

Sock puppet accounts aside, you guys do realize a lot of folks feel the way these select few posters do, right?

The problem is that they see drunk driving as inevitably harmful.  Didn't hit someone after you had a beer and drove?  Well that was just pure blind luck! (or Jesus taking the wheel, if you're a country singer  )

The reality is that the result is what should be looked at.  There are people arrested for "driving drunk" on their own property, so please let's not use THAT as a defining factor.  There are people who simply get into a car, turn it on, and sit there to keep warm while waiting for a ride... and guess what? that is also a crime.  There are people driving just fine who have the slight aroma of alcohol on them and become property of the police.  Acknowledging all of this does not mean I want  people to drive drunk.  It means I want people who are driving horribly and dangerously to be caught and charged with being wreckless, rather than someone who's driving just fine but has been drinking to have the book thrown at them.

And no, this guy is not an angel.  I would say that hitting someone's car and damaging property is not the act of an innocent.  I would, though, think that the punishment should fit the crime.  This does not.  Not even close.  Not even with the "he can get out in 5-10 years maybe" added on.

----------


## paulbot24

If I drive recklessly later today while chatting or texting and drive into a ditch I would be called reckless by my friends and family and probably get that "I should be more careful" look. If I drink a few beers and get pulled over this evening, people would start questioning my wife and my family would start asking some serious questions about my judgement, character, and morality. It is a ridiculous world.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> absolutely!!!!!!
> 
> What is the problem with some supposed 'liberty' lovers here????? *Y'all sound like useless 20 somethings still living in mom's basement who never had a Dad to kick some personal responsibilty into your empty heads thru the medium of a work boot planted up your sorry asses*


Ugh...collectivist much?

I'm pushing 50, been working all my damn life, since 16.

Been supporting a family since I was 19.

Make, well, put it this way, in the top fifth quintile of incomes every year.

And *I* think this is heavy handed and Draconian.

I knew what all this hysteria was going to lead to: roadblocks, invasive blood tests on the side of the road, arrests and ridiculous prison terms.

I was called a nut and a "boy" then.

I, and millions of others, were called the same.

I thought this way when MADD first hit the scene in the early 80s.

We were right.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Sock puppet accounts aside, you guys do realize a lot of folks feel the way these select few posters do, right?


Yes, all too well aware of that.

The vast majority do.

Because people hate freedom, and always have.

What they enjoy is exercising petty power over their fellow man, they enjoy his misery, they enjoy his humiliation. 

Thus the success of shows like "Cops". Or the "perp walk".

----------


## Origanalist

> Yes, all too well aware of that.
> 
> The vast majority do.
> 
> Because people hate freedom, and always have.
> 
> What they enjoy is exercising petty power over their fellow man, they enjoy his misery, they enjoy his humiliation. 
> 
> Thus the success of shows like "Cops". Or the "perp walk".


I hate that show with a passion, no way I can make it though 5 minutes.

----------


## truelies

> Ugh...collectivist much?
> 
> ....................


Not near as much as YOU are trying to excuse murderous personal behaviour just because it happens to be one of your personal vices. Liberty is NOT the same thing as License, Fool.

----------


## truelies

> *BOY*, and I use the term in the most snide and derogatory sense possible, you have some learning as well as growing up to do.
> 
> I'll stop there.....


Great idea uncle, because y'all don't have jack to teach.........other than perhaps as a Bad Example and as an enemy of ordered Liberty.

----------


## truelies

> ...... in which case they would be the criminal, and you would be dead because you're very stupid.


Not in my State- the thuggie would be dead and the Citizen who planted him would be a hero.

----------


## tod evans

> Great idea uncle, because y'all don't have jack to teach.........other than perhaps as a Bad Example and as an enemy of ordered Liberty.


Take your "*ordered*" idea of liberty and march it goose-step whence you came, I'll have no part of it.

----------


## Origanalist

> Take your "*ordered*" idea of liberty and march it goose-step whence you came, I'll have no part of it.


Reported.

----------


## AGRP

How about some creative, liberty inspired, solutions besides locking him away and pointless cat fights?

----------


## torchbearer

> Not in my State- the thuggie would be dead and the Citizen who planted him would be a hero.


this statement says more about this poster than I ever could.

----------


## truelies

> .......Based on your attitude, I think the likelihood of you possibly hurting someone is very high...


hmmmm, not unless their obvious irresponsibility harms me or mine.

But, hey you do agree that if your drunk/drugged driving kills one of my kids/grandkids/cousins THEN I get to settle your hash any way I choose, right?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Not near as much as YOU are trying to excuse murderous personal behaviour just because it happens to be one of your personal vices. Liberty is NOT the same thing as License, Fool.


Umm, I don't drink.

How could it be my "personal vice"?

But, you make my point, unless you really are trolling.

A "vice" is not a *crime*, fool.

----------


## truelies

> this statement says more about this poster than I ever could.


Thats just the way life is in more States than not. Go around behaving in an obvious dangerous manner and folks WILL assert their right to self-protection. Ya don't wanna get hurt, don't behave in a dangerous threatening manner.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> hmmmm, not unless their obvious irresponsibility harms me or mine.
> 
> But, hey you do agree that if your drunk/drugged driving kills one of my kids/grandkids/cousins THEN I get to settle your hash any way I choose, right?


So, you hate the bill of rights, then, correct?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Thats just the way life is in more States than not. Go around behaving in an obvious dangerous manner and folks WILL assert their right to self-protection. Ya don't wanna get hurt, don't behave in a dangerous threatening manner.


So an 80 year old grandmother who is driving erratically, gets to be summarily executed by the mob on the side of the road if she hits somebody with her car?

----------


## AGRP

> hmmmm, not unless their obvious irresponsibility harms me or mine.
> 
> But, hey you do agree that if your drunk/drugged driving kills one of my kids/grandkids/cousins THEN I get to settle your hash any way I choose, right?


Depends.  There was a case around here when a farmer caught a farm hand raping his daughter and the farm hand died from head trauma.  Cops were called and he was only charged with assault and battery I believe.  The man is considered a hero.

----------


## truelies

> Umm, I don't drink.
> 
> How could it be my "personal vice"?
> 
> But, you make my point, unless you really are trolling.
> 
> A "vice" is not a *crime*, fool.


never said drinking by itself was a crime. I did say that driving while drunk is an attack on the rest of the community which merits permanent removal from Society. YOU did seem to imply that you drove drunk as a youth & thought it no big deal. Sooooo about the only point I made is that you seem to be of the sort who thinks license is the main constituent of Liberty. If so you are a dangerous Fool.

----------


## torchbearer

> Thats just the way life is in more States than not. Go around behaving in an obvious dangerous manner and folks WILL assert their right to self-protection. Ya don't wanna get hurt, don't behave in a dangerous threatening manner.


you love violence and you live out that lust through government.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> never said drinking by itself was a crime. I did say that driving while drunk is an attack on the rest of the community which merits permanent removal from Society. YOU did seem to imply that you drove drunk as a youth & thought it no big deal. Sooooo about the only point I made is that you seem to be of the sort who thinks license is the main constituent of Liberty. If so you are a dangerous Fool.


How can there be an "attack" if there was no victim?

Yes, I did.

So did lots of other people.

We did lots of other things as well.

I would trade that world for today's surveillance state, instantly.

----------


## truelies

> So an 80 year old grandmother who is driving erratically, gets to be summarily executed by the mob on the side of the road if she hits somebody with her car?


Nope, but she gets to spend her remaining days on the miscreant res and her Property gets confiscated to 100% of the amount required to make her vics whole.......and YES if one dies so should she.


Why do you have such trouble with personal responsibilty, sport?

----------


## tod evans

> hmmmm, not unless their obvious irresponsibility harms me or mine.
> 
> But, hey you do agree that if your drunk/drugged driving kills one of my kids/grandkids/cousins THEN I get to settle your hash any way I choose, right?


If you actually do have grandchildren you are of my vintage, and I must say I'm ashamed of the attitudes and beliefs you profess.

You should be old enough to know better, especially if you've ever seen a "work-boot"...

Even more important, you, at your age, should be well aware of how "our government" is the antithesis of freedom and liberty.

----------


## tod evans

> I did say that driving while drunk is an attack on the rest of the community which merits permanent removal from Society.


From earlier in this thread just for you..




> Laws are written and rewritten daily, they're perverted and twisted by prosecutors/judges and lawyers to fit agendas. 
> 
> Public sentiment, such as you have expressed regarding drunk drivers, contributes drastically to their perversion. 
> 
> Whether or not you realize it you are being played like a fiddle by the propaganda arm of government.

----------


## truelies

> How can there be an "attack" if there was no victim?
> 
> ...........


Shot at me and miss- its still an attack.

Driving while impaired is such trouble brewing for those around you that it does in fact constitute an attack. AS TO NO VIC- yeah right you drive up the sidewalk utterly impaired & miss my kid by inches ONLY because I jerked him/her & me to safety. No vic????? Only in the mind of an irresponsible bullshitter who feels his 'right' to drink & drive trumps other folks life & limb.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Nope, but she gets to spend her remaining days on the miscreant res and her Property gets confiscated to 100% of the amount required to make her vics whole.......and YES if one dies so should she.
> 
> 
> Why do you have such trouble with personal responsibilty, sport?


Because your version of "responsibility" is indicative of harsh, warped and twisted sense of justice, that would have street mobs executing poorly driving grandmothers.

Have a drink and a drive, and relax, "sport".

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Shot at me and miss- its still an attack.
> 
> Driving while impaired is such trouble brewing for those around you that it does in fact constitute an attack. AS TO NO VIC- yeah right you drive up the sidewalk utterly impaired & miss my kid by inches ONLY because I jerked him/her & me to safety. No vic????? Only in the mind of an irresponsible bullshitter who feels his 'right' to drink & drive trumps other folks life & limb.


It may be an "attempted" attack or murder.

Many of my rights could pose risk to your life and limb.

Many of yours could do the same to me.

Liberty is Risky.

Violently oppressive authoritarianism is "safe".

----------


## truelies

> ................I must say I'm ashamed of the attitudes and beliefs you profess.
> 
> ............................


Yeah, I am not to broken up by your disapproval, uncle.


When/if you ever figure out the difference between Liberty and the license displayed by a self-absorbed cretin let me know, k.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If you actually do have grandchildren you are of my vintage, and I must say I'm ashamed of the attitudes and beliefs you profess.
> 
> You should be old enough to know better, especially if you've ever seen a "work-boot"...
> 
> Even more important, you, at your age, should be well aware of how "our government" is the antithesis of freedom and liberty.


I think we're being trolled, but I could be wrong.

----------


## Tod

The question seems to me to boil down to this:  how do you safeguard others from someone who is hellbent on killing someone with a car and who holds no regard for either the law or other people's lives?  He has evidently made AT LEAST one attempt, probably more.  Should he be excused because he isn't as competent as some drunk drivers at ruining other people's lives?

----------


## Dr.3D

Really, it shouldn't be illegal to drink and drive.  It should be illegal to cause damage using a vehicle while being drunk.

----------


## tod evans

> Yeah, I am not to broken up by your disapproval, uncle.
> 
> 
> When/if you ever figure out the difference between Liberty and the license displayed by a self-absorbed cretin let me know, k.


Be delighted, you live anywhere near the Ozarks? 

I'd like nothing more than to help you understand..

----------


## Anti Federalist

Oh, and in honor of this thread, I'll now be sure to knock back a few vodka martinis at dinner and drive home.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Really, it shouldn't be illegal to drink and drive.  It should be illegal to cause damage using a vehicle while being drunk.


It already is.

----------


## Dr.3D

> It already is.


So there is no need to go after people who have been drinking and are driving.

----------


## hrdman2luv

> Or just sell his car and give him a horse / bicycle.
> 
> Oh wait, it's probably illegal to ride horses nowadays


I knew of a guy who got a DWI in east Texas while riding his horse.. Also, one that got a DWI while driving his tractor.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I knew of a guy who got a DWI in east Texas *while riding his horse*.. Also, one that got a DWI while driving his tractor.


Why?  Was the horse drunk?

----------


## truelies

> ...................Many of my rights could pose risk to your life and limb.
> 
> .............


Where did you ever come up with the idea that YOU have a 'right' to put other people's lives at risk?

Either you are a Fed here trolling perhaps to lure some fools into acts against the State or you are a Fool too simple to understand that Rights carry Responsibility.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So there is no need to go after people who have been drinking and are driving.


Nope.

"Obviously impaired" and "driving to endanger" is already illegal.

So is causing damage or injury or death with a motor vehicle.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Where did you ever come up with the idea that YOU have a 'right' to put other people's lives at risk?
> 
> Either you are a Fed here trolling perhaps to lure some fools into acts against the State or you are a Fool too simple to understand that Rights carry Responsibility.


I have a right to own guns.

I exercise that right.

Even with due diligence, my guns could possibly be stolen and used to kill innocent people.

Even with due diligence, I could mistakenly kill somebody myself.

People have a right to a fair trial and due process, even though that means, properly applied, guilty people would sometimes go free.

You want to abolish that as well?

----------


## truelies

> Oh, and in honor of this thread, I'll now be sure to knock back a few vodka martinis at dinner and drive home.


Here's hoping a barney busts your stupid ass. At least while he is running you in and filling out the paperwork innocent dogs will be safe.

----------


## anaconda

> Could this not have been resolved by barring him from having a drivers license?



A lot of the "habitual" offenders don't care about a license. They just get in and drive. On the other hand, isn't Texas the state where you get lethal injection for stealing an Almond Joy from the convenience store? Just as at the federal level, the state legislatures seem to run amok with laws that enslave their people and contribute to the coffers. But, if we could return the emphasis to the states, these kinds of stories would begin to have a "competitive" effect throughout the land. People would take these kinds of things into consideration when deciding where to live.

----------


## Tod

> Nope, but she gets to spend her remaining days on the miscreant res and her Property gets confiscated to 100% of the amount required to make her vics whole.......and YES if one dies so should she.
> 
> 
> Why do you have such trouble with personal responsibilty, sport?



Without individual responsibility and morality, there can be no individual liberty.

*Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.* ~ John Adams

----------


## Tod

> I have a right to own guns.
> 
> I exercise that right.
> 
> Even with due diligence, my guns could possibly be stolen and used to kill innocent people.
> 
> Even with due diligence, I could mistakenly kill somebody myself.


The second amendment does not allow you to go about randomly shooting at innocent people; the equivalent of driving drunk.

edit:  It would be absurd to think that it is okay to take a gun down to my local shopping mall and randomly shoot into the crowds of shoppers, so long as I don't hit anyone.

----------


## AGRP

> Or just sell his car and give him a horse / bicycle.
> 
> Oh wait, it's probably illegal to ride horses nowadays


+ rep

Or this.  Problem will most likely be solved the next time he gets in a wreck.

----------


## truelies

> ..............Even with due diligence, ..............



No, more like lazy irresponsibility. Your right to own a weapon does not extent to a 'right' to directly put others a risk. Drinking & then driving is simply NOT 'due diligence' in exercising a right to consume adult subtrances. Ya could for example take a taxi home, fool.

----------


## truelies

> this statement says more about this poster than I ever could.



Yeah mostly that he is a better man than you will ever be.

----------


## truelies

> Be delighted, you live anywhere near the Ozarks? 
> 
> I'd like nothing more than to help you understand..


best you stay where you are at, uncle. Folks of your sort find my community a decidely unhealthy place to visit.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Here's hoping a barney busts your stupid ass. At least while he is running you in and filling out the paperwork innocent dogs will be safe.


It's people like you "law and order" types that have given cops the idea that they have free reign to terrorize us and shoot our dogs whenever they feel that their "safety" is threatened in the slightest way.

Nice work.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The second amendment does not allow you to go about randomly shooting at innocent people; the equivalent of driving drunk.
> 
> edit:  It would be absurd to think that it is okay to take a gun down to my local shopping mall and randomly shoot into the crowds of shoppers, so long as I don't hit anyone.


There are plenty of people, quite of few of them in the same MADD crowd that we are dealing with here, that do not agree.

That weapon, just sitting there, is _de facto_ a source of death.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Driving that will get you arrested too.




> + rep
> 
> Or this.  Problem will most likely be solved the next time he gets in a wreck.

----------


## tod evans

> best you stay where you are at, uncle. Folks of your sort find my community a decidely unhealthy place to visit.


I'd be honored to stop by,I've never had a problem in the lower class neighborhoods I've visited.

----------


## AFPVet

I just have to get this out there... no victim, no crime. I don't believe in pre-crime... I didn't think it worked when I was a cop, and I don't think it works now. All it does is clogs up the system and/or makes money for the state. If you hurt someone, then you pay the price.

----------


## AGRP

> Driving that will get you arrested too.


Theyre legal in some areas as long as they have proper lights and signals.

----------


## truelies

> There are plenty of people, quite of few of them in the same MADD crowd that we are dealing with here, that do not agree.
> 
> That weapon, just sitting there, is _de facto_ a source of death.


Well so you say- BUT.............the flack you and your sort are getting seems to be 100% due to your insane attempts to justify driving/shooting impaired in a manners which guarandamntees lots of broken dead innocents. Act like an adult with guns & vehicles rather than like a stupid 20 something living in mom's basement and no one will bother you.

----------


## AGRP

> I just have to get this out there... no victim, no crime. I don't believe in pre-crime... I didn't think it worked when I was a cop, and I don't think it works now. All it does is clogs up the system and/or makes money for the state. If you hurt someone, then you pay the price.


He injured at least one person.  In a voluntary society, i would like to believe his community would come together to trade his vehicle for something like a golf cart, horse, bike, etc.

----------


## truelies

> .......... no victim, no crime. ......................


When the vic is dead or broken its a bit LATE to question the dangerous stupidity of drunk driving. Wanna drink? FINE!!!!!! Take a cab home. Everyone wins , except YOUR pathetic self-absorbed immature ego.

----------


## MelissaWV

> How about some creative, liberty inspired, solutions besides locking him away and pointless cat fights?


Already discussed punishing the actual acts that cause harm or danger, but several people are so blinded by their outrage at WHY the person caused the harm or danger, that they really don't care about that silly technicality.

----------


## MelissaWV

> When the vic is dead or broken its a bit LATE to question the dangerous stupidity of drunk driving. Wanna drink? FINE!!!!!! Take a cab home. Everyone wins , except YOUR pathetic self-absorbed immature ego.


...or driving while eating, or tired, or being distracted by whining children, or on the phone, or listening to the GPS, or sex acts, or not knowing how to turn on your lights/wipers, or fiddling with the radio, or smoking, or being attacked by insects/other animals in your vehicle, or having to pee too badly, or under the influence of perfectly legal drugs, or having had some NyQuil, or...

I am sure you are just as rabid about laws against all of these things.

Or how about punishing people who are driving dangerously regardless of the potential chemical root of it?  No.  That's not even an option in this thread.

----------


## truelies

> ........................Nice work.



Nah, its your sort of self-absorbed  danger to the community who make the Stasi appear to have a rationale for existence.

BTW, just WHAT do you feel should be the fate of one who kills/mains while driving impaired? 100hours community service? A stern talking too? Nothing, if the perp is yer buddy?

Personally I will go with Death to be inflicted by the hand of the vics next of kin and total forfeiture of all assets.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Nah, its your sort of self-absorbed  danger to the community who make the Stasi appear to have a rationale for existence.
> 
> BTW, just WHAT do you feel should be the fate of one who kills/mains while driving impaired? 100hours community service? A stern talking too? Nothing, if the perp is yer buddy?
> 
> Personally I will go with Death to be inflicted by the hand of the vics next of kin and total forfeiture of all assets.


BTW, do you feel the fate of one who kills/maims while driving (impaired or not) should be equal to the fate of someone who damages only property while driving (impaired or not)?

----------


## tod evans

> Nah, its your sort of self-absorbed  danger to the community who make the Stasi appear to have a rationale for existence.
> 
> BTW, just WHAT do you feel should be the fate of one who kills/mains while driving impaired? 100hours community service? A stern talking too? Nothing, if the perp is yer buddy?
> 
> Personally I will go with Death to be inflicted by the hand of the vics next of kin and total forfeiture of all assets.


Remove the "impaired" clause and you'd have better luck selling your fish...

Trying to argue mens rea is a loosing argument, especially in the case of those who are impaired.

----------


## Danan

(Disclaimer: I've only read all posts up to the quoted one. Sorry if I repeat something that was already said.)




> Legitimate drunk driving has always been illegal. But how is "drunk" determined? The presence of alcohol, or so impaired that driving is obviously effected? 
> 
> Most of us want drivers to be safe, but this can go too far, and we are already going down the road you want to take us. How many texting while driving incidents before life in prison? How about putting on make-up while driving? Shaving? Or how about the true number one cause of accidents, driving while tired?
> 
> And while we are at it, let's make getting a license a true test of competency. No more bad drivers on the road. No more beginner drivers on the road. No more drivers that come to complete stops in the fast lane of the freeway so they can slowly cut across all lanes of traffic to make an exit that they are missing.
> 
> And when you start down this path there is only one outcome: more draconian laws, more law enforcement, bigger budgets, and more people in jail. And in the end, the worse drivers on the road will probably still be out there, because you can't outlaw stupid.


The really interesting thing about those problems is, that the crucial point is not so much that the laws regarding driving are so bad, but rather the fact that the government shouldn't even be in the position to make these kinds of laws. It's first and foremost a property rights issue.

If roads were privately owned, as every good and service should be, the owner would have to decide whether there should be a driver's license required or not. Whether there should be a limit on the blood alcohol level and how high this should be. The same is true for speed limits, etc. And also, of course, for the fines for breaking these rules as well as there execution.

The entrepreneur would have to balance the additional revenue from drunk, speeding drivers against the lost revenue from all the people who seek alternatives to that road, because it would have an abyssmal death rate with a total laissez-faire policy. And I'm almost certain, that roads would be a lot safer in this system than today's roads, because that would have a much more beneficial impact on profits.

I also think that this is a good opportunity to criticize some libertarians who believe it's against the NAP for the government to enforce driver's licenses (which would, in some way, almost certainly exist in a private road system), etc. The government is the owner of the street. The owner choses the rules. There is nothing intrinsicly bad about that. The reason it's a mess is because the government owns the road (obviously bought with stolen money) and therefore no competition over the best set of rules for the marginal costumor of "driving" exists, because nobody is able to compete with a government that offers a service you have to pay for whether you use it or not.

The same principle is true for public education, health care, etc. As long as these things are publically owned, governments are going to make the rules. They are mostly going to be very bad rules, but democracy is a really bad way of determining what should be done instead. The way to sort these problems out is via free markets and competition.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> ideas are not objects. the bible itself is an object in that is just a physical printed book(or online data on disk).
> but the ideas expressed in some of the books of the bible can cause people to act in violent ways.
> you aren't talking to some rube. stop trying to changed my argument of one of ideas to one of objects. it isn't going to work.
> 
> hitler didn't make people slaughter others, the ideas of socialist nationalism did.


Anything can have meaning to a person, it doesn't have to be words.  Words don't speak for themselves.  People can give them their own meaning, and it's not the Bible's fault that some people choose to interpret them in a way that suggests they should be violent.  Like I said, people are going to kill and lust for power whether or not it has anything to do with the Bible.  People have used all sorts of ideologies to commit heinous acts.  

The ideas of socialist nationalism only worked as an excuse to carry out violent acts.  The plans and processes of carrying out these acts didn't just spring from pages, they took places in the hearts and minds of men who perverted them for an agenda.  The only reason Germans killed was because they thought it served their best interest to support that agenda.  

Regardless, however, the Bible never condoned violence.  Read in its context, nothing violent can be derived as being a command by God unless men pervert it in such a way that it does.  They were violent with or without the Bible, but criminals will sometimes use things that have cultural meaning in order to gain support like Hitler did.  That doesn't mean the ideologies themselves were responsible.  Every single German had the choice to obey or not.  

All you're doing is replacing guns with ideas, and all of a sudden people don't have control over themselves.  That's bull$#@!.  You're only saying that because you have your own agenda of opposing Christianity.  You do that by telling us the most popular Christian literature is responsible for things people almost universally think are bad.  The idea of anti-Christianity didn't force you to do it, though.  You conceived of that in your own mind and acted on your own behest.  No words control you.  You are not a slave to ideas and text.  People who commit violent acts on behalf of their beliefs are only acting out the evil in their own hearts.  

In other words, the ideas came from men, not the other way around.  You can't blame this on a certain ideology, especially when that ideology never condoned violence.  The fact that people use it for evil only shows that people will interpret anything in a way that fits their own conceptions about the world.  So stop blaming Christianity and hold people accountable for their own individual actions.  To expand it to the idea is to stereotype that person's beliefs on a much wider spectrum.

----------


## Tod

> If roads were privately owned, as every good and service should be, the owner would have to decide whether there should be a driver's license required or not. Whether there should be a limit on the blood alcohol level and how high this should be. The same is true for speed limits, etc. And also, of course, for the fines for breaking these rules as well as there execution.


Things such as roads that are publicly owned are de facto owned by the public and the duly elected representatives of the public are the ones making the laws, much as employees of a private road-owning company would do.  As our representatives, lawmakers have decided that there should be a limit on blood alcohol and how high it should be.  The same is true for speed limits, etc.  And also, of course, for the fines for breaking these rules as well as their enforcement.

Wait...is there an echo in here?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

//

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How can there be an "attack" if there was no victim?
> 
> Yes, I did.
> 
> So did lots of other people.
> 
> We did lots of other things as well.
> 
> I would trade that world for today's surveillance state, instantly.


I believe you mean you would trade today's surveillance state for that world...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Nope, but she gets to spend her remaining days on the miscreant res and her Property gets confiscated to 100% of the amount required to make her vics whole.......and YES if one dies so should she.
> 
> 
> Why do you have such trouble with personal responsibilty, sport?


It's not personal responsibility when arbitrary sentences are being handed down.  I can't be expected to bend to your rules, and likewise for you.  I was arguing with a liberal not long ago who used that same line of reasoning to say it's okay for the government to steal and tax endlessly.  If you don't comply and you get arrested: personal responsibility, they said.  As if I should be responsible for some jackwad who tries to take money from me and then suffer the arbitrary consequences of the thief when I choose not to give it up.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Really, it shouldn't be illegal to drink and drive.  It should be illegal to cause damage using a vehicle while being drunk.


Why does the "while being drunk" part matter?  It's the same as if somebody completely sober did some damage, either way, they are to be held responsible for the damage.

----------


## Danan

> Things such as roads that are publicly owned are de facto owned by the public and the duly elected representatives of the public are the ones making the laws, much as employees of a private road-owning company would do.  As our representatives, lawmakers have decided that there should be a limit on blood alcohol and how high it should be.  The same is true for speed limits, etc.  And also, of course, for the fines for breaking these rules as well as their enforcement.
> 
> Wait...is there an echo in here?


?
I also said that the fact that they provide this service without fees or tolls for it's usage, but finance everything by taxing the general public (which is theft), is effectively keeping out competition and thus the conditions and specific rules to not resemble what the market would give you, which is the optimal set of rules to maximize profits. Which ultimately comes down to the simple truth that without coerced funding, the customers would inderictly chose the rules on the roads (and that's a way superior decision making process than letting politicians and bureaucrat elected via a flawed democratic system decide).

Or did I misunderstand your question? =/

----------


## Dr.3D

> Why does the "while being drunk" part matter?  It's the same as if somebody completely sober did some damage, either way, they are to be held responsible for the damage.


True, but sober it is more likely the damage was done by accident.  Everybody knows being drunk does make is easier for people to have an "accident."

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> When the vic is dead or broken its a bit LATE to question the dangerous stupidity of drunk driving. Wanna drink? FINE!!!!!! Take a cab home. Everyone wins , except YOUR pathetic self-absorbed immature ego.


You can't prevent people from dying with laws.  That's just the way it works.  You keep wanting to say that, if this is illegal, the crime will be stopped before it happens.  It just doesn't work, as is clearly the case with drinking and driving laws, speeding laws, drug laws, gun laws.  Laws don't prevent anything.  They are only there to serve justice for crimes already committed.  You can't engage in the idea that you can stop crime by making precursors illegal, as if all precursors led to crimes being committed.  Some people who drive drunk make it home just fine, and if you arrest them, you haven't fixed anything.  People are innocent until proven guilty for a reason, and that's because it's better for a hundred guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be falsely convicted.  If you make precursors illegal, why stop there?  Why not make bars illegal so that drinking stops altogether.  Oh wait, didn't they try that in the 1920s?

----------


## AGRP

It is intellectually inconsistent for anyone to state that drinking and driving should be illegal while stating other activities and non-activities before driving should not be illegal.  For example, someone who works or stays awake for at least two 12 hour work shifts (which is very common) before driving home is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than having a few drinks before driving. Oh, but working 60-80 hour work weeks is lauded in our society isn't it?

----------


## AFPVet

> He injured at least one person.  In a voluntary society, i would like to believe his community would come together to trade his vehicle for something like a golf cart, horse, bike, etc.


In his situation, yes, he injured someone. I was simply referring to the generality.

----------


## Danan

> Why does the "while being drunk" part matter?  It's the same as if somebody completely sober did some damage, either way, they are to be held responsible for the damage.


True. But it should also be understandable that drivers would want to demand from the owner of the road, that he prevents people who are obviously endangering others (like drunks, extremely poor drivers, extremely tired people, etc.) from using the same road as everybody else. Every entrepreur would understand that demand and try to come up with a way to sort these people out (it's his road after all).

The problem originates from the fact that the government owns the road.

----------


## MelissaWV

> It is intellectually inconsistent for anyone to state that drinking and driving should be illegal while stating other activities and non-activities before driving should not be illegal.  For example, someone who works or stays awake for at least two 12 hour work shifts (which is very common) before driving home is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than having a few drinks before driving. Oh, but working 60-80 hour work weeks is lauded in our society isn't it?


Ah you added the last part just as I quoted you, which was going to be my point.

It is worse because, while there is a stigma associated with drinking and driving, and programs for you to be able to call a free ride under certain circumstances, people who are driving while exhausted often have little alternative, and are being good little worker bees.

And the person they kill is just as dead as one a drunk driver kills.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> True, but sober it is more likely the damage was done by accident.  Everybody knows being drunk does make is easier for people to have an "accident."


Well, if you wanna go down THAT road...

The point is, people can do things maliciously or accidentally regardless of what state they're in.  Punishing the crime is the only surefire way to go.

----------


## AFPVet

> True. But it should also be understandable that drivers would want to demand from the owner of the road, that he prevents people who are obviously endangering others (like drunks, extremely poor drivers, extremely tired people, etc.) from using the same road as everybody else. Every entrepreneur would understand that demand and try to come up with a way to sort these people out (it's his road after all).
> 
> The problem originates from the fact that the government owns the road.


This is another valid point for privatizing roads.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It is intellectually inconsistent for anyone to state that drinking and driving should be illegal while stating other activities and non-activities before driving should not be illegal.  For example, someone who works or stays awake for at least two 12 hour work shifts (which is very common) before driving home is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than having a few drinks before driving. Oh, but working 60-80 hour work weeks is lauded in our society isn't it?


Not to mention working those kinds of shifts WHILE driving.  Driving is part of my job, and I just put in a 12 hour shift last night, most of it spent driving.

----------


## Danan

> It is intellectually inconsistent for anyone to state that drinking and driving should be illegal while stating other activities and non-activities before driving should not be illegal.  For example, someone who works or stays awake for at least two 12 hour work shifts (which is very common) before driving home is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than having a few drinks before driving. Oh, but working 60-80 hour work weeks is lauded in our society isn't it?


Ideally, in a perfect system, none of those things should be "illegal", but rather prohibited by the owner. And of course he has no right other than to force you to leave his property, or whatever you agreed to contractually by driving on his road (which, theoretically, could include prison sentences for drunk driving - if you still sign up for it...).

While the government does own the road, however, I personally would want it to lower the risk of dying while driving on it (but without destroying people's lifes for being risky).

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ideally, in a perfect system, none of those things should be "illegal", but rather prohibited by the owner. And of course he has no right other than to force you to leave his property, or whatever you agreed to contractually by driving on his road (which, theoretically, could include prison sentences for drunk driving - if you still sign up for it...).
> 
> While the government does own the road, however, I personally would want it to lower the risk of dying while driving on it (but without destroying people's lifes for being risky).


The idea of public property isn't that "the government" owns it, but that nobody owns it.  

I personally am not too attracted to the idea that I can drive around and have a different set of arbitrary rules enforced on me depending on whose property I'm on.  There should be places where people are free to travel without being subject to somebody's arbitrary rules.

----------


## AGRP

So, how many video game junkies will be playing that new COD game for days on end before possibly getting on the road and killing someone?  What about the black friday deal grabbers who will be shopping all day and driving possibly kill someone?  They get to the stores by at least 5am.  Both groups are impaired.

----------


## Tpoints

> why is this dangerous substance "legal" then?
> 
> life sentence...but not for sandusky, corizone, or teh bernack...


Sandusky got 30+ years, that's effectively life for a 68 year old.

----------


## Tpoints

> BTW, do you feel the fate of one who kills/maims while driving (impaired or not) should be equal to the fate of someone who damages only property while driving (impaired or not)?


Take out the word driving and the answer is obvious.

----------


## Danan

> The idea of public property isn't that "the government" owns it, but that nobody owns it.  
> 
> I personally am not too attracted to the idea that I can drive around and have a different set of arbitrary rules enforced on me depending on whose property I'm on.  There should be places where people are free to travel without being subject to somebody's arbitrary rules.


But most other people are not too attracted to the idea of getting killed by some drunk driver who can legally and freely drive around unless he finally kills someone. And because that won't change ever, you're not going to get rid of those kind of laws through politics, imho.

Btw, if nobody owns them, can I claim ownership and fence in a road?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But most other people are not too attracted to the idea of getting killed by some drunk driver who can legally and freely drive around unless he finally kills someone. And because that won't change ever, you're not going to get rid of those kind of laws through politics, imho.
> 
> Btw, if nobody owns them, can I claim ownership and fence in a road?


Look at the privatization of roads guy telling me how impractical my idea is.........

Getting rid of the police state will probably never happen, but most people here still want to.  Same for the fed.

And no, you can't fence in a road because that would make it impossible to drive on.  Seriously, though, if nobody owns them and you claim it, your claim will not be recognized and you need not seek compensation when your fence is destroyed.

----------


## Tpoints

> But most other people are not too attracted to the idea of getting killed by some drunk driver who can legally and freely drive around unless he finally kills someone. And because that won't change ever, you're not going to get rid of those kind of laws through politics, imho.
> 
> Btw, if nobody owns them, can I claim ownership and fence in a road?


it's not just that nobody owns it, it's NOBODY CAN, otherwise it wouldn't be left unclaimed.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> True. But it should also be understandable that drivers would want to demand from the owner of the road, that he prevents people who are obviously endangering others (like drunks, extremely poor drivers, extremely tired people, etc.) from using the same road as everybody else. Every entrepreur would understand that demand and try to come up with a way to sort these people out (it's his road after all).
> 
> The problem originates from the fact that the government owns the road.


Excellent post,

I would like to add one little thing: There would be no need for police officers to patrol for traffic violations if roads were privatized, there would be transportation workers dedicated to keeping the roads safe and not trying to enforce bull$#@! laws like seat-belt violations.

Perhaps then police would have more time to do what they are supposed to do, catch real criminals like murderers and rapists.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> The idea of public property isn't that "the government" owns it, but that nobody owns it.  
> 
> I personally am not too attracted to the idea that I can drive around and have a different set of *arbitrary rules enforced on me* depending on whose property I'm on.  There should be places where people are free to travel without being subject to somebody's arbitrary rules.


You seriously don't think there would be some form (or multiple competing forms) of standardization to provide a consistent experience to motorists?

Eventually the best system would survive.

I would also argue that laws are more arbitrary (55 mph speed limit) than the market's self regulation.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Excellent post,
> 
> I would like to add one little thing: There would be no need for police officers to patrol for traffic violations if roads were privatized, there would be transportation workers dedicated to keeping the roads safe and not trying to enforce bull$#@! laws like seat-belt violations.
> 
> Perhaps then police would have more time to do what they are supposed to do, catch real criminals like murderers and rapists.


There would be no need for them even with public roads if we didn't have the police state.  All we need to do is get rid of the police state.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You seriously don't think there would be some form (or multiple competing forms) of standardization to provide a consistent experience to motorists?
> 
> Eventually the best system would survive.


Of course there would be, but that doesn't mean road-owners won't discriminate against people according to their own will.  It's not like people can just boycott the roads so they risk going out of "business".

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> There would be no need for them even with public roads if we didn't have the police state.  All we need to do is get rid of the police state.


The Department of Transportation has a 71 Billion dollar budget for 2013, this is a drain on all of us and unnecessary and part of the large Federal government that is all around us. It's the same principle problem - wasteful centralized government planning - as the police state. However, I agree the police state is a major priority.




> Of course there would be, but that doesn't mean road-owners won't discriminate against people according to their own will.  It's not like people can just boycott the roads so they risk going out of "business".


Sure motorists could boycott a road. They could carpool, take a bus, or strike a highway - use a competing one. There are already organizations that look out for Motorists and their interests. 

See: http://www.motorists.org/

The only reason this seems like chaos is because the government already occupies that space. If the government never got in to the road business it would already be a part of our everyday life and our general economy would be much better off for it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Well so you say- BUT.............the flack you and your sort are getting seems to be 100% due to your insane attempts to justify driving/shooting impaired in a manners which guarandamntees lots of broken dead innocents. Act like an adult with guns & vehicles rather than like a stupid 20 something living in mom's basement and no one will bother you.


Driving to endanger and vehicular homicide is, and was, already against the law.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I believe you mean you would trade today's surveillance state for that world...


Yes, that is what I meant.

Maybe I was drunk.

----------


## phill4paul

Some things to consider....

  For those using the "What if a person shot at you in public?" defense. Including the judge...




> "The point is to prevent crimes," said Bradley, who added that the county boasts one of the lowest crime rates compared to other Texas counties of similar size.
> 
> "If this guy was using a shotgun to shoot lights randomly around his neighborhood I doubt we'd be [getting criticized] for the sentencing," he said. "In this case he's simply using his truck as his weapon."


Texas:

§ 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. 
(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) *A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
            (1) one or more individuals; or *  
            (2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. *An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.*


§ 12.34. THIRD DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT. 
(a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division *for any term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years.*
(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.


  So, as you can see, the punishment for drunk driving in this case exceeds the stipulated charges for pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger. Let THAT sink in for a moment. 

  Now let's look at the charges if this individual had actually killed another while D.U.I.

  Definition of Intoxication Manslaughter - Texas Penal Code Section 49.08

§ 49.08. Intoxication Manslaughter.
(a) *A person commits an offense if the person*:
   (1) *operates a motor vehicle in a public place*, operates an aircraft, a watercraft, or an amusement ride, or assembles a mobile amusement ride; and
   (2) *is intoxicated and by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake*.
(b) *An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.
*
  Second Degree Felony Range of Punishment - Texas Penal Code

§ 12.33. SECOND DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT. 
(a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division *for any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years.*
(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

  So even if this individual had actually KILLED another his imprisonment would not have been for more than 20 years. Let THAT sink in for a moment.

  This individual was sentenced to LIFE for nothing more than what the judge deemed a pre-crime. He was given this sentence by the judge in an attempt to stop a future event by giving him a penalty that would exceed the punishment for said future event.

----------


## devil21

Good catch phill.  What does the TX DWI code say?  Is life actually codified as a punishment for a 9th DWI?  It is worth mentioning, though, that the penalty you pointed out is for actually killing someone, which would be a separate offense from the DWI charge.  Some charges are "enhanced" if there's aggravating factors such as prior offenses.  Your point is well taken.

I didnt catch up on the thread so pardon if this is already posted.

----------


## tod evans

> This individual was sentenced to LIFE for nothing more than what the judge deemed a pre-crime. He was given this sentence by the judge in an attempt to stop a future event by giving him a penalty that would exceed the punishment for said future event.


Social programming, propaganda, doesn't matter what term is used.

It's scary, it's effective, it's really happening every day all across the country..

Just read some of the tripe in this thread.......filter it through "The-Newz" or any form of public media and it should become apparent that you and I are being subjected to opinions that are irrational..

----------


## phill4paul

> Good catch phill.  What does the TX DWI code say?  Is life actually codified as a punishment for a 9th DWI?  It is worth mentioning, though, that the penalty you pointed out is for actually killing someone, which would be a separate offense from the DWI charge.  Some charges are "enhanced" if there's aggravating factors such as prior offenses.  Your point is well taken.
> 
> I didnt catch up on the thread so pardon if this is already posted.


 


> Texas law does not provide for any increased punishment after DWI, third offense. If a person presents a DWI, fourth offense or beyond, the typical punishment is confinement in the penitentiary from two (2) to ten (10) years without probation being granted.


 http://www.1800dialdui.com/CM/DUIDWI...s-DWI-Laws.asp

  Of interesting note, 




> A third conviction for DWI indicates a significant problem with alcohol to the Court or jury assessing punishment. Some type of rehabilitative treatment is therefore mandated in punishment if confinement in the penitentiary is to be avoided. In some cases an in-patient, incarceration program (Substance Abuse Felony Probation SAFP) is ordered. This program requires confinement in a State Facility for alcohol rehabilitation. After successful completion of the SAFP program, the person is then released and placed on probation for a term not to exceed ten (10) years. *Another popular condition for habitual DWI offenders is a prescription for a drug named "Antabuse". This drug will make a person violently ill if any alcohol is consumed.* The alcohol can be contained in mouthwash or marinated food and will still have the same effect on the user. If a person has any type of liver problems, this drug can cause liver failure and death.

----------


## tod evans

> *Another popular condition for habitual DWI offenders is a prescription for a drug named "Antabuse". This drug will make a person violently ill if any alcohol is consumed.*


There were many sailors during my stint in the Navy hospital who were ordered to consume Antabuse....I don't remember any serving time in the brig and certainly not life sentences..

Only thing I can see different from over 30 years ago is public perception..

----------


## phill4paul

> Good catch phill.  What does the TX DWI code say?  Is life actually codified as a punishment for a 9th DWI?  It is worth mentioning, though, that the penalty you pointed out is for actually killing someone, which would be a separate offense from the DWI charge.  Some charges are "enhanced" if there's aggravating factors such as prior offenses.  Your point is well taken.
> 
> I didnt catch up on the thread so pardon if this is already posted.


  Also of note...

  What he was convicted under must have been the "Habitual" offender laws. Although the article does not give an full accounting of his priors.

  (c) (1) Except as provided by Subdivision (2), if it is shown on the trial of a first-degree felony that the defendant has been once before convicted of a felony, on conviction he shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life, or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 15 years. In addition to imprisonment, an individual may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.
*(2) A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for life if:*
                   (A) the defendant is convicted of an offense:                              
                               (i) under Section 22.021 or 22.011, Penal Code;                          
                               (ii) under Section 20.04(a)(4), Penal Code, if the defendant committed the offense with the intent to violate or abuse the victim sexually; or
                                (iii) under Section 30.02, Penal Code, punishable under Subsection (d) of that section, if the defendant committed the offense with the intent to commit a felony described by Subparagraph (i) or (ii) or a felony under Section 21.11 or 22.011, Penal Code; and
                   (B) the defendant has been previously convicted of an offense:           
                                (i) under Section 43.25 or 43.26, Penal Code, or an offense under Section 43.23, Penal Code, punishable under Subsection (h) of that section;
                                (ii) under Section 21.11, 22.011, 22.021, or 25.02, Penal Code;

----------


## phill4paul

Another man was sentenced in Texas to life under these same habitual offender laws...




> Comal County, Tex. (CBS HOUSTON) – A Guadalupe County man arrested for his eighth DWI has been sentenced to life in prison after being pulled over last February with a Blood Alcohol level equivalent to consuming 23.5 beers.
> 
> In late February, authorities say Cornelio Garcia-Mata was driving nearly six times the legal alcohol limit, when he was pulled over around 6 p.m. off Interstate 35 in New Braunfels, WOAI-TV reports. Garcia-Mata got his first DWI in 1990. While on probation, he picked up his second. Since he’s a habitual offender he faced 25 years to life in prison for his latest offense.
> 
> “Subsequent blood tests shows that his blood alcohol was .446,” Comal County Chief Felony Prosecutor, Sammy McCrary told the court, according to WOAI. “It was a good verdict for the community. That’s somebody we won’t have to worry about killing somebody.”
> 
> 
> In a video posted on YouTube from Feb. 26, 2012, an officer’s dashboard camera shows Garcia-Mata swerving in his truck before being pulled over on suspicion of intoxication. “How much alcohol have you been drinking today?” asks the officer. “I’m not drinking,” Garcia-Mata replied in slurred speech.
> 
> ...


 http://houston.cbslocal.com/2012/11/...wi-conviction/

----------


## tod evans

> Also of note...
> 
>   What he was convicted under must have been the "Habitual" offender laws. Although the article does not give an full accounting of his priors.
> 
>   (c) (1) Except as provided by Subdivision (2), if it is shown on the trial of a first-degree felony that the defendant has been once before convicted of a felony, on conviction he shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life, or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 15 years. In addition to imprisonment, an individual may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.
> *(2) A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for life if:*
>                    (A) the defendant is convicted of an offense:                              
>                                (i) under Section 22.021 or 22.011, Penal Code;   * [rape statutes] *  
>                                (ii) under Section 20.04(a)(4), Penal Code, if the defendant committed the offense with the intent to violate or abuse the victim sexually; or _[aggravated kidnapping]_
> ...



I added layman's interpretations of the statutes to highlight the absurdity of this guys charges/sentence..

----------


## phill4paul

> I added layman's interpretations of the statutes to highlight the absurdity of this guys charges/sentence..


  I was in the process of doing this. Thanks!

  You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again.

----------


## tod evans

Coming soon to a Texas town near you;

Preventative rape statutes........

Look at a cute girl with "lust in your eye"........*Guilty!*

----------


## Origanalist

> Coming soon to a Texas town near you;
> 
> Preventative rape statutes........
> 
> Look at a cute girl with "lust in your eye"........*Guilty!*


Already there......

----------


## coastie

> I was in the process of doing this. Thanks!
> 
>   You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again.


I covered you.

----------


## truelies

> Driving to endanger and vehicular homicide is, and was, already against the law.



so then what is your problem with harshly punishing those who (by their own choice) endanger others by driving drunk, eh?

----------


## osan

> I just saw this story on Fox news on Megan Kelly's show and they were agreeing with the judges decision. Complete insanity!
> 
> 
> T.X. -- The ninth conviction was the breaking point for one Texas judge who earlier this week sentenced a habitual drunken driver to life in prison.
> 
> Bobby Stovall, 54, was driving his truck in Round Rock, Texas, in early July when he weaved through several lanes of traffic and hit another vehicle, injuring the driver. It was later determined that Stovall had a blood alcohol concentration of .32, four times the legal limit in Texas.
> 
> And while that DWI was certainly enough to get Stovall in trouble with the law, when the judge found out the defendant had eight prior DWI convictions across several different counties in Texas, he ordered up a life sentence for Stovall.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-man-l...8#.UK07zeTokbA


Does not this seem excessive?  Texas appears to have more than its share of $#@!-heels in black robes.  The "you in a heap o'trouble, boy" mentality runs amok there, it seems.  No thanks.

May we take it that the good-for-next-to-nothing drunk will be appealing this draconian nonsense?

----------


## truelies

> .................. For example, someone who works or stays awake for at least two 12 hour work shifts (which is very common) before driving home is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than having a few drinks before driving. .......................


PROOF????

----------


## truelies

> ......................... Both groups are impaired.


PROOF or just flinging more $#@! in the hope some will stick, eh.

----------


## tod evans

> so then what is your problem with harshly punishing those who (by their own choice) endanger others by driving drunk, eh?


Gee whiz, 258 responses spelling it out and you still don't get it...

Punish the offender for the criminal act of endangering others, enhance the sentence for elevated BAC......BUT NEVER charge for "pre-crime"..
And yes DWI is pre-crime...

----------


## truelies

> ...................You can't engage in the idea that you can stop crime by making precursors illegal, ...........................


Keep denying the obvious fool- driving intoxicated is itself a crime with victims. Those being every single person and their Property endangered by the drunken fool behind the wheel but not really in charge of the vehicle.

But hey IF we do things your way- are you willing to calmly accept that IF YOU kill someone while driving drunk that you are in fact a first degree murderer and you will promptly die in a lethal chamber?

----------


## truelies

> Gee whiz, 258 responses spelling it out and you still don't get it...
> 
> .......................yes DWI is pre-crime...


Not hardly- drunk driving is an aggressive attack on others.

BTW, why are you soooo insistent on engaging in behaviour which harms others when you are in no way forced to do so to get high? Mom won't let ya drink/smoke in the basement?..........or maybe she won't give ya the money for a cab home? $#@! she is a fool to give you her car keys knowing what you are up to. Still you could always walk to the bar or package store. Ah sorry got it you too unfit for a long walk what with all that time sprewing BS from the computer she brought you.

----------


## Origanalist

> Not hardly- drunk driving is an aggressive attack on others.
> 
> BTW, why are you soooo insistent on engaging in behaviour which harms others when you are in no way forced to do so to get high? Mom won't let ya drink/smoke in the basement?..........or maybe she won't give ya the money for a cab home? $#@! she is a fool to give you her car keys knowing what you are up to. Still you could always walk to the bar or package store. Ah sorry got it you too unfit for a long walk what with all that time sprewing BS from the computer she brought you.


What a dumbass post. You don't make very convincing arguements, just juvenile attacks.

----------


## osan

> _Many of my rights could pose risk to your life and limb._
> 
> Many of yours could do the same to me.
> 
> Liberty is Risky.
> 
> Violently oppressive authoritarianism is "safe".





> Where did you ever come up with the idea that _YOU have a 'right' to put other people's lives at risk_?
> 
> Either you are a Fed here trolling perhaps to lure some fools into acts against the State or you are a Fool too simple to understand that Rights carry Responsibility.


Sorry truelies, but here you fail.  Allow me to elaborate superficially.

Your error lies in conflating the risk of _potential harm_ with that of a clear and immediate threat.  Anything, and I mean ANYTHING that we do, however innocently, however certain to cause no harm, might in fact bring others to harm.  I have my car newly inspected, yet while driving down the road a tie rod breaks, sending the vehicle into the sidewalk where 10 playing children are killed.  By your tacit reasoning, nobody should be allowed to drive because it does in fact put people at risk.  By this reasoning, breathing could be argued against.  After all, what harmful microorganism might you cause to be released into the ambient air that I might subsequently inhale and which might then cause me to become ill and perhaps even die?  This what-if brand of logic, applied in this wholly irrational manner has been the vehicle of endless atrocity and continues to this day.

If a person is drunk behind the wheel, it does not immediately follow he is an IMMEDIATE threat, yet "law" treats him that way.  I am not arguing in favor of drunk driving, but these laws are draconian in the extreme and have not, to my knowledge, yielded any positive benefit.  People still drive drunk and kill or maim others and it happens all the time.  Have any lives been saved by DUI laws?  Almost certainly so.  How many have been destroyed or severely impacted?  Millions?  The "if it saves even one life" argument has been utterly demolished more times than anyone could count, so that bit it right out.  What is left?  Nothing that justifies putting a man in a cage because of the contents of his blood stream.  If a drunk injures or kills someone, that is a different story and his drunken state may in fact be an aggravating factor, but being drunk per se is not sufficient cause for _criminal charges_, which SHOULD be filed only under the gravest circumstances.  Part of that specific problem stems from us having rendered casual the idea of what a felony really is.  We have lowered the bar - diluted the definition - such that literally ANY action may be declared felonious.  Going to prison for a _joint_?!  Going to prison for paying a hooker for a blow job?  Are we serious?  This is all based in "what-if" thinking.  What if the John gets disease and spreads it?  What if I get a cold and sneeze and spread it?  Not bad enough?  How about a flu?  Hepatitis?  Ebola?  All possibilities.  Why not just throw everyone into isolation cells so that we will all be safe?  That is where this thinking leads because there is no invariant that paints the bright line in the sand telling us, "here and no further" and every year legislators and enforcement agents take the world a step closer to those cells.  This is bald-faced, suicidal insanity.

I am ALL FOR the ability for ANY CITIZEN to stop a fellow whose driving is clearly indicative of possible trouble, though this job would fall to police in the normal course of things.  If a person appears to be seriously drunk, take their damned keys away from them and toss them in the drunk tank until they sober up.  That is what we used to do and it worked out pretty well.  There was the inconvenience of not getting where you were going, and the embarrassment of having been found out.  That used to count for something with most people.... these days I am not so sure of the embarrassment part, but the inconvenience bit would drive lots of people crazy.

Anyhow, the lack of sound threat assessment skills is sore in most people who would not be able to differentiate between a real threat and otherwise literally if their lives depended on it.  Shame on us.  It is an important skill, as is the mindset that comes with acquiring it.  People are not interested because it demands the responsibility of which you have written and people just do not want to go there anymore.  They want to spend their lives as children rather than as adults.  They want all the privileges and rights of adulthood with none of the costs and obligations.  This is a _very_ bad situation and rather than pulling away from it, we are hurtling ever faster toward the ugly conclusion to which this thinking inexorably leads.

This world is choking on the problems it faces, what with butchery running wild, nuclear wastes leaking from fractured Japanese reactors, and so forth.  Yet we dick around with stupid $#@! like sentencing drunks to life in a cage for DUI?  That is the mark of a culture that is well on its way to flying apart.  We have, in fact, well penetrated the territory of a New Dark Age.  Make you no mistake about this; it is serious as hell and will get a whole lot worse before it gets better.  I am not confident we will see meaningful improvement in our general circumstance in our lifetimes.  I do literally pray to be proven wrong on that point.  

Egg on face is easy.  

Plate of crow is easy.

Enduring status as village idiot is easy.

A lifetime of subjugation, misery, and fear is not easy.

No remotely sane individual wants to go there.  We must, therefore, conclude that insanity has gone pandemic.  Were there ever cause for widespread panic, this would be it.

----------


## tod evans

> Not hardly- drunk driving is an aggressive attack on others. _[With this statement this person exhibits every trait I despise in the brainwashed masses!]_ 
> 
> BTW, why are you soooo insistent on engaging in behaviour which harms others when you are in no way forced to do so to get high? Mom won't let ya drink/smoke in the basement?..........or maybe she won't give ya the money for a cab home? $#@! she is a fool to give you her car keys knowing what you are up to. Still you could always walk to the bar or package store. Ah sorry got it you too unfit for a long walk what with all that time sprewing BS from the computer she brought you.


How quickly you forget, I'm the guy of your generation who has offered to come visit..


Care to have a beer? _Boy_..


[edited for forum etiquette]

----------


## Danan

> There would be no need for them even with public roads if we didn't have the police state.  All we need to do is get rid of the police state.


So you don't want to have police on roads, but you also don't want private roads with another form of security personal, enforcing certain rules for drivers?

This means that in your ideal world it would be perfectly fine to drive on the left side of the street? Because who is to force you to drive on a certain side, if nobody owns the road?

It would also be ok to drive with 200mph on a twisting, icy road? To drink until you can't walk any longer and than drive home? To drive a car at high speed on a highway that is going to fall apart every second?

Yeah, this is indeed less likely going to happen than private roads, and that's a sign for peoples sanity. Not many who are not suicidal or intoxicated themselves would like to drive on such roads, because they would be completely unsafe and therefore useless to the general public.

The reason the current rules regarding traffic are bad is because government has no incentive to make them better and it's decision making process is completely flawed. However, there is no potential whatsoever for roads to exist, without any form of safety regulations enforcement (drunk driving and speeding, etc.). And that's neither a bad thing, nor has this anything to do liberty.

If something is publically owned, the government is always trying to emulate potential free market regulations for this property, but it's also always going to fail in doing so efficiently.

That's exactly why I critizied libertarians who believe that without the government you could drive on roads with a blood alcohol level of 5‰, or do basically whatever you want, everywhere, always and without repercussions or anyone able to stop you. That's not how it would work. You would be pulled over if you swerve around too, probably faster than today.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Coming soon to a Texas town near you;
> 
> Preventative rape statutes........
> 
> Look at a cute girl with "lust in your eye"........*Guilty!*


So the rape equivalent of driving drunk is just looking?  It wouldn't be sitting in a bar eyeing the beer, instead of already being on a public road, inebriated?

A better analogy would be a man on top of a woman, forcefully tearing her clothes off while she's screaming, and everyone standing around saying: "well, he hasn't raped her yet, let's wait and see if the bad thing happens first, and only then react to it."

----------


## tod evans

> So the rape equivalent of driving drunk is just looking?  It wouldn't be sitting in a bar eyeing the beer, instead of already being on a public road, inebriated?
> 
> A better analogy would be a man on top of a woman, forcefully tearing her clothes off while she's screaming, and everyone standing around saying: "well, he hasn't raped her yet, let's wait and see if the bad thing happens first, and only then react to it."


I disagree, having a drink or even several does not show the intent to cause harm to others or property damage, even driving after imbibing fails to provide intent....

Any more than eyeing a cute girl with lust in your eye.

Honestly it's propaganda that has demonized the social drinker and turned him into a potential felon, not his actions.

----------


## phill4paul

> So the rape equivalent of driving drunk is just looking?  It wouldn't be sitting in a bar eyeing the beer, instead of already being on a public road, inebriated?
> 
> A better analogy would be a man on top of a woman, forcefully tearing her clothes off while she's screaming, and everyone standing around saying: "well, he hasn't raped her yet, let's wait and see if the bad thing happens first, and only then react to it."


  Negatory. He was talking about DWI habitual offender laws. One can get a DWI without ever having harmed another. Several in succession will lead to a felony charge. Without ever having harmed another. The habitual offender laws based on the rape charges are for someone that has been _actually convicted of harming another._

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The Department of Transportation has a 71 Billion dollar budget for 2013, this is a drain on all of us and unnecessary and part of the large Federal government that is all around us. It's the same principle problem - wasteful centralized government planning - as the police state. However, I agree the police state is a major priority.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure motorists could boycott a road. They could carpool, take a bus, or strike a highway - use a competing one. There are already organizations that look out for Motorists and their interests. 
> 
> See: http://www.motorists.org/
> 
> The only reason this seems like chaos is because the government already occupies that space. If the government never got in to the road business it would already be a part of our everyday life and our general economy would be much better off for it.


A "competing highway"?  Good lord, how many roads are there to one place in this society of yours?  People aren't going to go miles out of their way or give up driving in the comfort of their own car just to make a point about the person who owns the road.  Nobody cares about that.  In many cases, one road is responsible for a lot of traffic, and people aren't going to just give that up to make a point.  It's not like a regular business where people can easily avoid it if they don't like it.  Roads are a necessity, and many of them are virtually unavoidable.  When you expand authority like that over such a large area that would be needed to build a road, the owner has a lot more power than any store-owner would.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes, that is what I meant.
> 
> Maybe I was drunk.


It happens.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> so then what is your problem with harshly punishing those who (by their own choice) endanger others by driving drunk, eh?


Because people who drive drunk don't necessarily drive to endanger or commit vehicular homicide.  Driving to endanger, to my interpretation, means actively assaulting someone with your car.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> PROOF or just flinging more $#@! in the hope some will stick, eh.


Be reasonable.  You know there are other things that impair your driving besides alcohol.

----------


## tod evans

> Because people who drive drunk don't necessarily drive to endanger or commit vehicular homicide.  Driving to endanger, to my interpretation, means actively assaulting someone with your car.


Well by golly I'll bet you get set straight really soon..

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Keep denying the obvious fool- driving intoxicated is itself a crime with victims. Those being every single person and their Property endangered by the drunken fool behind the wheel but not really in charge of the vehicle.
> 
> But hey IF we do things your way- are you willing to calmly accept that IF YOU kill someone while driving drunk that you are in fact a first degree murderer and you will promptly die in a lethal chamber?


I don't think the death penalty is necessary, but yes, I would accept my prison sentence for that if it ever happened.  The fact that you can't name any specific victims in your supposed list of victims of drunk driving can only mean one thing, there are no victims.  If nobody was hurt, then there are no victims.  This stuff is common sense, really.  I don't understand how someone can be so stupid as to say that nobody was hurt, and yet they were victims just by the fact that someone was driving drunk.  If somebody drives while eating a cheeseburger and receiving oral sex, is everyone on the road suddenly a victim?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Not hardly- drunk driving is an aggressive attack on others.


PROOF?????

----------


## Origanalist

> Because people who drive drunk don't necessarily drive to endanger or commit vehicular homicide.  Driving to endanger, to my interpretation, means actively assaulting someone with your car.


Like this?

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/19/d...pect-with-the/

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

One question for the proponents of harsher drunk driving laws...why is the life of a victim of a "drunk driver" worth more than the life of a victim of a traffic accident?

Because it can be prevented?

Logic fail.  ALL accidents are preventable.  Regardless of "no-fault" and other insurance claims and police not actually investigating what happened, if there is a wreck, SOMEBODY did something that CAUSED the wreck.  The wreck didn't happen by itself (although gun control activists actually do believe that a gun can in fact, fire itself, and many of the same types of boot licking state worshippers think vehicles drive themselves into wrecks).  

I'm actually in favor of harsher penalties for causing wrecks REGARDLESS of sobriety.  I think reckless and careless driving statutes should be strenghtened and used in lieu of draconian DUI laws.  That doesn't mean that I think doing 75 in a 70 should be enforced more harshly, but I do think a "no fault, no impairment" accident should be.  Find out the improper move that caused it, and go after the bad driver that caused it.  If that driver happened to be impaired, use that as an aggravating factor at sentencing.

If the goal is truly SAFETY ON THE ROADS, over half the motor vehichle statutes should be tossed out.  Careless and reckless driving cover most of the improper behavior behind the wheel.

----------


## tod evans

> One question for the proponents of harsher drunk driving laws...why is the life of a victim of a "drunk driver" worth more than the life of a victim of a traffic accident?
> 
> Because it can be prevented?
> 
> Logic fail.  ALL accidents are preventable.


How dare you jump into an emotion based thread with logic and forethought..

Somebody will be along shortly to regurgitate state sanctioned propaganda in order to help you understand..

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So you don't want to have police on roads, but you also don't want private roads with another form of security personal, enforcing certain rules for drivers?
> 
> This means that in your ideal world it would be perfectly fine to drive on the left side of the street? Because who is to force you to drive on a certain side, if nobody owns the road?
> 
> It would also be ok to drive with 200mph on a twisting, icy road? To drink until you can't walk any longer and than drive home? To drive a car at high speed on a highway that is going to fall apart every second?
> 
> Yeah, this is indeed less likely going to happen than private roads, and that's a sign for peoples sanity. Not many who are not suicidal or intoxicated themselves would like to drive on such roads, because they would be completely unsafe and therefore useless to the general public.
> 
> The reason the current rules regarding traffic are bad is because government has no incentive to make them better and it's decision making process is completely flawed. However, there is no potential whatsoever for roads to exist, without any form of safety regulations enforcement (drunk driving and speeding, etc.). And that's neither a bad thing, nor has this anything to do liberty.
> ...


I really thought you would be a little more sophisticated than that.  You are arguing in favor of private roads, and yet you also seem to favor draconian traffic laws?  Think about it, you think the market can take care of the roads, and yet you don't think people can take care of their own driving safety.  If you clock 200mph on an icy road, you will almost certainly die within one minute.  If you do that, you are a big fat retard.  Most people don't do that because most people don't want to die.  Most people don't drive on the left side of the street for the same reason.  What's more, I've never seen anyone willingly drive on the left side of the street, ironically, *UNLESS THEY WERE BEING CHASED BY POLICE!*  That's the only case in which I've ever seen someone knowingly drive on the wrong side of the road.  

And you think driving laws have nothing to do with liberty?  There is no help for you if you believe that, my friend.  Some of the most heinous police abuses are after routine traffic stops that end badly.  

You are asking for private police forces who have a profit incentive to pull people over for the most minor infractions.  The whole road would be a series of tyrannies, only with different landlords.  

I thought I had seen every argument, but this takes the cake.  Private roads WITH draconian traffic laws and police?  Now that's funny.  Speeding laws are one of the most draconian infringements on liberty, and yet you, a supporter of private roads, have no problem with this part of the police state.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So the rape equivalent of driving drunk is just looking?  It wouldn't be sitting in a bar eyeing the beer, instead of already being on a public road, inebriated?
> 
> A better analogy would be a man on top of a woman, forcefully tearing her clothes off while she's screaming, and everyone standing around saying: "well, he hasn't raped her yet, let's wait and see if the bad thing happens first, and only then react to it."


Well, tell us how you determine risk factors for rape?  You seem to know who's going to kill someone with their vehicle before it happens, so why don't you tell us what behaviors we should outlaw that put women in danger of rape?

Also, no, that's not a good analogy.  The man, at that point, has already committed aggression against the woman.  The drunk driver has done no such thing.  The two are really not comparable, since it is virtually impossible to accidentally rape a woman even though it's possible to accidentally run someone over.

----------


## Danan

The reason drunk drivers shouldn't be allowed on roads is the same why totally hammered people should be thrown out of shooting ranges. It shouldn't be a federal crime to show up there drunk, but the owner should have an incentive to balance interests between them and his other customers who are exposed to an extremely increased risk by the former. There is nothing "anti-liberty" about that.

----------


## tod evans

> Well, tell us how you determine risk factors for rape?


Tumescence checkpoints?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> One question for the proponents of harsher drunk driving laws...why is the life of a victim of a "drunk driver" worth more than the life of a victim of a traffic accident?
> 
> Because it can be prevented?
> 
> Logic fail.  ALL accidents are preventable.  Regardless of "no-fault" and other insurance claims and police not actually investigating what happened, if there is a wreck, SOMEBODY did something that CAUSED the wreck.  The wreck didn't happen by itself (although gun control activists actually do believe that a gun can in fact, fire itself, and many of the same types of boot licking state worshippers think vehicles drive themselves into wrecks).  
> 
> I'm actually in favor of harsher penalties for causing wrecks REGARDLESS of sobriety.  I think reckless and careless driving statutes should be strenghtened and used in lieu of draconian DUI laws.  That doesn't mean that I think doing 75 in a 70 should be enforced more harshly, but I do think a "no fault, no impairment" accident should be.  Find out the improper move that caused it, and go after the bad driver that caused it.  If that driver happened to be impaired, use that as an aggravating factor at sentencing.
> 
> If the goal is truly SAFETY ON THE ROADS, over half the motor vehichle statutes should be tossed out.  Careless and reckless driving cover most of the improper behavior behind the wheel.


I agree.  When somebody causes a wreck, there's no reason that drunk driving can't be an aggravating factor.  The problem is when we start arresting people for something that might cause a crash when no crash has happened or, in all likelihood, was going to happen.  The person who gets arrested for DUI but never would have caused a crash is innocent, and yet he is in jail.  This policy has ruined so many lives it is unfathomable.

----------


## tod evans

> The reason drunk drivers shouldn't be allowed on roads is the same why totally hammered people should be thrown out of shooting ranges. It shouldn't be a federal crime to show up there drunk, but the owner should have an incentive to balance interests between them and his other customers who are exposed to an extremely increased risk by the former. There is nothing "anti-liberty" about that.


Just drunk?

How about stoned?  What about legal scripts? Or legal weed?

How about folks with marital trouble? Should they be charged with a federal crime if they go to a shooting range?

This whole idea of criminal charges for altering consciousness is asinine,  criminal charges must hinge on criminal acts.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The reason drunk drivers shouldn't be allowed on roads is the same why totally hammered people should be thrown out of shooting ranges. It shouldn't be a federal crime to show up there drunk, but the owner should have an incentive to balance interests between them and his other customers who are exposed to an extremely increased risk by the former. There is nothing "anti-liberty" about that.


Nobody is saying there is.  If a property owner doesn't want a drunkard on his gun range, that is totally up to him.  What you are advocating is using the same non-sensical laws that have been put in place by the government to generate revenue and exercise complete control, and transferring them to private organizations.  Here's a question: what makes you think private road-owners would even want to enforce these draconian laws?  Why would any landlord think of $#@! like this in the first place?  Why would a land-owner care to spend his own money to hire law enforcement to keep people from driving fast?  Why is it even any of his business?  If some idiot causes a crash, then it's his business, but not until then.  No private landowner would want to prevent crime because crime prevention is for tyrannical governments who want complete control.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

I believe in harsher penalties for the real crimes this man has committed.  He is guillty of assault with a deadly weapon (a 4000lb crushing implement known as a car) and should be punished as such.  If this is his 9th assault with a deadly weapon, which is a felony in most states, he certainly should have racked up a life sentence by now.  Violent crime such as assault with a deadly weapon is what 3 strikes laws were for.  9 strikes, he should definitely be out.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> Nobody is saying there is.  If a property owner doesn't want a drunkard on his gun range, that is totally up to him.  What you are advocating is using the same non-sensical laws that have been put in place by the government to generate revenue and exercise complete control, and transferring them to private organizations.  Here's a question: what makes you think private road-owners would even want to enforce these draconian laws?  Why would any landlord think of $#@! like this in the first place?  Why would a land-owner care to spend his own money to hire law enforcement to keep people from driving fast?  Why is it even any of his business?  If some idiot causes a crash, then it's his business, but not until then.  No private landowner would want to prevent crime because crime prevention is for tyrannical governments who want complete control.


You don't own any property do you?
I absolutely have and will again throw people off my property if they are substantial risk to my other guests.  That's just good business.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Just drunk?
> 
> How about stoned?  What about legal scripts? Or legal weed?
> 
> How about folks with marital trouble? Should they be charged with a federal crime if they go to a shooting range?
> 
> This whole idea of criminal charges for altering consciousness is asinine,  criminal charges must hinge on criminal acts.


If somebody goes to a shooting range drunk, the owner will probably throw them out to protect business.  What Danan doesn't seem to realize is that accidents happen on roads all the time.  The landowner who owns the road in Danan's ideal society isn't going lose any business if there is a crash because nobody would think twice about a crash happening on a road.  It's a normal occurrence.  What he also seems to be thoroughly confused on is that the landowner has no incentive to prevent this.  He seems to think the landowner has an incentive to keep the roads smoothe, which he does, but yet he can't tell the difference between a good road and a bad driver.  The owner doesn't have any incentive to stop bad drivers from being on the roads because bad drivers are a part of life.  Incidentally, I think there would be a lot less wrecks if cops weren't chasing bad drivers all over creation and forcing them to get into a wreck.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I believe in harsher penalties for the real crimes this man has committed.  He is guillty of assault with a deadly weapon (a 4000lb crushing implement known as a car) and should be punished as such.  If this is his 9th assault with a deadly weapon, which is a felony in most states, he certainly should have racked up a life sentence by now.  Violent crime such as assault with a deadly weapon is what 3 strikes laws were for.  9 strikes, he should definitely be out.


Vehicular homicide is also a law.

----------


## tod evans

> I believe in harsher penalties for the real crimes this man has committed.  He is guillty of assault with a deadly weapon (a 4000lb crushing implement known as a car) and should be punished as such.  If this is his 9th assault with a deadly weapon, which is a felony in most states, he certainly should have racked up a life sentence by now.  Violent crime such as assault with a deadly weapon is what 3 strikes laws were for.  9 strikes, he should definitely be out.


This I can live with, assault charges......But none were levied.

Possibly because there was no actual assault?

----------


## Danan

> I really thought you would be a little more sophisticated than that.  You are arguing in favor of private roads, and yet you also seem to favor draconian traffic laws?  Think about it, you think the market can take care of the roads, and yet you don't think people can take care of their own driving safety.  If you clock 200mph on an icy road, you will almost certainly die within one minute.  If you do that, you are a big fat retard.  Most people don't do that because most people don't want to die.  Most people don't drive on the left side of the street for the same reason.  What's more, I've never seen anyone willingly drive on the left side of the street, ironically, *UNLESS THEY WERE BEING CHASED BY POLICE!*  That's the only case in which I've ever seen someone knowingly drive on the wrong side of the road.


I experience reckless driving that could potentially kill people almost on a daily basis. I've seen a couple of accidents myself, where drivers have either been drunk or were speeding, etc. I know people who lost friends and loved ones because of drunk drivers and speeders. People *do* behave stupid and reckless. You seem to have a naive view of liberty, where the state should drive out competition of certain enterprises through coercion and than inact laws that are less strict than what the free market would produce. That's not what I invision, that's true. I want to be able to get from place A to B alive.




> And you think driving laws have nothing to do with liberty?  There is no help for you if you believe that, my friend.


I don't believe I have a right to be on anyones property that is not mine. If I behave in a way that endangers others and gives an incentive to the property owner to remove me from there, than yes, this is perfectly fine in libertarian philosophy and also makes a huge deal of sense.




> You are asking for private police forces who have a profit incentive to pull people over for the most minor infractions.  The whole road would be a series of tyrannies, only with different landlords.


Am I allowed to behave how I want on your property? Actually, those private security enforcers would have a huge incentive *not* to pull you over for something that is not serious, because you - the customer - wouldn't want that. In contrast to the police, that gets paid by how many people they screw each day.




> I thought I had seen every argument, but this takes the cake.  Private roads WITH draconian traffic laws and police?  Now that's funny.  Speeding laws are one of the most draconian infringements on liberty, and yet you, a supporter of private roads, have no problem with this part of the police state.


And you don't know what liberty means, apparently.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Well, tell us how you determine risk factors for rape?  You seem to know who's going to kill someone with their vehicle before it happens, so why don't you tell us what behaviors we should outlaw that put women in danger of rape?


"Risk factor" = driving drunk.  Swerving on the road.  Inability to stay in lane because of foreign substance.  Visual impairment.

Yeah, said drunk driver might not crash, or society might get lucky and they take only themselves out by crashing into a tree instead of another motorist.  But as someone who's been behind drunk drivers late at night, there is no f-ing way you can let these people drive freely on the road, anymore than legalizing driving for the blind.  If it was something like motorcycle helmet laws, and the risk was only to themselves, sure, go for it; but they're a distinct danger to everyone driving near them.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You don't own any property do you?
> I absolutely have and will again throw people off my property if they are substantial risk to my other guests.  That's just good business.


I manage property, but no, I don't own any.  If anyone were drunk on a gun range, I would want to throw them out to.  That's the owner's decision.  But gun ranges and stores have nothing in common with roads.  Just because roads are private, that doesn't mean road-owners have any incentive to prevent crashes.  Why would they?  If an accident happens in a store, the owner loses business.  If an accident happens on a road, nobody bats an eye.  The only thing the road-owner has an incentive to do is have the proper signals, signs and markings and cleanup crews for when accidents do happen.  The road owner does not have any incentive to chase people down frantically searching for risk factors.  It's severely impractical.  Roads are on wide open spaces that people use to get places.  Stores and gun ranges are in confined places people have a choice to go to or not go to.

----------


## Danan

> Just drunk?
> 
> How about stoned?  What about legal scripts? Or legal weed?
> 
> How about folks with marital trouble? Should they be charged with a federal crime if they go to a shooting range?
> 
> This whole idea of criminal charges for altering consciousness is asinine,  criminal charges must hinge on criminal acts.


I agree with you, I was not conclusive when I talked about alcohol. None of that should be a crime. But saying, "Well as long as he doesn't kill anyone, we can't do anything!" is not true either. If someone is a temporal huge risk to others for a period of time, he can be removed from certain property for that time.

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

> "Risk factor" = driving drunk.  Swirving on the road.  Inability to stay in lane because of foreign substance.  Visual impairment.
> 
> Yeah, said drunk driver might not crash, or society might get lucky and they take only themselves out by crashing into a tree instead of another motorist.  But as someone who's been behind drunk drivers late at night, there is no f-ing way you can let these people drive freely on the road, anymore than legalizing driving for the blind.  If it was something like motorcycle helmet laws, and the risk was only to themselves, sure, go for it; but they're a distinct danger to everyone driving near them.



"Risk factor" = bald tires in pouring rain. Swirving on the road. Inability to stay in lane because of inability to see lane markers. Visual impairment.

Yeah, said vehicle might not crash, or society might get lucky and they take only themselves out by crashing into a tree instead of another motorist. But as someone who's been behind poory maintained vehicles late at night, there is no f-ing way you can let these people drive freely on the road, anymore than legalizing driving for the blind. If it was something like motorcycle helmet laws, and the risk was only to themselves, sure, go for it; but they're a distinct danger to everyone driving near them. 

See how silly this becomes.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> See how silly this becomes.


Yep, we've got people like you pretending drunk driving should be a-okay and acceptable until someone is injured.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I experience reckless driving that could potentially kill people almost on a daily basis. I've seen a couple of accidents myself, where drivers have either been drunk or were speeding, etc. I know people who lost friends and loved ones because of drunk drivers and speeders. People *do* behave stupid and reckless. You seem to have a naive view of liberty, where the state should drive out competition of certain enterprises through coercion and than inact laws that are less strict than what the free market would produce. That's not what I invision, that's true. I want to be able to get from place A to B alive.


The free market would eliminate speeding laws because nobody has an incentive to chase down people who might cause an accident some day.  You have it completely backwards.  The government doesn't enact laws that are less strict than private laws.  The government already has tons of draconian laws.  What you seem to think is that these laws would be even more draconian under private management.  So, the government is bad, but the laws it produces are good, just not good enough?  Is that really what you're telling me?  Tell me, if I'm a road owner, why I should care if somebody drives 80mph on my road.  Chances are, they probably won't get in an accident.  If they do, so what?  I'm not losing any business because some idiot crashed his car.  Crashes are a daily occurrence on roads, so it's not like people are going to stop using my road because some idiot crashed his car, and he just happened to be on my road when he did it.  The only thing I have an incentive to do is provide adequate safety features like signs, signals, and markings.  I do NOT have any reason to care how fast or in what condition someone is driving in on my road.  It's not my fault if an idiot gets killed because he was engaging in risky behavior, and my customers will either not care, or they will not care enough to sacrifice the convenience of a road just so that I start trying to control people's lives by chasing down people who do something that might, some day, lead to a wreck.  

What happens when the same guy comes back and uses the road later?  Do I keep a database of all the people I've tracked down for speeding and screen them to see if they are safe enough to drive on my road?  That's very inefficient.  Also, you are ignoring the fact that everybody speeds, despite the fact that there are speeding laws in place.  In a free market, these rules would be shown to be completely ineffective at increasing the safety of roads at all.  

I don't believe I have a right to be on anyones property that is not mine. If I behave in a way that endangers others and gives an incentive to the property owner to remove me from there, than yes, this is perfectly fine in libertarian philosophy and also makes a huge deal of sense.


Am I allowed to behave how I want on your property? Actually, those private security enforcers would have a huge incentive *not* to pull you over for something that is not serious, because you - the customer - wouldn't want that. In contrast to the police, that gets paid by how many people they screw each day.



And you don't know what liberty means, apparently.[/QUOTE]

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> "Risk factor" = driving drunk.  Swerving on the road.  Inability to stay in lane because of foreign substance.  Visual impairment.
> 
> Yeah, said drunk driver might not crash, or society might get lucky and they take only themselves out by crashing into a tree instead of another motorist.  But as someone who's been behind drunk drivers late at night, there is no f-ing way you can let these people drive freely on the road, anymore than legalizing driving for the blind.  If it was something like motorcycle helmet laws, and the risk was only to themselves, sure, go for it; but they're a distinct danger to everyone driving near them.


Have you ever seen a blind person attempt to drive?  No?  There's a reason for that.  It's because people can learn consequences without laws.  I don't need a law to know that driving while blind is a bad idea.  What makes you think a law is going to help decrease the occurrence of drunk driving?  They haven't worked with anything else.  At the risk of being redundant, alcohol prohibition did not work, drug prohibition does not work, gun laws do not work, speeding laws do not work, and obviously, DUI laws don't work either because everyone still does it.  What makes you think a law is going to make it any better?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yep, we've got people like you pretending drunk driving should be a-okay and acceptable until someone is injured.


Nobody's saying drunk driving is okay, but social forces are a much better way to prevent that than laws are.  Laws can't prevent anything, as we've seen with speeding laws.  Everyone speeds even though it's illegal.  DUI laws don't prevent anything because a lot of people still drives under the influence.  Maybe pulling someone over for drunk driving has prevented a wreck, but it has also made people run from the police, which almost always ends in a crash of some sort.  It has also ruined the lives of many people who have done nothing wrong and were never going to.

----------


## Danan

> Why would they?  If an accident happens in a store, the owner loses business.  If an accident happens on a road, nobody bats an eye.  The only thing the road-owner has an incentive to do is have the proper signals, signs and markings and cleanup crews for when accidents do happen.  The road owner does not have any incentive to chase people down frantically searching for risk factors.  It's severely impractical.  Roads are on wide open spaces that people use to get places.  Stores and gun ranges are in confined places people have a choice to go to or not go to.


In a system of competing forms of transportation (different roads, rail, etc.) customers would like to know statistics regarding safety as well as average speed to come from A to B. Everyone providing these statistics would have an advantage, everyone good at those statistics would win customers.

It's true, not every driver would switch roads and drive longer just because of a lower chance to die there. But that's not necessary. Only the marginal costumer is relevant to a business man. That's not only true for roads but everywhere in the market.

Those people wating in front of Apple-stores are not the ones for which the product is designed, they are going to buy anyway. The ones that might or might not buy are important. The same is true for roads. Road-owners would only compete for the marginal customer, the driver who is the most cautious to use that road if an internet statistic says that per driver twice as many people die on road A than on road B with harsher regulations (for which there is obviously an optimum level and I can't tell you for sure if road regulations would indeed be harsher in a free market, than they are today).

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

> Yep, we've got people like you pretending drunk driving should be a-okay and acceptable until someone is injured.


No, it's not a-okay and acceptable, but I'd appreciate it if you'd actually THINK first instead of overreact about what is a really a very small problem, which has become a MAJOR infringment on Constitutional rights, which has also paved the way for even more government intrusions in the name of "safety".

DUI laws have also had a major effect on society over the past 25-30 years that have not necessarily been for the better.  Again, it would require you to THINK, rather than react.

----------


## nobody's_hero

Some laws aren't necessarily meant to prevent events from occuring, but rather to offer some grounds for court decisions after the fact. 

For example: 

Laws requiring people to obey stop signs don't magically cause people to stop, but if you blow through an intersection and cause an accident, the officer will most-likely want to know which direction of traffic was required to stop. If you were supposed to stop, then you get ticketed. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I don't know how I feel about the life-sentence. Seems more like a sentence that was given out of frustration, rather than justice.

----------


## thequietkid10

> I just saw this story on Fox news on Megan Kelly's show and they were agreeing with the judges decision. Complete insanity!
> 
> 
> T.X. -- The ninth conviction was the breaking point for one Texas judge who earlier this week sentenced a habitual drunken driver to life in prison.
> 
> Bobby Stovall, 54, was driving his truck in Round Rock, Texas, in early July when he weaved through several lanes of traffic and hit another vehicle, injuring the driver. It was later determined that Stovall had a blood alcohol concentration of .32, four times the legal limit in Texas.
> 
> And while that DWI was certainly enough to get Stovall in trouble with the law, when the judge found out the defendant had eight prior DWI convictions across several different counties in Texas, he ordered up a life sentence for Stovall.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-man-l...8#.UK07zeTokbA


A little excessive for sure, but would you rather wait until he kills someone.

Clearly this guy has no respect at all for the life liberty or property of those around him.  That's negligence.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> shouldn't you have to infringe on another persons life, liberty, or property before having yours removed permanently?


He did injure someone...but life?

----------


## tod evans

> "Risk factor" = driving drunk.  Swerving on the road.  Inability to stay in lane because of foreign substance.  Visual impairment.
> 
> Yeah, said drunk driver might not crash, or society might get lucky and they take only themselves out by crashing into a tree instead of another motorist.  But as someone who's been behind drunk drivers late at night, there is no f-ing way you can let these people drive freely on the road, anymore than legalizing driving for the blind.  If it was something like motorcycle helmet laws, and the risk was only to themselves, sure, go for it; but they're a distinct danger to everyone driving near them.


Deer cause far more accidents than drunks....And any sane driver knows to pay attention for deer..

Driving is inherently unsafe, every other driver on the road is an idiot...If you don't understand these simple facts there's probably an accident in your future.......Booze or not.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> In a system of competing forms of transportation (different roads, rail, etc.) customers would like to know statistics regarding safety as well as average speed to come from A to B. Everyone providing these statistics would have an advantage, everyone good at those statistics would win customers.
> 
> It's true, not every driver would switch roads and drive longer just because of a lower chance to die there. But that's not necessary. Only the marginal costumer is relevant to a business man. That's not only true for roads but everywhere in the market.
> 
> Those people wating in front of Apple-stores are not the ones for which the product is designed, they are going to buy anyway. The ones that might or might not buy are important. The same is true for roads. Road-owners would only compete for the marginal customer, the driver who is the most cautious to use that road if an internet statistic says that per driver twice as many people die on road A than on road B with harsher regulations (for which there is obviously an optimum level and I can't tell you for sure if road regulations would indeed be harsher in a free market, than they are today).


You act as if there are several roads running alongside each other that are all owned by different people.  How is that efficient?  Some roads are more convenient than others and people aren't going to stop using them because there is a slightly higher risk involved.  Also, people are very rarely educated on the risks of anything.  When is the last time you went searching for statistics on a certain road to decide whether you should drive on it?  You probably took it because it was the easiest way to get where you wanted to go.  If people wanted statistics on accidents on a certain road, why would they wait until roads are privately owned?  We have places that are notorious for accidents even now and yet people still use them because they are convenient.  Competition in roads is not the same as competition between other businesses.  You can't just open a road that runs parallel to your competitor's road like opening a fast food chain across the street from mom and pop's restaurant.  It would be incredibly wasteful and useless to open two roads right beside each other.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> A "competing highway"?  Good lord, how many roads are there to one place in this society of yours?  People aren't going to go miles out of their way or give up driving in the comfort of their own car just to make a point about the person who owns the road.  Nobody cares about that.  In many cases, one road is responsible for a lot of traffic, and people aren't going to just give that up to make a point.  It's not like a regular business where people can easily avoid it if they don't like it.  Roads are a necessity, and many of them are virtually unavoidable.  When you expand authority like that over such a large area that would be needed to build a road, the owner has a lot more power than any store-owner would.


This is a very weak arguement: The free market is more efficent than the government, no, no, no, the roads are too important! 

Private citizens having too much power over society in an industry is a liberal arguement for socializing everything. Trains are too important to society! The government must take over. Airports are too important to society the government must take over! Telephones are too important to society the government must take over!  

Plenty of people already avoid $#@!ty roads that the government never paves, roads that are completly falling apart, or bridges with insanely high tolls.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> A little excessive for sure, but would you rather wait until he kills someone.
> 
> Clearly this guy has no respect at all for the life liberty or property of those around him.  That's negligence.


It may be negligence, but it's only negligent homicide if there is actually homicide involved.  Being stupid is not against the law.  Saying we can't wait until they kill someone is like Goerge W. Bush saying we should attack Iraq before we find evidence of weapons so that the evidence doesn't come in the form of a mushroom cloud.  According to your logic, you should have supported the war in Iraq.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This is a very weak arguement: The free market is more efficent than the government, no, no, no, the roads are too important! 
> 
> Private citizens having too much power over society in an industry is a liberal arguement for socializing everything. Trains are too important to society! The government must take over. Airports are too important to society the government must take over! Telephones are too important to society the government must take over!  
> 
> Plenty of people already avoid $#@!ty roads that the government never paves, roads that are completly falling apart, or bridges with insanely high tolls.


Nice straw man there.  I never said private citizens having too much power is a good reason for socializing everything.  Some roads are avoidable, granted, but some simply are not.  There are tons of roads in rural areas that span for hundreds of miles which people would have to go hundreds more miles out of their way to avoid.

Nobody is going to avoid that road just because there's a 5% higher chance that you could get in an accident.  People tend to respect the autonomy of other drivers, and they don't hold landowners responsible for someone else's bad driving.  They also trust their own driving, so they're not going to decide which road to drive on based on risks. 

Hell, how many people do you think would avoid these private roads just to get away from all the ridiculous speeding rules you want to enforce on them?  I bet it would be a lot more than would avoid the road because of a lack of such rules.  People like their freedom and they're not going to stop driving in places just because there may or may not be a bad driver along the route somewhere.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> The free market would eliminate speeding laws because nobody has an incentive to chase down people who might cause an accident some day.  You have it completely backwards.  The government doesn't enact laws that are less strict than private laws.  The government already has tons of draconian laws.  What you seem to think is that these laws would be even more draconian under private management.  So, the government is bad, but the laws it produces are good, just not good enough?  Is that really what you're telling me?  Tell me, if I'm a road owner, why I should care if somebody drives 80mph on my road.  Chances are, they probably won't get in an accident.  If they do, so what?  I'm not losing any business because some idiot crashed his car.  Crashes are a daily occurrence on roads, so it's not like people are going to stop using my road because some idiot crashed his car, and he just happened to be on my road when he did it.  The only thing I have an incentive to do is provide adequate safety features like signs, signals, and markings.  I do NOT have any reason to care how fast or in what condition someone is driving in on my road.  It's not my fault if an idiot gets killed because he was engaging in risky behavior, and my customers will either not care, or they will not care enough to sacrifice the convenience of a road just so that I start trying to control people's lives by chasing down people who do something that might, some day, lead to a wreck.  
> 
> What happens when the same guy comes back and uses the road later?  Do I keep a database of all the people I've tracked down for speeding and screen them to see if they are safe enough to drive on my road?  That's very inefficient.  Also, you are ignoring the fact that everybody speeds, despite the fact that there are speeding laws in place.  In a free market, these rules would be shown to be completely ineffective at increasing the safety of roads at all.  
> 
> I don't believe I have a right to be on anyones property that is not mine. If I behave in a way that endangers others and gives an incentive to the property owner to remove me from there, than yes, this is perfectly fine in libertarian philosophy and also makes a huge deal of sense.
> 
> 
> Am I allowed to behave how I want on your property? Actually, those private security enforcers would have a huge incentive *not* to pull you over for something that is not serious, because you - the customer - wouldn't want that. In contrast to the police, that gets paid by how many people they screw each day.
> 
> ...


Nobody can predict all the different management styles the road owners would implement. That's the way entrepenuer's make a service more cost effective and better for the customer. If you have ever researched owning a business, then you know what I mean. We can bull$#@! about owning a laundromat in this thread, but if you talk to a group of laundromat owners (I have) you realize their expertise and knowledge is far superior on the subject - the same would true for road owners.

As far as crashes go - that would be bad for business. For one there might be damage to the road, rails, etc. On major highways if there are continual crashes this would also affect business, people may choose to use a competing highway. But again - road owners would decide what a "safe" speed for their road is and they would be much more accurate than a Federal edict of 55 mph.

----------


## donnay

> *I'd rather have private road owners determine what is safe behavior for their roads and deal with it accordingly, not a centralized government.*



A lot of tax payer roads are being bought up by foreigners--that is a slippery slope.  Do you think they are going to follow the guidelines of the Constitution?

Sources:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...highways_x.htm
http://ppjg.me/2012/02/17/congress-s...all-50-states/
http://www.wnd.com/2006/11/38811/
http://startelegraph.blogspot.com/20...owns-road.html
http://www.garynorth.com/public/1426print.cfm
http://theintelhub.com/2012/04/15/u-...s-on-collapse/

----------


## truelies

> ................ Laws can't prevent anything, as we've seen with speeding laws.  ......................


Get removed from Society for a first offense & ya won't commit a second will ya.

----------


## truelies

> .................... There is nothing "anti-liberty" about that.


You are dealing with a crew of moral retards or quite possibly trolls out to discredit liberty with their inane claims that 'liberty' gives them a 'right' to drive hammered. They can't be reasoned with.

----------


## Origanalist

> Get removed from Society for a first offense & ya won't commit a second will ya.


Yes sir! That right Officer Freindly!

----------


## truelies

> Because people who drive drunk don't necessarily drive to endanger or commit vehicular homicide.  ..................


no but by their actions they CLEARLY demonstrate that they really don't give a $#@! who they maim or kill. There is simply no excuse for driving drunk or hammered by someother substance.

----------


## tod evans

> Get removed from Society for a first offense & ya won't commit a second will ya.





> You are dealing with a crew of moral retards or quite possibly trolls out to discredit liberty with their inane claims that 'liberty' gives them a 'right' to drive hammered. They can't be reasoned with.


More pearls of wisdom licked from the shiny tip of propaganda...

You're belief system is scary dude!

----------


## truelies

> Be reasonable.  You know there are other things that impair your driving besides alcohol.


All of which I would treat in the same manner. Thing is right here in this forum driving hammered is what is being excused by the trolls on grounds of 'liberty'.

----------


## Origanalist

Truelib there aught to love this just posted;

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-Thanksgiving

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

> You are dealing with a crew of moral retards or quite possibly trolls out to discredit liberty with their inane claims that 'liberty' gives them a 'right' to drive hammered. They can't be reasoned with.


Who has said that there is a right to drive "hammered"?  I'd really like to know.

I have a difficult time believing that you are a supporter of Congressman Paul.

----------


## Origanalist

> Who has said that there is a right to drive "hammered"?  I'd really like to know.
> 
> I have a difficult time believing that you are a supporter of Congressman Paul.


You and a few others.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Nobody can predict all the different management styles the road owners would implement. That's the way entrepenuer's make a service more cost effective and better for the customer. If you have ever researched owning a business, then you know what I mean. We can bull$#@! about owning a laundromat in this thread, but if you talk to a group of laundromat owners (I have) you realize their expertise and knowledge is far superior on the subject - the same would true for road owners.
> 
> As far as crashes go - that would be bad for business. For one there might be damage to the road, rails, etc. On major highways if there are continual crashes this would also affect business, people may choose to use a competing highway. But again - road owners would decide what a "safe" speed for their road is and they would be much more accurate than a Federal edict of 55 mph.


A more effective strategy for dealing with crashes is to have a good cleanup crew, not to try to prevent crashes by hiring a private law enforcement agency.  I disagree that private road owners would have any speed limit whatsoever.  It's impossible to enforce reliably, and what's more, the speed that someone drives does not at all indicate how dangerous that person is.  I don't have to own a business to tell you that would be a bad idea to try to chase down people based on how fast they're going.  I don't think the system in a society with private ownership would look anything like the system does today.  For some reason, you seem to think it would look at least somewhat similar.  I don't think there would be any police.

Also, you brought up the point of "competing roads".  Again, you can't just open up a road across the street from another road, as it were.  That would be highly inefficient and useless, and nobody's going to take the long way just to have slightly better statistics.  According to your same logic, banks that didn't keep 100% of their customers' money would go out of business because it's bad business practice to do things that might hurt the consumer.  Guess again.  Banks have done this since banks have existed.  Bad business practice doesn't ALWAYS mean bad business.  And beside that, trying to prevent crashes by having draconian rules for your road would be bad business, it's not just that it can't be prevented, it's a terrible idea in the first place.  There's no such thing as a "competing highway".  Highways don't need to advertise and please the public in order to stay in business.  They just need to be there.  Nobody builds a highway right next to another one just to compete with it.

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

> All of which I would treat in the same manner. Thing is right here in this forum driving hammered is what is being excused by the trolls on grounds of 'liberty'.


Do you support "checkpoints" for DUI?

This should answer the question about liberty fairly clearly.

Nobody here has stated that they have a problem with a driver being pulled over for operating a vehicle in a careless and reckless manner.  If that happens to be because of alcohol or other impairments, then so be it.  It SHOULD be an offense.  What most of us have a problem with are the checkpoints and arrests of people who haven't actually done anything wrong, other than be over some arbitrary BAC limit, as well as the forced methods of extraction, the presumption of guilt, the automatic license loss for asserting 5th Amendement rights, and people like you who are so gung ho to go after otherwise lawful people, while the idiot who continues to drive hammered gets away with it, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T CARE!

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

> You and a few others.


No, I haven't.  What I've said is that if you operate your vehicle in a safe manner and not hurt anyone or anything, not weave or do things in a careless and reckless manner, then you should not be stopped for anything.

If you do things in which you are acting as if you are impaired, then you should be pulled and charged, with laws already on the books for careless and reckless driving.  Intoxication should be an aggravating factor in level of sentence.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Get removed from Society for a first offense & ya won't commit a second will ya.


Yeah, it sounds good until you consider how few people actually get caught.  No sane person would put someone in prison for life for one DUI anyway.  As we've seen with speeding laws, like I said, the fact that there is a law and restrictions on speeding doesn't prevent anyone from speeding because people do it all the time.  Call me crazy, but I don't think that law prevented anything.  Also, remember how much this costs the taxpayers.  These crimes do not prevent people from doing them because nobody learns from being arrested.  They learn from family and social influence.  Making someone a criminal and putting them in jail isn't going to make them want to be a better person.  It's going to make them angry and bitter.  That's just the way it is.  We have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and look how crime-ridden our nation is.  These laws aren't preventing anything.  All they are doing is ruining families, tearing them apart and making them destitute, and people from destitute families are a lot more likely to commit crimes.

----------


## Origanalist

> No, I haven't.  What I've said is that if you operate your vehicle in a safe manner and not hurt anyone or anything, not weave or do things in a careless and reckless manner, then you should not be stopped for anything.
> 
> If you do things in which you are acting as if you are impaired, then you should be pulled and charged, with laws already on the books for careless and reckless driving.  Intoxication should be an aggravating factor in level of sentence.





> Who has said that there is a right to drive "hammered"?  I'd really like to know.
> 
> 
> 
> *I have a difficult time believing that you are a supporter of Congressman Paul.*


Sorry, I should have been more clear, does this work better?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> If a person is drunk behind the wheel, it does not immediately follow he is an IMMEDIATE threat, yet "law" treats him that way.


Slight correction. The "law" treats the presence of alcohol as a crime. Being drunk is not necessary. As stated earlier in the thread, when an accident occurs, one beer makes a person at fault, no matter who really caused the accident. Same for the .08 limit. That does necessarily make a person drunk, but the law treats it the same as .32 at the checkpoints.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> All of which I would treat in the same manner. Thing is right here in this forum driving hammered is what is being excused by the trolls on grounds of 'liberty'.


So where would you stop?  Driving in and of itself is risky because driving completely sober with two hands on the wheel, no distractions, and eyes straight ahead can still result in accidents.  So do we outlaw driving?

----------


## TheTexan

People are going to drive drunk anyway.  As it stands drunk drivers are more worried about looking sober than actually driving safe.  Could just go the other way with it, and encourage drunk drivers to drive very slowly with their emergency blinkers on to alert other drivers to a possible threat.  

If people are going to drive drunk anyway, that's the safest way to do it... but if you do that now, a cop will pull you over, you will get thrown in jail, and that will be that...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Do you support "checkpoints" for DUI?
> 
> This should answer the question about liberty fairly clearly.
> 
> Nobody here has stated that they have a problem with a driver being pulled over for operating a vehicle in a careless and reckless manner.  If that happens to be because of alcohol or other impairments, then so be it.  It SHOULD be an offense.  What most of us have a problem with are the checkpoints and arrests of people who haven't actually done anything wrong, other than be over some arbitrary BAC limit, as well as the forced methods of extraction, the presumption of guilt, the automatic license loss for asserting 5th Amendement rights, and people like you who are so gung ho to go after otherwise lawful people, while the idiot who continues to drive hammered gets away with it, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T CARE!


If all cops were doing was giving rides to people who they pulled over for driving drunk, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.  But that's not at all what's going on.  You don't treat risky behaviors as if they're already deserving of justice.  You only deserve justice if you've actually aggressed against someone.  When we treat drunk drivers like criminals, we destroy them as people, we  don't help them.  You don't serve justice to someone who has done nothing wrong, you try to help them recover and/or recuperate rather than treating them like someone who has done something awful.  It starts with realizing that everyone is capable of engaging in behaviors that aren't savory or that create some sort of risk, and then trying to teach them while leaving their freedom intact.  It starts with realizing that family and friends are more capable of helping someone than any LEO would be by transporting them to the local jail or beating them senseless.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Slight correction. The "law" treats the presence of alcohol as a crime. Being drunk is not necessary. As stated earlier in the thread, when an accident occurs, one beer makes a person at fault, no matter who really caused the accident. Same for the .08 limit. That does necessarily make a person drunk, but the law treats it the same as .32 at the checkpoints.


That's another one of the problems that people like truelies seem to ignore.  People get arrested for the presence of alcohol even if they're not drunk at all.  DUI laws are about as effective as driving while sleep deprivated laws would be.  How far does an officer have to go to find out how tired someone is, only to prosecute them for it?  Does someone who drives while sleepy need time in jail?  No, they need better sleep.  It just goes to show you that jail time doesn't teach you good habits.

Also, one thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is that the state doesn't want to keep drunk drivers off the streets.  It wants more revenue from fines, so it will incarcerate people for a limited amount of time and then let them go and hope that they can get some more fines from them in the future.  The government has no concern for your safety.  

I could write a book on all the reasons that DUI laws are a bad idea.

----------


## DaninPA

> *If all cops were doing was giving rides to people who they pulled over for driving drunk,*....


That actually happened to me in 1982. Got a $51.00 underage drinking fine and a ride home. Nowadays, it'd be a devastatingly life-changing event.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Get removed from Society for a first offense & ya won't commit a second will ya.



This is an excellent argument for the death penalty or life in prison for breaking any and every law.

If it's important enough to be a law, then it's important enough to remove lawbreakers from society.

Good luck with that, by the way, since most of us have already broken a law today --- ignorant of it or no.

----------


## MelissaWV

> "Risk factor" = driving drunk.  Swerving on the road.  Inability to stay in lane because of foreign substance.  Visual impairment.
> 
> Yeah, said drunk driver might not crash, or society might get lucky and they take only themselves out by crashing into a tree instead of another motorist.  But as someone who's been behind drunk drivers late at night, there is no f-ing way you can let these people drive freely on the road, anymore than legalizing driving for the blind.  If it was something like motorcycle helmet laws, and the risk was only to themselves, sure, go for it; but they're a distinct danger to everyone driving near them.


This is interesting.

You say you've been behind a drunk driver late at night, but how were you sure?  I used to be 100% certain that someone in front of me, weaving back and forth dangerously to the point of almost sideswiping the guardrail before cutting back across and taking out a bit of grass on the median, was utterly drunk.  Back, and forth, and back, and slowing down, and speeding up... and all of this on the interstate.  When I finally got past them, it turns out they were attending to a child and a dog simultaneously.  I've seen people weaving around because they were reading, eating, talking on the phone, and in one instance (though it was definitely a low-speed instance) because she was shaving her legs in DC Beltway traffic.  

I still have not heard a good reason that we should not be punishing the dangerous drivers, rather than focusing on those who are "legally drunk" regardless of whether or not they are driving poorly.  I doubt I will.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> no but by their actions they CLEARLY demonstrate that they really don't give a $#@! who they maim or kill. There is simply no excuse for driving drunk or hammered by someother substance.


You've never taken cold pills and drove?

Never drove tired?

Never drove back form the dentist's office while the Novocaine was wearing off?

Never ate a burger or sandwich while driving?

Never took you eyes off the road to fiddle with the radio?

Never talked on cel phone while driving?

Never texted while driving?

Never drove with dirty windows or smearing wipers?

Never exceeded the speed limit?

Never passed on the wrong side?

Never did any of these things?

You're a lying sack of $#@! if you claim to never have...

----------


## KMX

How about we get him some help from the doctor and not a life time sentance? wow

----------


## Anti Federalist

> That actually happened to me in 1982. Got a $51.00 underage drinking fine and a ride home. Nowadays, it'd be a devastatingly life-changing event.


That's what the neo - fascists in this thread want.

The state to pounce on you for the slightest infraction and utterly destroy you, forever.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Get removed from Society for a first offense & ya won't commit a second will ya.


*Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long. - Ron Paul*

----------


## Anti Federalist

All you neo-facists in this thread would be much better served turning your suspicion and hatred and desire to destroy and hurt and inflict pain, toward government and its operatives, instead of your fellow man.

What you seek to destroy your neighbor with today, he will destroy you with tomorrow.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to presence again."
> 
> Damn.


I hit him with a +rep for ya. Even noted that if came from you.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Nice straw man there.  I never said private citizens having too much power is a good reason for socializing everything.  Some roads are avoidable, granted, but some simply are not.  There are tons of roads in rural areas that span for hundreds of miles which people would have to go hundreds more miles out of their way to avoid.
> 
> Nobody is going to avoid that road just because there's a 5% higher chance that you could get in an accident.  People tend to respect the autonomy of other drivers, and they don't hold landowners responsible for someone else's bad driving.  They also trust their own driving, so they're not going to decide which road to drive on based on risks. 
> 
> Hell, how many people do you think would avoid these private roads just to get away from all the ridiculous speeding rules you want to enforce on them?  I bet it would be a lot more than would avoid the road because of a lack of such rules.  People like their freedom and they're not going to stop driving in places just because there may or may not be a bad driver along the route somewhere.


Clearly I understand you are not a Socialist. I was just pointing out that Socialists make that same weak arguement to regulate everything with government, but I understand how it came off as a strawman.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

> I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.
> 
> Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.


In the interest of clarity, I banned this user for 3 days. Disagreement is great and encouraged but disagreeing by telling others that you hope they and their family get murdered is not acceptable at all.

----------


## FindLiberty

Easily spotted by police:  I've seen "careful" drunk drivers go a little extra SLOW and drive very carefully (aware their judgment may be a little off).  e.g. At night, 35 to 40 in a 45MPH zone.

----------


## presence

> I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. 
> I'd like to see *flogging* come back
> []
> *Flogging* people instead of locking them up forever 
> or putting people to work is on the surface crueler, 
> but in reality much more humane than what we have.
> []
> crueler punishments that cost the tax payer less.



*Passion of the Christ - Flogging Scene*

----------


## Tpoints

> Have you ever seen a blind person attempt to drive?  No?  There's a reason for that.  It's because people can learn consequences without laws.  I don't need a law to know that driving while blind is a bad idea.  What makes you think a law is going to help decrease the occurrence of drunk driving?  They haven't worked with anything else.  At the risk of being redundant, alcohol prohibition did not work, drug prohibition does not work, gun laws do not work, speeding laws do not work, and obviously, DUI laws don't work either because everyone still does it.  What makes you think a law is going to make it any better?


by your logic, laws prohibiting murder don't work, because people still do it (no, not everybody), therefore we'd be no worse off legalizing it.

----------


## tod evans

I only missed one......I don't text.......

Do I pass?





> You've never taken cold pills and drove?
> 
> Never drove tired?
> 
> Never drove back form the dentist's office while the Novocaine was wearing off?
> 
> Never ate a burger or sandwich while driving?
> 
> Never took you eyes off the road to fiddle with the radio?
> ...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I only missed one......I don't text.......
> 
> Do I pass?


With flying colors.

The neo - fascists will claim you need to be destroyed because of that.

I left the GOP long before I got onboard with the Ron Paul movement.

It was my distaste of the "law and order - lock them up and throw away the key" crowd in the GOP that made me do that.

Two incidents stick out in my mind where that crowd was at it's most distasteful:

The Rodney King beating.

Waco.

----------


## phill4paul

> by your logic, laws prohibiting murder don't work, because people still do it (no, not everybody), therefore we'd be no worse off legalizing it.


  If you have been convicted of murder you have actually caused injury/death to another. Not imprisoned for life for a pre-crime.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> You've never taken cold pills and drove?
> 
> Never drove tired?
> 
> Never drove back form the dentist's office while the Novocaine was wearing off?
> 
> Never ate a burger or sandwich while driving?
> 
> Never took you eyes off the road to fiddle with the radio?
> ...


Only one I've never done is drive on Novocaine, but that's because I have perfect teeth. 

I also never been in a car accident or fender bender.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Easily spotted by police:  I've seen "careful" drunk drivers go a little extra SLOW and drive very carefully (aware their judgment may be a little off).  e.g. At night, 35 to 40 in a 45MPH zone.

----------


## osan

> Not hardly- drunk driving is an aggressive attack on others.


Dear God...

Have you any martial arts training?  Seems no.  One thing any sensei worth his guano does is train his students in skills such as threat assessment.  If you are not being disingenuous here, then all I can say is that if you for a moment truly believe that DWI is an "aggressive attack on others", then I assert that your assessment skills come up woefully short of snuff.  If that is indeed so, your opinions are not valid, much less credible.




> BTW, why are you soooo insistent on engaging in behaviour which harms others when you are in no way forced to do so to get high? Mom won't let ya drink/smoke in the basement?..........or maybe she won't give ya the money for a cab home? $#@! she is a fool to give you her car keys knowing what you are up to. Still you could always walk to the bar or package store. Ah sorry got it you too unfit for a long walk what with all that time sprewing BS from the computer she brought you.


Ah yes, the final bastion of the defeated man: the good old _ad hominem_.  You begin with an unsubstantiated assertion about another person's position and then attempt to impugn him with such cleverness as the "37 and still living in Mom's basement" quip.  

For heaven's sake man, if you are going to comport yourself in an ill-bred manner you should at least show some self respect by being artful about it.  This is just embarrassing.

PLONK.

----------


## tod evans

> With flying colors.
> 
> The neo - fascists will claim you need to be destroyed because of that.


For all their self-righteous bravado it seems there's not one among the lot willing to stand on their own two feet and address their concerns man to man. It's always hired men with automatic weapons that are used to enforce their collective beliefs....Cowards, the lot of them!





> I left the GOP long before I got onboard with the Ron Paul movement.
> 
> It was my distaste of the "law and order - lock them up and throw away the key" crowd in the GOP that made me do that.
> 
> Two incidents stick out in my mind where that crowd was at it's most distasteful:
> 
> The Rodney King beating.
> 
> Waco.


Don't forget Ruby Ridge......

But me too.....

----------


## osan

> by your logic, laws prohibiting murder don't work, because people still do it (no, not everybody), therefore we'd be no worse off legalizing it.


Sometimes I don't know why we try to make sense to some people, but here goes anyway.

You are equating two grossly non-equivalent circumstances.  OK, back to Remedial Reality 001: DWI is not a crime.  For example, were I on my 100 acre farm, in my car, drunk as a skunk and driving hither-thither, according to the law I am DWI and could be arrested, tried, and jailed, yet no crime has been committed.  The hint here is to get yourself a copy of Black's Law Dictionary and look up "crime".  Assuming you possess nominal average intelligence, you will immediately apprehend the fact that driving an automobile whilst skewered is indeed not a crime by any stretch of the honest and organically intact imagination.

Now, bearing in mind your freshly acquired understanding of that which constitutes _crime_, (you got that dictionary, right?) we turn to murder.  Murder by its very definition is always a crime because until an unjustified killing _occurs_, no murder has taken place.  Last I checked, we are still unable to charge someone with a crime until _after_ they have committed it.

Another fundamental difference here is that one may be called to account for his criminal actions whereas he may not for those of a non-criminal nature.  Also be aware that just because a bunch of little-dicks gathered in some miserable legislature pass a law declaring act X a crime, it does not follow that X is in fact a crime.  Drug possess and use, sex trade, carrying firearms... all non-crimes that have been arbitrarily and immorally declared otherwise and punishable by draconian sentences.  A gaggle of pimps declaring that eating frankfurters on Tuesdays is a felony doesn't pass the smell test.

To equate a non-crime with an actual crime fails catastrophically on its face.  Non-crime <> Crime.  We could go through a formal proof by contradiction of this but there is no real point, I suspect as neither am I your tutor nor do I believe that you would likely be receptive to the learning in any event.

----------


## tod evans

I can only +rep ya' once for speaking what I thought was common sense...I'd give ya' a few more for this post if I could!





> Sometimes I don't know why we try to make sense to some people, but here goes anyway.
> 
> You are equating two grossly non-equivalent circumstances.  OK, back to Remedial Reality 001: DWI is not a crime.  For example, were I on my 100 acre farm, in my car, drunk as a skunk and driving hither-thither, according to the law I am DWI and could be arrested, tried, and jailed, yet no crime has been committed.  The hint here is to get yourself a copy of Black's Law Dictionary and look up "crime".  Assuming you possess nominal average intelligence, you will immediately apprehend the fact that driving an automobile whilst skewered is indeed not a crime by any stretch of the honest and organically intact imagination.
> 
> Now, bearing in mind your freshly acquired understanding of that which constitutes _crime_, (you got that dictionary, right?) we turn to murder.  Murder by its very definition is always a crime because until an unjustified killing _occurs_, no murder has taken place.  Last I checked, we are still unable to charge someone with a crime until _after_ they have committed it.
> 
> To equate a non-crime with an actual crime fails catastrophically on its face.  Non-crime <> Crime.  We could go through a formal proof by contradiction of this but there is no real point, I suspect as neither am I your tutor nor do I believe that you would likely be receptive to the learning in any event.

----------


## truelies

> Dear God...
> 
> ...............threat assessment.  ................


Fool, the drunken $#@!s YOU want to excuse kill a large number of innocent folks each year and are a real threat to all of us on the road.

Why is it so hard to not drive drunk?

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> The hint here is to get yourself a copy of Black's Law Dictionary and look up "crime".  Assuming you possess nominal average intelligence, you will immediately apprehend the fact that driving an automobile whilst skewered is indeed not a crime by any stretch of the honest and organically intact imagination.


They must of changed the definition:
_
"A crime is an act committed or omitted, in violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding it; a breach or violation of some public right or duty due to a whole community, considered as a community In its social aggregate capacity, as distinguished from a civil injury. Wilkins v. U. S"_

http://thelawdictionary.org/crime/

Sounds like the State's definition of crime to me, not the moral commonsense one.

----------


## truelies

> That's another one of the problems that people like truelies seem to ignore.  People get arrested for the presence of alcohol even if they're not drunk at all.  .................


Divert much? The issue is people who endanger others by driving intoxicated. Busting people for transporting beer is not something I have claimed to approve.

Again WHY is it so damned hard or such a burden to stay out from behind the wheel when consuming intoxicants. Beyond the mahtra from the trolls here of ' I can do any $#@!ing thing I please & if I kill you while I do so you are obligated to take it like a man cause NOBODYS GONNA TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOOOOM!!!!!!!!'

----------


## Origanalist

> Fool, the drunken $#@!s YOU want to excuse kill a large number of innocent folks each year and are a real threat to all of us on the road.
> 
> Why is it so hard to not drunk drunk?


I have never been able to not drunk drunk, heaven knows I have tried.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Divert much? The issue is people who endanger others by driving intoxicated. Busting people for transporting beer is not something I have claimed to approve.
> 
> Again WHY is it so damned hard or such a burden to stay out from behind the wheel when consuming intoxicants. Beyond the mahtra from the trolls here of ' I can do any $#@!ing thing I please & if I kill you while I do so you are obligated to take it like a man cause NOBODYS GONNA TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOOOOM!!!!!!!!'


You don't seem to be internalizing one simple fact:

I (and I'm assuming I'm speaking for many others here) would much rather take our chances with a drunk driver, (or a pot smoker or gangbanger or "terrorist' or you name whatever boogeyman threat you care to) than deal with militarized police, "no knock" SWAT raids, midnight roadblocks, life ruining prison terms, no conviction asset forfeitures, a 24/7 total surveillance grid and all the other trappings of the police state that you and people that think like you have created in what was once a free country.

Shame on you.

----------


## truelies

..................You've never taken cold pills and drove?..............NEVER

Never drove tired?...................YES, TO THE POINT OF EXHAUSTED IMPAIRED JUDGEMENT NO- except for an incident on Duty in the Service for which I paid the Price

Never drove back form the dentist's office while the Novocaine was wearing off?...........NOPE

Never ate a burger or sandwich while driving?................PROVE ITS A RISK UNCLE

Never took you eyes off the road to fiddle with the radio?.............NOPE

Never talked on cel phone while driving?............NOPE

Never texted while driving?..........NEVER HAVE TEXTED WHILE NOT DRIVING

Never drove with dirty windows or smearing wipers?........TO THE EXTENT OF IMPAIRED VISIBILITY NOPE

Never exceeded the speed limit?..............YEPPERS, BUT NOT IN WAY WAY WHICH IMPAIRS SAFETY OF MYSELF OR OTHERS

Never passed on the wrong side?.........AS IN GETTING AROUND IDIOTS WHO PARK IN THE PASSING LANE?



Soooooo whats yer point uncle? None of your little laundry list of 'sins' comes close to the aggressive disregard for others of driving while hammered.

----------


## truelies

> Do you support "checkpoints" for DUI?
> 
> ..............


Nope

----------


## Anti Federalist

Umm, who are *you* to judge whether you were impaired or not?

You seem to be able to make that assumption for everybody who has ever had a drink and then drove, but then it doesn't apply when it concerns you, is that about right?

No, I think you need to be interrogated on the side of the road by hostile cops to determine just how impaired you were.

And if you so much twitch wrong during that interrogation, you should be hauled off to prison and have your life utterly destroyed..




> ..................You've never taken cold pills and drove?..............NEVER
> 
> Never drove tired?...................YES, TO THE POINT OF EXHAUSTED IMPAIRED JUDGEMENT NO- except for an incident on Duty in the Service for which I paid the Price
> 
> Never drove back form the dentist's office while the Novocaine was wearing off?...........NOPE
> 
> Never ate a burger or sandwich while driving?................PROVE ITS A RISK UNCLE
> 
> Never took you eyes off the road to fiddle with the radio?.............NOPE
> ...

----------


## truelies

> ..........No sane person would put someone in prison for life for one DUI anyway. ..............


I never have suggested prison in any situation. What I have said is drive drunk & ya should be permanently removed from society to a res for malefactors. Should you kill or maim someone while driving drunk the kin of your vic should be left free to take whatever revenge suits them with the full approval of Society.

----------


## truelies

> Umm, who are *you* to judge whether you were impaired or not?
> 
> ...................


$#@! if I were to drink and drive I would be impaired just like you are when you get behind the wheel hammered.

Thing is sport I have enough respect for the rights of others to not do that $#@!.

----------


## phill4paul

> Never exceeded the speed limit?..............YEPPERS, BUT NOT IN WAY WAY WHICH IMPAIRS SAFETY OF MYSELF OR OTHERS


  Well, see, you $#@!ed up right there. YOUR sense of whether or not your speeding impairs safety to yourself and others is subjective. Just as someone who has been drinking might feel they are driving in such a way that they are not impaired?

  Did you know that the NHTSA, the one that lists the intoxicated fatality numbers, says that speeding contributes to 30% of accident fatalities? About the same as drunk driving.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809915.pdf

  So there you go. Be a good citizen and go turn yourself in. We're tired of your kind threatening our safety on the highways.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> I never have sugessted prison in any situation. *What I have said is drive drunk & ya should be permanently removed from society to a res for malefactors.* Should you kill or maim someone while driving drunk the kin of your vic should be left free to take whatever revenge suits them with the full approval of Society.


Lemme guess, you are a FEMA camp overlord?

----------


## truelies

> You don't seem to be internalizing one simple fact:
> 
> ...................


You seem to be a complete idiot who is labouring under the burden of a pair of false alternatives.

----------


## phill4paul

> You seem to be a complete idiot who is labouring under the burden of a pair of false alternatives.


  Christ, haven't you turned yourself in yet you bloody speeding murderer?

----------


## MelissaWV

> Never texted while driving?..........NEVER HAVE TEXTED WHILE NOT DRIVING


Wow so you not only text while driving, but the only time you text is while you're driving.

That seems incredibly dangerous!

----------


## truelies

> ............YOUR sense of whether or not your speeding impairs safety to yourself and others is subjective.


Not hardly. I am well able to gage the safety difference in 80mph in a well maintained vehicle on a Nebraska interstate at noon on a sunny summer day in light traffic and 80mph down a winding residential street where kids are at play. 

Once again trolls- Why MUST you drive hammered? Too cheap with other folks blood to take a taxi?

----------


## truelies

> Wow so you not only text while driving, but the only time you text is while you're driving.
> 
> That seems incredibly dangerous!


obscurant much?

----------


## truelies

> Christ, haven't you turned yourself in yet you bloody speeding murderer?


Deflect much, Fool?

----------


## phill4paul

> Deflect much, Fool?


  Murderer. How does it feel putting so many people's lives in danger. I hope you are stopped, before you kill someone, since you obviously don't realize you have a problem.

----------


## Origanalist

> Murderer. How does it feel putting so many people's lives in danger. I hope you are stopped, before you kill someone, since you obviously don't realize you have a problem.


They never do Phil..........until it's too late.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> They never do Phil..........until it's too late.


I got a bright idea; lock em in a cage for the rest of his life.

----------


## phill4paul

> I got a bright idea; lock em in a cage for the rest of his life.


  Well, people that speed _should_ be sent to the rez. They have no respect for other humans lives. I think that if someone speeds and gets in an accident that kills someone he should be handed over to the family so they can get some form of justice. I agree, best to just take truelies off the road before the damage is done though.

----------


## TheTexan

Thanks truelies, for your contributions to making us "safe":

Pre-crime prevention...

----------


## amy31416

> Not hardly. I am well able to gage the safety difference in 80mph in a well maintained vehicle on a Nebraska interstate at noon on a sunny summer day in light traffic and 80mph down a winding residential street where kids are at play. 
> 
> Once again trolls- Why MUST you drive hammered? Too cheap with other folks blood to take a taxi?


If you can't even spell gauge, how do you know you're doing it right? Driving 80 MPH in Nebraska could easily get you and others killed when a deer sprints out.

----------


## amy31416

> Not hardly. I am well able to gage the safety difference in 80mph in a well maintained vehicle on a Nebraska interstate at noon on a sunny summer day in light traffic and 80mph down a winding residential street where kids are at play. 
> 
> Once again trolls- Why MUST you drive hammered? Too cheap with other folks blood to take a taxi?


If you can't even spell gauge, how do you know you're doing it right? Driving 80 MPH in Nebraska could easily get you and others killed when a deer sprints out.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Looks like freedom to me.




> Thanks truelies, for your contributions to making us "safe":
> 
> Pre-crime prevention...

----------


## Anti Federalist

So says you, you homicidal maniac.




> Not hardly. I am well able to gage the safety difference in 80mph in a well maintained vehicle on a Nebraska interstate at noon on a sunny summer day in light traffic and 80mph down a winding residential street where kids are at play. 
> 
> Once again trolls- Why MUST you drive hammered? Too cheap with other folks blood to take a taxi?

----------


## Origanalist

> Well, people that speed _should_ be sent to the rez. They have no respect for other humans lives. I think that if someone speeds and gets in an accident that kills someone he should be handed over to the family so they can get some form of justice. I agree, best to just take truelies off the road before the damage is done though.


Amen, I know I would feel all warm fuzzy and safe then.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Wow so you not only text while driving, but the only time you text is while you're driving.
> 
> That seems incredibly dangerous!


LOL

----------


## Tpoints

> If you have been convicted of murder you have actually caused injury/death to another. Not imprisoned for life for a pre-crime.


that wasn't his argument, his argument was that any law that doesn't stop everybody from doing something "isn't working".

----------


## Anti Federalist

Of, course, I'm almost positive this is what's happened here:

----------


## MelissaWV

> They never do Phil..........until it's too late.


That's why the cops set speed limits.  It's always the people who insist they are driving well, and are able to judge for themselves whether or not they are endangering others.  Tsk tsk.  I'm glad that, when he gets his 9th speeding ticket, he'll be going to jail for life.  That should teach him, though honestly he should be locked away after the first offense.  I hear it deters others from driving too fast, and if you lock someone up after their first offense, well, they obviously never offend again!




> obscurant much?


If you would type what you mean, and mean what you type, there wouldn't be so much to easily tear apart in your posts.




> Not hardly. I am well able to gage the safety difference in 80mph in a well maintained vehicle on a Nebraska interstate at noon on a sunny summer day in light traffic and 80mph down a winding residential street where kids are at play. 
> 
> Once again trolls- Why MUST you drive hammered? Too cheap with other folks blood to take a taxi?


You believe you are "well able to gage the safety," but you are operating under the same illusion that every other driver operates under.  Using your little gem of logic here, it's okay to drive drunk as long as no one else is nearby, or it's safe to do so.  You've been arguing rather loudly against that for some time, though.  We come back to my question of why we can't just punish people for the dangerous driving, rather than just being drunk.  It matches up with your assertion that, as long as it's safe, you can exceed the speed limit and not be a danger to anyone but yourself (and even then a very minor danger).

You might be surprised (or you might call me a liar), but I don't drink.  I absolutely do not drink and drive, and have driven many a drunken idiot home only to have them thank me by peeing on my tires or throwing up in the parking lot.  I also don't do drugs, but don't see a problem with others doing them, and merely punishing any bad behavior the drugs "cause" once it manifests.  I also don't smoke, but champion the rights of private businesses to establish themselves as "smoker-friendly" if they want, and for their employees to choose to work elsewhere or demand higher base pay for having to work surrounded by a "hazard."  

There is still quite a chance, though, that I will have a seizure or a sudden drop in blood sugar or I will spill something on myself or be too tired or hit a dip in the road during a hurricane (did that one, cost me a car) or have a buck decide that hot doe across the road must be reached NOW despite my car coming towards him at high speeed.  In other words, that's why they call it an accident, even though ALL of those scenarios would allow for some blame to be placed on me (driving with a family history of seizures? not eating properly before driving, or keeping an emergency soda in the car? being careless with the emergency soda and spilling it? driving during a hurricane? going too fast along a road with deer somewhere nearby?) even if I am "driving safely" by general standards.  I have given numerous other examples in this thread of things that a driver can be doing which limit reaction time or cause accidents, and nearly none of them are legislated specifically.  

Let's put it this way: if you are driving the wrong way down a one-way street, you're going to get pulled over because that's obviously a huge hazard (yes, even at 3am).  If you're driving at night down a busy street with no lights at all on, you're likely going to get pulled over, people are going to honk at you and flash their brights, etc..  If you are weaving in and out of traffic at high speed and basically running people off the road, you're likely going to find yourself on the receiving end of more honking and pulling over.

Now, why is it worse if the aforementioned scenarios were caused by drinking?

If driving drunk is such an obvious disaster that can be spotted a mile away because people are driving like $#@! and endangering the lives of others, why do the cops need checkpoints?  Can't they spot the drunk driver without so much as a sobriety test?  They can't, because so many are driving just fine, and on the flipside so many bad drivers are not drunk at all.  

So again, please answer as to why it's somehow wrong to forget about checkpoints, or tickets for people in an idling vehicle who aren't driving anywhere but are drunk/drinking... and to focus on people who are demonstrably driving dangerously?

----------


## phill4paul

> Not hardly. I am well able to gage the safety difference in 80mph in a well maintained vehicle on a Nebraska interstate at noon on a sunny summer day in light traffic and 80mph down a winding residential street where kids are at play. 
> 
> Once again trolls- Why MUST you drive hammered? Too cheap with other folks blood to take a taxi?


  Doesn't work that way Einstien. ANY amount of speed over the limit is an increase in fatality rate. Why must you deny you are a danger. Can't you just take a taxi?




> *One of the disturbing problems with speeding is that while most people accept that speeding increases crash risk, most people continue to speed. While drink driving is generally viewed as socially unacceptable, speeding is not.
> *
> Research has shown that people make false distinctions about categories of speeding.
> 
> Many people define speeding  by 5-10 km/h as merely 'driving over the limit' and even view speeding by 10-20 km/h as 'acceptable speeding'. Many people consider 'real speeding' to be only speeding by more than 20 km/h.
> 
> These are dangerous attitudes because there is no such thing as safe speeding.
> 
> *The risk of a crash in a 60 km/h speed zone causing death or injury increases rapidly even with relatively small increases of speed. The crash risk at 65 km/h is about twice the risk at 60 km/h. At 70km/h the crash risk is more than four times the risk at 60 km/h.*



  Honestly, I hope you are caught soon. You've got a real problem.

----------


## Tpoints

> Doesn't work that way Einstien. ANY amount of speed over the limit is an increase in fatality rate. Why must you deny you are a danger. Can't you just take a taxi?
> 
>   Honestly, I hope you are caught soon. You've got a real problem.


So 1mph above and 100mph above are the same danger?

----------


## Origanalist

> Doesn't work that way Einstien. ANY amount of speed over the limit is an increase in fatality rate. Why must you deny you are a danger. Can't you just take a taxi?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Honestly, I hope you are caught soon. You've got a real problem.


He is a severely deluded menace to society and should be put away somewhere for public safety.

----------


## MelissaWV

> So 1mph above and 100mph above are the same danger?


Kind of like .01 over the legal limit is the same danger as twice the legal limit, no? ...

----------


## Tpoints

> Kind of like .01 over the legal limit is the same danger as twice the legal limit, no? ...


It's kinda like that, yes, and it's equally irrational. A person isn't and shouldn't be equally guilty or equally dangerous, if he's only .01 over vs .1 over legal limit.

----------


## Origanalist

> That's why the cops set speed limits. It's always the people who insist they are driving well, and are able to judge for themselves whether or not they are endangering others. Tsk tsk. I'm glad that, when he gets his 9th speeding ticket, he'll be going to jail for life. That should teach him, though honestly he should be locked away after the first offense. I hear it deters others from driving too fast, and if you lock someone up after their first offense, well, they obviously never offend again!


Strict adherance to the law is what's needed to keep our communities safe! Nine is way too many opportunities to destroy life, limb and property.

----------


## Tpoints

> Strict adherance to the law is what's needed to keep our communities safe! Nine is way too many opportunities to destroy life, limb and property.


No, no adherence to any law is.

----------


## Tpoints

> Not hardly. I am well able to gage the safety difference in 80mph in a well maintained vehicle on a Nebraska interstate at noon on a sunny summer day in light traffic and 80mph down a winding residential street where kids are at play. 
> 
> Once again trolls- Why MUST you drive hammered? Too cheap with other folks blood to take a taxi?


Yes, I'm cheap, and the Constitution gives me the right to drive whenever, however I like. Endangering people is not a crime, and it's perfectly fine to anybody unless you're a police state Fascist.

----------


## phill4paul

> So 1mph above and 100mph above are the same danger?


  I dunno man. I'm just using the NHTSA numbers against the statists that use their same numbers. As far as I'm concerned it is all bunk that is pushed by special interests.

----------


## Tpoints

> I dunno man. I'm just using the NHTSA numbers against the statists that use their same numbers. As far as I'm concerned it is all bunk that is pushed by special interests.


I think you know, nobody, even those who want more regulation, will tell you that 1mph over and 100 mph over are equally dangerous. At most you'll get people who will say they want zero tolerance enforcement to deter, but nobody will say any amount over is equally dangerous, unless in limited contexts, when a person is dead regardless of how fast you hit him.

----------


## tod evans

I'll bet one cyber dollar that truelies is involved with some type of law enforcement out there in the flatlands....

Driving 80mph through rural Nebraska, _boy_-o-_boy_, the danger you've put your fellow Nebraskans in must be atoned for, would it be acceptable to apply your sense of judgement? 

In case you haven't noticed you've walked into a gun-fight packing the proverbial _boy_-scout knife trying to argue law and morality on a forum that proudly carries Ron Paul's name on the banner...

Nebraska really isn't that far from the Ozarks........Want to have a beer and meet in person?   _Boy_

----------


## phill4paul

> I think you know, nobody, even those who want more regulation, will tell you that 1mph over and 100 mph over are equally dangerous. At most you'll get people who will say they want zero tolerance enforcement to deter, but nobody will say any amount over is equally dangerous, unless in limited contexts, when a person is dead regardless of how fast you hit him.


  If my first bullet kills someone what difference did the other 99 make.

----------


## Tpoints

> If my first bullet kills someone what difference did the other 99 make.


if there are other people in the crowd that are going to catch the remaining. Just like if your car has remaining momentum after hitting the first person, car, or object. Like I said, only in limited context when a person is dead will you say such a thing.

Besides, isn't that the question? Are you so good at your aim that the first bullet or first mile above speed limit kills somebody? Or does your chance of hurting or kill somebody increase when you have more bullets, more speed?

----------


## phill4paul

> if there are other people in the crowd that are going to catch the remaining. Just like if your car has remaining momentum after hitting the first person, car, or object. Like I said, only in limited context when a person is dead will you say such a thing.


 If I shoot two people and 98 bullets cause no injury or damage or if I only hit one car with two occupants at 100 miles an hour what difference does it make?  End result. Two people are dead.




> Besides, isn't that the question? Are you so good at your aim that the first bullet or first mile above speed limit kills somebody? Or does your *chance* of hurting or kill somebody increase when you have more bullets, more speed?


  At what level do we legislate or make determinations based on "chance?"

----------


## Tpoints

> If I shoot two people and 98 bullets cause no injury or damage or if I only hit one car with two occupants at 100 miles an hour what difference does it make?  End result. Two people are dead.
> 
>   At what level do we legislate or make determinations based on "chance?"


basically what you're saying is, it should be legal to shoot whenever, wherever, however, unless and until there's an end result.

This includes, but not limited to, using strangers on the street as target practice, because until somebody's shot, you did zero harm. It's his fault he can't dodge you fast enough.

----------


## Tudo

Don't drink/smoke and drive. Is that too difficult to observe?

----------


## Tpoints

> Don't drink/smoke and drive. Is that too difficult to observe?


My freedom isn't decided by whether it's difficult for me to do something.

----------


## osan

> They must of changed the definition:
> _
> "A crime is an act committed or omitted, in violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding it; a breach or violation of some public right or duty due to a whole community, considered as a community In its social aggregate capacity, as distinguished from a civil injury. Wilkins v. U. S"_
> 
> http://thelawdictionary.org/crime/
> 
> Sounds like the State's definition of crime to me, not the moral commonsense one.


That is NOT the definition I recall in old print copies, unless I was looking at a different dictionary.  This "definition" is actually devoid of any substantive meaning and is therefore invalid.  One cannot derive any positive meaning from this definition, rendering it void because it points to nothing fundamental and invariant, but rather to a body of transient and arbitrarily codified mandates that, making reference backward to "crime" establish a system of self-contained and traction-free circularity.  This glaring truth gives us all eminently strong and valid cause for alarm because there are people in robes commanding people with guns to take other people to cages for large slices of their lifetimes based on large bodies of arbitrarily contrived slag.

The Samuel Johnson dictionary of 1785 provides something far better:

CRIME. n.
An act contrary to right ; an offence ; a
great fault ; an act of wickedness.'

The best hint here may be the reference to "right", but I am too tired to pursue that at the moment. A good hint is "offence", so let us see how that is defined:

OFFENCE. n.


1. Crime;  [circular, therefore unhelpful]


2. A transgression;   [definition offers no help]



3. Injury;  (THIS is what we want)

6. Attack; act of the assailant.  [also good as it implies injury or the clear and immediate threat thereof]

Pushing down on the stack:

ASSAIL. v.


1. To attack in a hostile manner  [meh...]

INJURY. 

1. Hurt without justice  [now we have gotten somewhere]

As I clearly recall from distant memory, in order for a crime to have been committed, there must have occurred _injury_ or _loss_ such that it effectively amounts to injury.  In the case of DWI, if no injury or loss has occurred, there is not so much as even a tort, much less a crime of which to speak.  It is that simple and that clear.  A risk in the form of a _potential_ threat cannot by any stretch of the honest and intact imagination be construed to constitute injury or loss of any sort that could qualify as so much as an elemental component of a crime, much less a sufficient condition by which to justify prosecution.  Therefore, the DWI laws are without any plausible question utterly immoral and devoid of so much as the least epsilon of validity.

Do I like the idea of people driving drunk?  No.  Nor do I like the idea of Klansmen parading about demanding all the Negroes be sent back to Africa "where they belong".  My displeasure and discomfort with the choices of others does not set me at liberty to abridge or deny their prerogatives to act.  I am, therefore, morally compelled to keep my disagreement and even my occasional outrage in my pants, zipped up tightly that I might not lapse from the practice of mutual respect that I so sternly, steadfastly, and uncompromisingly demand of others.

Don't like what another does?  Too bad.  You do not get to dictate behavior where no crime can be established to have occurred.  So grow up, get a grip on yourself, and stop thinking and behaving as an idiot child just because your possibly deranged sensibilities have been unhappily pricked by another choosing to exercise their inherent right to act in a manner you find disagreeable but causes you no injury of which to speak.  Leave people the hell alone because to interfere with them in such ways invites dire consequences not only for them, but yourself and everyone else as well - all acts that merit materially unequivocal responses in defense of the rights of the individual against your trespass in no less measure than would your assault upon them with a deadly weapon.

In short, those whose understanding of propriety in human relations is severely malformed in the manner herein described need to get over themselves.  It is their whining, nervous-nellie activism that has caused the real injury and loss to humanity with an iron-barbed net cast so broadly, indiscriminately, and with neither intelligence nor justice upon the whole of the nation.  Get your hands out of the cookie jars of others because otherwise the day may come when those people upon whom you tread in such rude and roughshod manner will cease to tolerate the intolerable.  On that day shall the tyrants and their boot-licking zombie-acolytes learn the truer meaning of "consequence" and "retribution", and they will have earned every agony that will befall them because they trespass unconscionably upon their fellows in the most egregiously unjustifiable manners that usually demand recompense in blood.

----------


## Tpoints

> As I clearly recall from distant memory, in order for a crime to have been committed, there must have occurred _injury_ or _loss_ such that it effectively amounts to injury.


So threats and harassment would not count.

----------


## paulbot24

> So threats and harassment would not count.


Lawsuits against "threatening" behavior have gotten way out of hand in the last decade, perhaps due to the panicked 9/11 masses. I personally lost a civil lawsuit against a former boss after I lost my job. I was fired because my incompetent boss's growing insecurity and fears of worth within the company because of glowing letters of praise from many fellow employees and superiors. When I got home I logged onto my work intranet from my house and realized he hadn't changed the network administrator account password. This is the first rule of Information Technology when firing any disgruntled employee and one I assumed (correctly) he would not perform. So I sent a global email to every employee in the company from my house detailing his incompetence and told them they could expect slow turnaround times in IT duties in the near future due to my absence coupled with his incompetence. They mistakenly viewed this as "threatening" as they sent people to change the locks on all the buildings (on a Saturday) which cost about 3 grand and sued me for the cost *and won*. I could not for the life of me understand how my email could be viewed as threatening except as a threat to my boss's job. It was ridiculous. They were at no risk in fact (ironically), one of the last things I did was leave the keys to all the buildings on my desk before I left. People really do need to get a grip and know what a real threat is. Yet this kind of behavior should be expected when the jihadist-under-the-bed Fox News Network has such high ratings.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

This is ridiculous. This is extremism from judges

----------


## osan

> So threats and harassment would not count.


Depends on whether the threat is credible and whether the harassment causes a readily identifiable injury or loss.

If I stand before you with a knife and say I am going to kill you, you had better bet that you are well within your rights to produce your .45 and send me to Jesus.

If I am harassing you - and let us be clear that the term has not here been defined clearly - and you experience injury or loss that can be demonstrated, then at the very least a tort has occurred, but possibly a crime as well.  For example, if you get within arm's length, thereby violating my personal space, and engage in activity that is directed toward me and that is unwelcome and you maintain that proximity to me no matter where I attempt to move to separate myself, I would call that potentially grounds for criminal charges... depending on the overall timbre of the circumstance, of course.

The key here is to understand what a man's rights actually _are,_ vis-a-vis what one might _think_ they are.  Ignorance on this point is wildfire-rampant and this fact poses acute and very immediate dangers to us all.  Without a proper understanding of human rights there can be no basis for judging human action and that is profoundly dangerous, the thought of which should scare any nominally rational person sheet-white.  I am deadly serious on this point.  Fouled up thinking has accounted for nearly all of the great atrocities to which humanity has been so generously treated over the course of its history.  It was precisely this brand of intellectual failure that has resulted virtually all of the mass death and misery of the twentieth century, aided so powerfully by the new technologies that brought us the inestimable blessing of mechanized warfare.  The Lenins, Stalins, Maos, Pol Pots, Amins, and other mass murdering lunatics of that era embarked upon their unfathomably lurid and abominable paths based on sets of _beliefs_ whose very fabrics formed the corrupt and wholly insane core foundations of thought that lead to their unspeakable choices of action.  Let you understand without doubt or loss that in this era of technologically enabled mayhem that IGNORANCE IS DEATH.  

The further we advance technologically, the more we need to each possess a full and minimally sophisticated understanding of the foundational elements of _morality_ because without this, we are nothing better than idiot children playing with daddy's loaded sidearm, unsupervised.  One of the most horrifically dangerous outcomes of the era beginning with the so-called "enlightenment" has been the creeping belief that our technological miracles shall save us and that morality is old-fashioned, obsolete, and serves only to get in the way of further progress.  This belief is incalculably flawed and dangerous beyond most people willingness to accept and possibly even their ability to comprehend.

Without the proper moral compass, derived in hard reason and devoid of all the traditional religious bull$#@! that has set men at each other's throats for thousands of years, we in this age of thermonuclear weapons are in fact doomed to inevitable self-destruction on scales so massive that we will pine for the days of Hitler and his gestapo, all of whom will appear to us as choir boys in comparison with which will shortly stand before us.  This is no joke and if you love your life, your freedom, and those of family and friends, you had best get your head straight on what is right and what is not because I promise you all that if you fail to do this a day of wailing and gnashing of teeth will come most literally and the regret you will experience shall have no words to frame it.  It may not involve burning cities, but on the other hand, it just might.  Either way, sore and bitter regret shall be your reward for having failed yourself and your brethren.  You all had better sit quietly in a mutedly lit room in a comfortable chair, a good single malt, and no distractions and think on this until clarity comes to you.  I mean this literally because the skin of your grandchildren hang in the balance.  

Do not shirk your responsibility to our posterity because as troubled as they may be today, I still believe that they are worth saving from the maw of the hell that awaits them just around a frighteningly close corner - do not allow your love of them to hold less importance to you than mere convenience, lassitude, and preoccupation with life's other challenges.  Do not allow the cognitively remote specter of perdition, fueled by the power of the normalcy bias to seduce you into believing that everything is fine or that it will all work out well in the end without your learnedly adept and faithful participation.  It will not.  Not when man-children of insufficient intellectual and moral means hold the reins of terrible destruction and live within a blindly ignorant drive and determination to see humanity driven down ever more dangerous paths toward grey and hopeless futures.

----------


## Tpoints

> Depends on whether the threat is credible and whether the harassment causes a readily identifiable injury or loss.


why would that matter? threats & harassment cause NO PHYSICAL HARM, NO INJURY, NO LOSS.

----------


## osan

> why would that matter? threats & harassment cause NO PHYSICAL HARM, NO INJURY, NO LOSS.


I did not say a threat was necessarily grounds for criminal charges, but they are most certainly grounds for taking defensive action.  And I would reject your claim they cause no injury because they do in fact constitute trespass.  My threatening your life in such an in-your-face manner is in fact trespass upon your rights.

Harassment may also involve loss, depending on the nature. 

I notice you appear no to have read the rest of the post, so I must ask whether you are engaging in serious good-faith discussion or are you just screwing around disingenuously?  At this point I am leaning toward the latter - your response that that air about it.

----------


## Tpoints

> I did not say a threat was necessarily grounds for criminal charges, but they are most certainly grounds for taking defensive action.  *And I would reject your claim they cause no injury because they do in fact constitute trespass.  My threatening your life in such an in-your-face manner is in fact trespass upon your rights.*
> 
> Harassment may also involve loss, depending on the nature. 
> 
> I notice you appear no to have read the rest of the post, so I must ask whether you are engaging in serious good-faith discussion or are you just screwing around disingenuously?  At this point I am leaning toward the latter - your response that that air about it.


*If I stand before you with a knife and say I am going to kill you, you had better bet that you are well within your rights to produce your .45 and send me to Jesus.*

Why? Just because you said something? You've done ZERO HARM to me, my person, my body. What gives me the right to send you to Jesus? Just because I am scared and before you've committed any crime?

Why do they "constitute trespass"? What definition of trespass are you using? What rights did you trespass or violate by harassment without physical contact?

*The further we advance technologically, the more we need to each possess a full and minimally sophisticated understanding of the foundational elements of morality because without this, we are nothing better than idiot children playing with daddy's loaded sidearm, unsupervised.* 

I totally agree with you there, and I can ask "So what?" what's the harm in idiot children playing with daddy's loaded firearm? What law gives you the right to stop a child from his freedom to play with a toy?

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> why would that matter? threats & harassment cause NO PHYSICAL HARM, NO INJURY, NO LOSS.


Psychological injury is possible, though that is harder to prove.

----------


## Tpoints

> Psychological injury is possible, though that is harder to prove.


so if proven, would that be "pre-crime" ? or just crime?

----------


## RickyJ

> Could this not have been resolved by barring him from having a drivers license?


No, someone driving drunk is already breaking the law, they aren't going to care if they have a license or not. A stiff sentence should have been handed out for sure, but life imprisonment is too harsh IMO. 9 times is kind of ridiculous though. You think he would have got the message say after the 5th time maybe?

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> so if proven, would that be "pre-crime" ? or just crime?


In my opinion psychological damage is a crime - harming someone else or their property is what I consider a crime.

Vices aren't crime because no one is injured except the abuser of the vice - there is no victim.

----------


## paulbot24

> ...and I can ask "So what?" what's the harm in idiot children playing with daddy's loaded firearm? What law gives you the right to stop a child from his freedom to play with a toy?


This doesn't quite apply as privileges in the form of freedoms that adults enjoy are not correlative to privileges a minor should enjoy.

----------


## Tpoints

> This doesn't quite apply as privileges in the form of freedoms that adults enjoy are not correlative to privileges a minor should enjoy.


why is there, or should there be, privileges adults enjoy? Or, why doesn't it apply? Where in the Constitution does it say "your freedom is only for adults, not kids". What rule do you use to determine what is a "privilege for adults only"?

----------


## Tpoints

> No, someone driving drunk is already breaking the law, they aren't going to care if they have a license or not. A stiff sentence should have been handed out for sure, but life imprisonment is too harsh IMO. 9 times is kind of ridiculous though. You think he would have got the message say after the 5th time maybe?


You are correct, that a person driving drunk doesn't care if he's breaking the law, so taking away his license is neither a deterrence nor an effective prevention of him driving. Are you advocating a "stiffer punishment" because you agree with drunk driving laws to begin with? Or only when somebody's a shameless repeat offender who obviously doesn't get the message?

----------


## Tpoints

> In my opinion psychological damage is a crime - harming someone else or their property is what I consider a crime.
> 
> Vices aren't crime because no one is injured except the abuser of the vice - there is no victim.


Yeah, but that's just like your opinion man. So in your view, as long as damage, whether physical or psychological can be proven, then something is a crime, and not strictly bodily or physical property?

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Yeah, but that's just like your opinion man. So in your view, as long as damage, whether physical or psychological can be proven, then something is a crime, and not strictly bodily or physical property?


A law is merely a lawmakers opinion.

What I reject is a law that does not follow any moral framework. If a lawmaker can write a law that imposes a fine or punishment on any behavior this is pure and simple totalitarianism and it is worse than the chaos in society that a law plans to fix. Imprisonment of drunk drivers is just one example of this.

Crime - when you harm someone else's person or property.
Vice- when a person harms their own person or property - there is no victim.

If psychological damage was caused by someone with malice, that's a crime in my opinion.

----------


## tod evans

osan,

This is one of the most logical well written posts I've read in quite a while.

I hope many of the commenters in this thread take the time to read and understand what you've written.

Thank you!

Unfortunately I'm unable to +rep you at the moment..




> That is NOT the definition I recall in old print copies, unless I was looking at a different dictionary.  This "definition" is actually devoid of any substantive meaning and is therefore invalid.  One cannot derive any positive meaning from this definition, rendering it void because it points to nothing fundamental and invariant, but rather to a body of transient and arbitrarily codified mandates that, making reference backward to "crime" establish a system of self-contained and traction-free circularity.  This glaring truth gives us all eminently strong and valid cause for alarm because there are people in robes commanding people with guns to take other people to cages for large slices of their lifetimes based on large bodies of arbitrarily contrived slag.
> 
> The Samuel Johnson dictionary of 1785 provides something far better:
> 
> CRIME. n.
> An act contrary to right ; an offence ; a
> great fault ; an act of wickedness.'
> 
> The best hint here may be the reference to "right", but I am too tired to pursue that at the moment. A good hint is "offence", so let us see how that is defined:
> ...

----------


## Danan

> It was my distaste of the "law and order - lock them up and throw away the key" crowd in the GOP that made me do that.


I understand that, but I want to emphasize that there is a difference between wanting to throw drunk drivers (who have never hurt anyone yet) in jail indefinitely and trying to stop them from driving at least while they are totally hammered.

I don't see why it's a huge problem to pull over drivers who are obviously a temporarily unbearable riskfactor for others.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

I still say legalize driving for the blind.  Use the exact same arguments being made here for allowing people to drive drunk until they actually crash, and search-and-replace "drunk driving" with "driving blind."

Until said blind person crashes, who is anyone here to deny them their freedom?  Just more pre-crime laws supported by the anti-liberty crowd here.

----------


## KrokHead

It's not like this guy had a tenth DWI.  Jeez, had it with the big government getting all over our freedom to drive intoxicated.

----------


## truelies

For all of ya who feel sorry for this POS & feel he got a raw deal-

*Bobby Stovall, 54, was driving his truck in Round Rock, Texas, in early July when he weaved through several lanes of traffic and hit another vehicle, injuring the driver. It was later determined that Stovall had a blood alcohol concentration of .32, four times the legal limit in Texas...............................


Bradley said that in addition to the multiple DWI convictions , Stovall also had a extensive rap sheet for other crimes, including burglary, credit card abuse and supplying alcohol to a minor.* 

BTW- fools, Laws were never intended to prevent crime but rather exist to define crime- those actions or in some cases lack of action for which the Community will plant a boot in yer ass.

Another point- fools, y'all imagine that in your perfect world of 'liberty' without nasty cops & courts that NOBOBY would dare to do squat regarding your reckless behaviour. Dream on cretins- when that day comes you will be horrified at how quickly ordinary folks will present your darwin award the first (not ninth) time you put them at risk exercising your 'liberty'.

----------


## tod evans

Want to have a beer..........._Boy_?




> For all of ya who feel sorry for this POS & feel he got a raw deal-
> 
> *Bobby Stovall, 54, was driving his truck in Round Rock, Texas, in early July when he weaved through several lanes of traffic and hit another vehicle, injuring the driver. It was later determined that Stovall had a blood alcohol concentration of .32, four times the legal limit in Texas...............................
> 
> 
> Bradley said that in addition to the multiple DWI convictions , Stovall also had a extensive rap sheet for other crimes, including burglary, credit card abuse and supplying alcohol to a minor.* 
> 
> BTW- fools, Laws were never intended to prevent crime but rather exist to define crime- those actions or in some cases lack of action for which the Community will plant a boot in yer ass.
> 
> Another point- fools, y'all imagine that in your perfect world of 'liberty' without nasty cops & courts that NOBOBY would dare to do squat regarding your reckless behaviour. Dream on cretins- when that day comes you will be horrified at how quickly ordinary folks will present your darwin award the first (not ninth) time you put them at risk exercising your 'liberty'.

----------


## truelies

> ................Don't like what another does?  Too bad.  ......................................


In your dreams perhaps. In the real world act in a manner which the Community judges to be a clear & present danger to the Lives & Property of others and you will suffer unpleasant consequences as well you should. wanna exercise your prefect 'freedom' GET THE HELL FAR AWAY FROM THE REST OF US!!!! 

BTW driving a motor vehicle while hammered is to any reasoning person a clear and present danger to all who cross paths with said vehicle. Highway carnage ststa bear that out. Wearing a pointy hat and shouting ethnic insults while perhaps rude is far more likely to result in injury to the shouter than to the shouted at thus hardly a clear & present danger.

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

> For all of ya who feel sorry for this POS & feel he got a raw deal-
> 
> *Bobby Stovall, 54, was driving his truck in Round Rock, Texas, in early July when he weaved through several lanes of traffic and hit another vehicle, injuring the driver. It was later determined that Stovall had a blood alcohol concentration of .32, four times the legal limit in Texas...............................
> 
> 
> Bradley said that in addition to the multiple DWI convictions , Stovall also had a extensive rap sheet for other crimes, including burglary, credit card abuse and supplying alcohol to a minor.* 
> 
> BTW- fools, Laws were never intended to prevent crime but rather exist to define crime- those actions or in some cases lack of action for which the Community will plant a boot in yer ass.
> 
> Another point- fools, y'all imagine that in your perfect world of 'liberty' without nasty cops & courts that NOBOBY would dare to do squat regarding your reckless behaviour. Dream on cretins- when that day comes you will be horrified at how quickly ordinary folks will present your darwin award the first (not ninth) time you put them at risk exercising your 'liberty'.


Good Lord, you still DO NOT GET IT DO YOU?

*Bobby Stovall, 54, was driving his truck in Round Rock, Texas, in early July when he weaved through several lanes of traffic and hit another vehicle, injuring the driver.*

Does it really matter if Mr. Stovall was "drunk" or not?  He WEAVED THROUGH SEVERAL LANES OF TRAFFIC (that's already RECKLESS DRIVING), and HIT ANOTHER VEHICLE (another moving violation), and HE INJURED THAT VEHICLE'S DRIVER (already vehicular assault, when coupled with the other charges).  The point has been made here umpteen times that the alcohol in his system SHOULD BE USED AS AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR when considering what this dirtbag should receive as a sentence.

As for his rap sheet -

Burglary is a PROPERTY CRIME (as there is a victim) and should be sentenced more harshly than it is today.

Credit Card fraud, again is a PROPERTY CRIME (as there is a victim, even if it is some large bank) and should be sentenced more harshly than it is today.

Supplying alcohol to a "minor" is not necessarily a crime, per se, as there is really no victim.  It's only be defined via statute.  And, if it was "supplying" someone who was 18-20, and if I was on that jury, I would not vote to convict, as if someone is 18, they can legally sign a contract, enlist in the military, etc.  If they are legally defined as an adult, they can drink alcohol.

You've even stated that you are opposed to DUI checkpoints.  Nobody here has argued that being stopped for improper driving is against anyone's liberty.  I'm finding it very difficult to figure out what it is that you are arguing about.  Unless you are really a neo-prohibitionist, I don't understand your argument at all.  It seems as if we are in complete agreement, other than you want to charge with DUI (which has opened up so many unconstitutional invasions into privacy and liberty), while I wish to increase the penalties for careless and reckless driving.

My position is that the driver is in control of the vehicle, REGARDLESS of whether or not s/he is impaired.  Using the impairment as the reason the driver weaved, hit something, damaged property, etc., puts the responsibility on the cause of the impairment, NOT on the driver's ability to operate the vehicle.  That paves the way for additional charges to be filed against bar owners, homeowners, hotels, who knows, brewers?  wineries?  It's the same idiotic argument that wants to blame gun manufacturers for people who improperly use guns.

----------


## truelies

> .......................... Driving 80 MPH in Nebraska could easily get you and others killed when a deer sprints out.



highly unlikely at noon on a sunny summer day there. Deer layup during the heat of the day & come out between dusk & dawn during which time the prudient drive slows down to below the speed limit even.

BTW, ya don't drive 80MPH on that sunny summer day if there is much traffic you will be causing folks to lane change to pass constantly. Ask any traffic engineer- that sort of churning causes way more mayhem than do deer at mid-day.

----------


## MelissaWV

> highly unlikely at noon on a sunny summer day there. Deer layup during the heat of the day & come out between dusk & dawn during which time the prudient drive slows down to below the speed limit even.
> 
> BTW, ya don't drive 80MPH on that sunny summer day if there is much traffic you will be causing folks to lane change to pass constantly. Ask any traffic engineer- that sort of churning causes way more mayhem than do deer at mid-day.


You seem simultaneously full of excuses for your own behavior, yet perfectly willing to shove your fingers in your ears and not answer those of us asking you why it's impossible to simply punish the actions (driving poorly, striking another vehicle, causing damage or injury) rather than the perceived cause of a potential injury/damage.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Don't drink/smoke and drive. Is that too difficult to observe?


Also keep both hands on the wheel at all times.  Keep your seatbelt on.  Do not fiddle with the radio or mp3 player or phone or anything, including in hands-free modes (that has still been shown to be a really huge distraction).  Do not pay attention to conversations others are having in your vehicle.  Travel with a companion if you have children or pets in the car, so that they can attend to them and you do not deviate from your 100% concentration on the road.  Do not eat or drink while driving.  Empty your bladder before you drive, so that you don't get distracted by needing to go, or by looking for rest stop signs on the interstate if applicable.  Ensure that all medications have been taken to avoid any potential medical emergency --- but ensure you did not take anything that could potentially affect your ability to drive.  This includes OTC medications and even supplements or energy drinks.  Be sure you are correctly hydrated, but not too hydrated (see bathroom breaks above).  Stretch properly to avoid leg cramps.  Make sure your hair is pulled back, if applicable, so you don't have to take your hands off the wheel to get it out of your face.  Clean your glasses before each time you turn on the car.  If you are wearing contacts, apply rewetting drops.  If it is night, please clean your headlights off to remove any grime; even a little can reduce visibility and cost you a precious second of reaction time.  Top off all fluids.  Ensure your tires are perfectly inflated.  Adjust all climate settings before you go anywhere. 

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few thousand.

How difficult is that to observe?

----------


## Origanalist

> Also keep both hands on the wheel at all times.  Keep your seatbelt on.  Do not fiddle with the radio or mp3 player or phone or anything, including in hands-free modes (that has still been shown to be a really huge distraction).  Do not pay attention to conversations others are having in your vehicle.  Travel with a companion if you have children or pets in the car, so that they can attend to them and you do not deviate from your 100% concentration on the road.  Do not eat or drink while driving.  Empty your bladder before you drive, so that you don't get distracted by needing to go, or by looking for rest stop signs on the interstate if applicable.  Ensure that all medications have been taken to avoid any potential medical emergency --- but ensure you did not take anything that could potentially affect your ability to drive.  This includes OTC medications and even supplements or energy drinks.  Be sure you are correctly hydrated, but not too hydrated (see bathroom breaks above).  Stretch properly to avoid leg cramps.  Make sure your hair is pulled back, if applicable, so you don't have to take your hands off the wheel to get it out of your face.  Clean your glasses before each time you turn on the car.  If you are wearing contacts, apply rewetting drops.  If it is night, please clean your headlights off to remove any grime; even a little can reduce visibility and cost you a precious second of reaction time.  Top off all fluids.  Ensure your tires are perfectly inflated.  Adjust all climate settings before you go anywhere. 
> 
> I'm sure I'm forgetting a few thousand.
> 
> How difficult is that to observe?


And when you're done making sure of all that have fun pulling yourself off of the steering wheel after running into a tree. It's like those &*&^%^ school zones with the traffic camera's. Everybody is so busy watching the speedometer I'm surprised kids aren't mowed down every day.

----------


## MelissaWV

> why would that matter? threats & harassment cause NO PHYSICAL HARM, NO INJURY, NO LOSS.


Some do, and that was part of osan's point.  Most of the time I would not call threats a real criminal matter, unless some demonstrable step has been taken towards fulfilling the threat.  Incidentally, this is one of our legal system's weakest points.  We have these dumbass "restraining orders."  Well, in order to take out a restraining order against you, do you know what I have to do?  That's right.  I have to tell you the finer details of my life so that you can avoid running into me.  I have to give you my work information, my residence information, and a long list of other places I might frequent.  Why would I want to supply someone who I'm afraid of with all of these details?  It has to be kept up with when I move, too, so what's the point?  So that once I'm dead people can go "but he violated the restraining order!"?

Threats might cause me to have to move, or change my number, or do other things that cost me a bit of money.  Harassment might cost me sleep or time at work or other things.  As osan mentioned, these come under the heading of tort issues.  I don't think most folks who harass or threaten really belong in jail alongside actual rapists and murderers, though, since all it's going to really do is give them time and mentors to refine their technique and, when they get out, I'll have to have given them that nice long list of places I frequent... just in case they'd like to "apologize" in person :>

----------


## MelissaWV

> And when you're done making sure of all that have fun pulling yourself off of the steering wheel after running into a tree. It's like those &*&^%^ school zones with the traffic camera's. Everybody is so busy watching the speedometer I'm surprised kids aren't mowed down every day.


Which reminds me!

Make sure your hands are not at 10 and 2.  That is old-fashioned and dangerous.

----------


## truelies

> .............why it's impossible to simply punish the actions (driving poorly, striking another vehicle, causing damage or injury) rather than the perceived cause of a potential injury/damage.


Getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and moving off  drunk is in fact a dangerous ACTION threating all who cross your path. What part of a drunk can't control a vehicle for $#@! is your pea brain unable to absorb? Driving drunk/high, driving an ill maintained vehicle, yakking on a cell/texting while driving, driving too fast for conditions(regardless of a posted limit) are ALL actions which make you a clear & present danger to all who cross your weaving path. Don't believe me? Check it out with a highway engineer.

----------


## truelies

> ................... It's like those &*&^%^ school zones with the traffic camera's. Everybody is so busy watching the speedometer I'm surprised kids aren't mowed down every day.


Bull$#@!! If you are unable to gauge your speed to within 2 - 3 mph by feel of road and engine sound alone you are probably a sufficiently poor driver that a bus token would be a better option.

----------


## truelies

> ..............I'm sure I'm forgetting a few thousand.
> 
> How difficult is that to observe?


for YOU obviously pretty tough soooooooo yer mom would be advised to not give you the keys to her car until you demonstrate far more maturity than you do here.

----------


## Origanalist

> Bull$#@!! If you are unable to gauge your speed to within 2 - 3 mph by feel of road and engine sound alone you are probably a sufficiently poor driver that a bus token would be a better option.


Blarg, blarg, blarg.......

I've been driving 40 years and I have yet to injure anybody. Don't you have a DickTator 101 class to attend?

----------


## phill4paul

> Getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and moving off  drunk is in fact a dangerous ACTION threating all who cross your path. What part of a drunk can't control a vehicle for $#@! is your pea brain unable to absorb? Driving drunk/high, driving an ill maintained vehicle, yakking on a cell/texting while driving, driving too fast for conditions(regardless of a posted limit) are ALL actions which make you a clear & present danger to all who cross your weaving path. Don't believe me? Check it out with a highway engineer.


  You forgot speeding. The highway engineers came up with the designations for a reason. Now be a good responsible citizen and turn yourself in.

----------


## truelies

> You forgot speeding. ......................


Nope, I don't drive at speeds which provoke the barneys. sorry to burst your bubble. 80 mph on the nebraska interstate doesn't spin them up. 80 mph thru a school zone while hammered does make them a bit testy and for good reason.

----------


## truelies

> ......
> 
> I've been driving 40 years and I have yet to injure anybody. ......................?


are you sure? Lots of things could have happened that being hammered at the time keeps you from remembering

----------


## Origanalist

> are you sure? Lots of things could have happened that being hammered at the time keeps you from remembering


Quite sure. Now you're late for class, better get going.

----------


## osan

> In your dreams perhaps. In the real world act in a manner which the Community judges to be a clear & present danger to the Lives & Property of others and you will suffer unpleasant consequences as well you should. wanna exercise your prefect 'freedom' GET THE HELL FAR AWAY FROM THE REST OF US!!!! 
> 
> BTW driving a motor vehicle while hammered is to any reasoning person a clear and present danger to all who cross paths with said vehicle. Highway carnage ststa bear that out. Wearing a pointy hat and shouting ethnic insults while perhaps rude is far more likely to result in injury to the shouter than to the shouted at thus hardly a clear & present danger.


Reads like a good statist.  You express tacit inferences about what I wrote that in no way reflect my expressed positions.

You must be so proud.

PLONK.

----------


## osan

> are you sure? Lots of things could have happened that being hammered at the time keeps you from remembering


It is pretty clear we have a troll on our hands because nobody capable of operating even a Windows PC could be this brain damaged.

Do as you will, but I'm done feeding it.  I have better things to do with my time.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It is pretty clear we have a troll on our hands because nobody capable of operating even a Windows PC could be this brain damaged.
> 
> Do as you will, but I'm done feeding it.  I have better things to do with my time.


Eh, it's practice for when you meet one for real.

You know, one of the "true believers", the truly dangerous bootlicks and authoritarian worshipers of the state, that are convinced that all will be right with the world, just so long as you give unlimited power to government to destroy peoples lives.

----------


## tod evans

I keep offering to feed it a beer and for some reason get no response? 

Hell I'm not even a big-tough internet macho-man, just some ol' bald/grey hillbilly who'd really like to discuss attitudes over a beer..

----------


## osan

> Eh, it's practice for when you meet one for real.
> 
> You know, one of the "true believers", the truly dangerous bootlicks and authoritarian worshipers of the state, that are convinced that all will be right with the world, just so long as you give unlimited power to government to destroy peoples lives.


Your sarcasm is developing a fine edge.  I think this merits rep.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Nope, I don't drive at speeds which provoke the barneys. sorry to burst your bubble. 80 mph on the nebraska interstate doesn't spin them up. 80 mph thru a school zone while hammered does make them a bit testy and for good reason.


It's telling that you are somehow implying it wouldn't make them a bit testy and for good reason if the driver weren't hammered.

----------


## MelissaWV

> for YOU obviously pretty tough soooooooo yer mom would be advised to not give you the keys to her car until you demonstrate far more maturity than you do here.


Yes, I'm far less mature than someone who calls everyone who disagrees with them and asks intelligent questions a pea brain, or someone who lives in their parent's basement, or someone whose mom holds the keys to the car.

----------


## Danke

I can attest to that, *if* it is possible to fly over the cold waters of the North Atlantic in a single seat 50 million dollar Jet Fighter with no land in sight, legally drunk (well, very very hung over?) and still walk away from a landing in Copenhagen in time for happy hour (although first mistakenly walking in to a gay Karoke bar, music attracts), and still find it back to the hotel room for the night, one can certainly drive...


...wait, what was the original subject again?

----------


## Tpoints

> Does it really matter if Mr. Stovall was "drunk" or not?  He WEAVED THROUGH SEVERAL LANES OF TRAFFIC (that's already RECKLESS DRIVING), and HIT ANOTHER VEHICLE (another moving violation), and HE INJURED THAT VEHICLE'S DRIVER (already vehicular assault, when coupled with the other charges).  The point has been made here umpteen times that the alcohol in his system SHOULD BE USED AS AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR when considering what this dirtbag should receive as a sentence.


the victim might not care, just as a victim of being shot does not care how he was shot, but when it comes to punishment, prevention, assigning blame, of course it matters. A person who killed another because his vehicle has mechanical failure is not punished differently than a person who purposely uses his perfectly working vehicle to injure somebody.

----------


## Tpoints

> You seem simultaneously full of excuses for your own behavior, yet perfectly willing to shove your fingers in your ears and not answer those of us asking you why it's impossible to simply punish the actions (driving poorly, striking another vehicle, causing damage or injury) rather than the perceived cause of a potential injury/damage.


He probably doesn't think it's impossible, just not satisfactory.

----------


## tod evans

///Reported///




> I can attest to that, *if* it is possible to fly over the cold waters of the North Atlantic in a single seat 50 million dollar Jet Fighter with no land in sight, legally drunk (well, very very hung over?) and still walk away from a landing in Copenhagen in time for happy hour (although first mistakenly walking in to a gay Karoke bar, music attracts), and still find it back to the hotel room for the night, one can certainly drive...
> 
> 
> ...wait, what was the original subject again?

----------


## truelies

> .................asks intelligent questions a pea brain, ........................


You have yet to ask an intelligent question. Just that tied mantra from you and the other trolls that you have a 'right' to drive hammered.

Are you or are you NOT a better driver when you drive unhammered, eh?

----------


## truelies

> It's telling that you are somehow implying it wouldn't make them a bit testy and for good reason if the driver weren't hammered.


Thing is folks are ever sooo much more likely to do stupid things when hammered. Therefore efforts to keep them from driving after getting hammered are in the interest of all innocent parties.

----------


## Tpoints

> You have yet to ask an intelligent question. Just that tied mantra from you and the other trolls that you have a 'right' to drive hammered.
> 
> Are you or are you NOT a better driver when you drive unhammered, eh?


Since when is whether you are better driver determinant of whether you are allowed to or have a right to drive?

----------


## Tpoints

> Thing is folks are ever sooo much more likely to do stupid things when hammered. Therefore efforts to keep them from driving after getting hammered are in the interest of all innocent parties.


Except those who are prohibited from driving, but I can see in your book, those people are not innocent.

----------


## MelissaWV

> You have yet to ask an intelligent question. Just that tied mantra from you and the other trolls that you have a 'right' to drive hammered.
> 
> Are you or are you NOT a better driver when you drive unhammered, eh?


You are either driving well, or you are not.  The reason is irrelevant to me.  If, as you claim, driving "hammered" causes you to drive like $#@! regardless, why is it a problem to just punish people who are actually driving like $#@!?  That isn't a "right to drive hammered."  It's a right not to be pulled over and jailed if you are driving well.

Easy stuff.

Now, can you stop talking as if there is some magical line after which you are automatically too impaired to drive a vehicle?  Even articles and guidelines relating to BAC say things like 




> The BAC chart below is only intended only as a general guide. Actual “Blood Alcohol Concentration” (BAC) values will vary by body build, sex, and current health status.
> Note in reading the BAC chart below, that fatigue and other “stress factors” can temporarily lower a person’s tolerance level to alcohol. In other words, you’ll likely have deteriorated mental and physical functions “sooner” (and/or with less alcohol consumed) when you are stressed-out than you would when you have that same amount of alcohol in your system but are “feeling great”. Therefore, when you are particularly tired or “mentally drained”, either do not drink at all or… drink less.


Variations?  How can such a thing be, when there is a magic number?  

Again, why even worry since you've already asserted that everyone driving with a BAC over that magic number is weaving around and driving terribly.  They would be caught by what I've already talked about.  The difference is that I would want them punished no easier or harder than those who drive like $#@! for any other reason they could have easily avoided.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Thing is folks are ever sooo much more likely to do stupid things when hammered. Therefore efforts to keep them from driving after getting hammered are in the interest of all innocent parties.


You were talking about going 80mph in a school zone.  You added the "hammered" part as if that person wouldn't have been doing something incredibly wrong if they had only been sober.

----------


## Tpoints

> You are either driving well, or you are not.  The reason is irrelevant to me.  If, as you claim, driving "hammered" causes you to drive like $#@! regardless, why is it a problem to just punish people who are actually driving like $#@!?


what does driving like $#@! have to do with your right to drive?

----------


## tod evans

> You were talking about going 80mph in a school zone.  You added the "hammered" part as if that person wouldn't have been doing something incredibly wrong if they had only been sober.


I've been lead to believe that trelies believes it's okay for people who don't drink and drive a "well maintained" car to drive 80mph through school zones on sunny days in Nebraska...just so long as he's not going to meet an ol' hillbilly for a beer...

----------


## Tpoints

> I've been lead to believe that trelies believes it's okay for people who don't drink and drive a "well maintained" car to drive 80mph through school zones on sunny days in Nebraska...just so long as he's not going to meet an ol' hillbilly for a beer...


if so, he's a hypocrite. There are only 2 consistent positions, you either believe there should be absolutely no law and restrictions on driving for purposes of safety, or you believe that everything short of absolute safety is fair game to be outlaw. Anything else is arbitrary, subjective, unfair and selective.

----------


## MelissaWV

> what does driving like $#@! have to do with your right to drive?


Earlier examples were things like speeding the wrong way down a one-way, which happens here all the time as people take the wrong rap and wind up on the interstate going the wrong way.  They're usually sober, just confused, and I guess they have no idea what all the red reflectors are for.  I am not talking about someone who doesn't use their blinker, or who drifts into the rumble strips.  I am talking someone who is driving in a demonstrably wreckless and dangerous way, which would have to be proven to a jury of the driver's peers.

----------


## MelissaWV

> if so, he's a hypocrite. There are only 2 consistent positions, you either believe there should be absolutely no law and restrictions on driving for purposes of safety, or you believe that everything short of absolute safety is fair game to be outlaw. Anything else is arbitrary, subjective, unfair and selective.


I don't think there are only two.  Frankly, I think most traffic violations are idiotic, but I think there is still room for someone who is so outrageously and obviously driving in a way that's going to kill someone... to be charged with a crime.  That crime should have to be proven in a court of law and carry a rational sentence.  I would think something like that would be incredibly rare, though.

----------


## Tpoints

> Earlier examples were things like speeding the wrong way down a one-way, which happens here all the time as people take the wrong rap and wind up on the interstate going the wrong way.  They're usually sober, just confused, and I guess they have no idea what all the red reflectors are for.  I am not talking about someone who doesn't use their blinker, or who drifts into the rumble strips.  I am talking someone who is driving in a *demonstrably wreckless and dangerous way, which would have to be proven to a jury of the driver's peers.*


Yeah, and what does that have to do with whether he has a right to drive? What if he was trying to kill himself? Isn't that a Constitutionally guaranteed freedom?

What law are you using when you apply the 'demonstrably reckless, provable to his peers' standard? What gives anybody the right to tell a person he has a duty to not drive reckless? And since when is a person's rights determined by his peers?

----------


## Tpoints

> I don't think there are only two.  Frankly, I think most traffic violations are idiotic, but I think there is still room for someone who is so outrageously and obviously driving in a way that's going to kill someone... to be charged with a crime.  That crime should have to be proven in a court of law and carry a rational sentence.  I would think something like that would be incredibly rare, though.


What are the non-idiotic ones and who do we ask to decide which ones to keep? Where do you draw the line of "outrageously and obviously in a way it's going to kill somebody"? Do you believe in pre-crime? DWI already are very rare, so I don't know what rare you are expecting.

----------


## MelissaWV

> What are the non-idiotic ones and who do we ask to decide which ones to keep? Where do you draw the line of "outrageously and obviously in a way it's going to kill somebody"? Do you believe in pre-crime? DWI already are very rare, so I don't know what rare you are expecting.


I see from the post above this one where the confusion lies.  

I'm not talking about a "right to drive."  I'm talking about whether or not precrime is ever an acceptable basis for a crime, which I actually do, but which would also be so rare as to almost not necessitate being discussed.  

I poison your food.  I'm not very good at it, so when I serve you your food, you notice the "rat poison" bottle right there next to the stew pot, put two and two together, and don't eat it.  Is there a crime here?  You weren't poisoned.  My intentions were obvious and malicious, but you didn't actually eat it, so there's no crime.

I weave in and out of traffic, causing people to swerve off of the road.  Worse yet, I am going the wrong way down the interstate as in my aforementioned example.  When I notice this, I use the median to execute a U-turn so that I'm now going the right way on the interstate, further causing people to have to off-road to get out of my way.  None of them were injured, and I managed not to hit any of them because they got out of my way just in time.  What if one of them hit the guard rail to get away from me?  Technically, it was their steering that caused them to hit the guard rail.  I didn't hit them.  

I park my vehicle in the middle of the road, across two lanes of traffic on an overpass so that no one can get by.  I am drunk as a skunk and sit on the hood of my car, having another few beers for good measure.  I have hurt no one, though I am costing them a great deal of time and money.  

The first scenario would surely hinge on the obvious evidence of the poisoned food and the poison in front of you, but you'll have a hard time in court because it will be your word against mine.  Still, I'm betting you'd kind of like the charge of attempted murder to be available.  

The second scenario happens in front of many witnesses, and it is through their action alone that they avoid my causing them damage and possibly death.  Is there really no room for a general charge of wreckless driving, which should be worded to include only the most brutal and obvious and witnessed of scenarios?

The third scenario is an issue of tort, of course, even though I was driving drunk at the time.  I caused no one any harm, I put no one in any danger, but I did cost people time and money and they should be able to try to recoup that loss.

* * * 

Speeding, drinking while driving, seatbelts, and a thousand other things, are supposedly required so that we'll be safe from ourselves or so others will be safe from  us.  It's unnecessary.  If there is actually a real danger caused, then the focus should be on that, not the reason.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I can attest to that, *if* it is possible to fly over the cold waters of the North Atlantic in a single seat 50 million dollar Jet Fighter with no land in sight, legally drunk (well, very very hung over?) and still walk away from a landing in Copenhagen in time for happy hour (although first mistakenly walking in to a gay Karoke bar, music attracts), and still find it back to the hotel room for the night, one can certainly drive...
> 
> 
> ...wait, what was the original subject again?


Yeah, mistake, righttttt....

----------


## Tpoints

> Is there really no room for a general charge of wreckless driving, which should be worded to include only the most brutal and obvious and witnessed of scenarios?
> 
> * * * 
> 
> Speeding, drinking while driving, seatbelts, and a thousand other things, are supposedly required so that we'll be safe from ourselves or so others will be safe from  us.  It's unnecessary.  If there is actually a real danger caused, then the focus should be on that, not the reason.


No, there is no room. Not unless you are willing to open the door for slippery slope abuse. This is precisely what pre-crime means, you let CHANCE AND POSSIBILITY dictate an action's legality, and not the results alone. I don't need to teach you the old wise quote : better to let a million people who are guilty run free than to let even one person innocent imprisoned or punished, when in doubt, always err on freedom, because too much freedom is always better than not enough.

"If there is actually a real danger caused, then the focus should be on that, not the reason." Ok, I'm confused again, how do you separate the reason from the cause?

----------


## phill4paul

> Nope, I don't drive at speeds which provoke the barneys. sorry to burst your bubble. 80 mph on the nebraska interstate doesn't spin them up. 80 mph thru a school zone while hammered does make them a bit testy and for good reason.


  Some can drink in ways which don't provoke the Barney's. In fact the Barney;s might not even notice unless there was a financial incentive to detain an individual long enough to make a bust.
  I'm glad that the cops in your state don't enforce THE LAW. You've skated pretty well for being such a menace to society.

----------


## Tpoints

> Some can drink in ways which don't provoke the Barney's. In fact the Barney;s might not even notice unless there was a financial incentive to detain an individual long enough to make a bust.
>   I'm glad that the cops in your state don't enforce THE LAW. You've skated pretty well for being such a menace to society.


why do you call po-pos Barneys?

----------


## phill4paul

> I keep offering to feed it a beer and for some reason get no response? 
> 
> Hell I'm not even a big-tough internet macho-man, just some ol' bald/grey hillbilly who'd really like to discuss attitudes over a beer..


  If I were in the west I'd take ya up!

----------


## tod evans

> If I were in the west I'd take ya up!


I'd buy ya' one, probably get along fine.........It's a long drive for me to "the west"..

----------


## truelies

> Some can drink in ways which don't provoke the Barney's. ............................


Unlikely once they are behind the wheel.

----------


## tod evans

> why do you call po-pos Barneys?


Po-Po= intercity slang probably from the 90's

Barnies= Barney Fife of Andy Griffith fame usually used in upper Midwest and westward

Johnny= Johnny Law 60's Southern Midwest.

I don't know any Eastern slang...

Heat, Fuzz,The Man, Pigs, etc are pretty universal..

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Bull$#@!! If you are unable to gauge your speed to within 2 - 3 mph by feel of road and engine sound alone you are probably a sufficiently poor driver that a bus token would be a better option.


What a pompous ass!  Forget the drunk driving debate.  I drive for a living every day for hours on end, and I have never even taken the time to try to gauge speed based on feel and engine sound.  I know how fast I'm going, but it's pretty pointless to try to guess your speed.  Regardless of what your opinions are, you are obviously an arrogant jerk who likes to show off by telling us all how to be good drivers.  At least I don't do that, and driving is my job.

----------


## brandon

Wow poor guy. I've known a couple drunks who have gotten 4 or even 5 DUIs before turning their life around and getting into AA.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Nope, I don't drive at speeds which provoke the barneys. sorry to burst your bubble. 80 mph on the nebraska interstate doesn't spin them up. 80 mph thru a school zone while hammered does make them a bit testy and for good reason.


So you're saying it's only illegal if it annoys the cops...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Thing is folks are ever sooo much more likely to do stupid things when hammered. Therefore efforts to keep them from driving after getting hammered are in the interest of all innocent parties.


Yes, and interested parties should attempt to keep them from driving, but not by force of law.  If need be, take away their keys.  But don't call the cops and send them to jail, hurting their chances for employment/their image.

----------


## osan

> I poison your food.  I'm not very good at it, so when I serve you your food, you notice the "rat poison" bottle right there next to the stew pot, put two and two together, and don't eat it.  Is there a crime here?  You weren't poisoned.  My intentions were obvious and malicious, but you didn't actually eat it, so there's no crime.


Your point is interesting and the questions not new.  Grey areas arise. The concept of "attempted" crime is an interesting one precisely because of the broad grey areas to be found there.

If I attempt to rob a bank but in a fit of conscience realize I am wrong and abort, have I committed a crime?  I suspect most people would say yes, but is it really so?  What I have actually done is _threaten_ others through the attempt.  Is issuing a threat a crime?  The answer is, "it depends".  It depends on the effect of the threats upon others.  What if a child is on a balance beam at school and his classmate threatens to push him off while holding no real intention of doing so.  The child on the balance beam falls off, strikes his head on the gym floor and dies.  Has a crime committed?  If yes, then would we say the same had the other child farted or told a stupid joke that caused the one on the beam to lose concentration, fall, and die?

At what point can the causal connection between two events be established such that crime may be concluded to have occurred?  It is easier when Johnny pulls out his knife and cuts Jimmy's throat with no justifiable reason.  We call that murder.  But the child on the beam, having fallen to his death as the result of the other child's having cracked a joke... I would not call that a crime, all else equal.  Of course, if the joker announces that he told the joke with the knowledge that his buddy would crack up and fall; that he did so with the intention of having this happen in hopes the other would die, perhaps another conclusion might be reached.  Where's the line?  Is there one?




> Speeding, drinking while driving, seatbelts, and a thousand other things, are supposedly required so that we'll be safe from ourselves or so others will be safe from  us.  It's unnecessary.  If there is actually a real danger caused, then the focus should be on that, not the reason.


Agreed.  DWI and other such laws are unnecessary and immoral.  Interfering with one who may be reasonably deemed as posing a clear and immediate threat to others can be justified.  Taking his keys away and perhaps escorting him to the drunk tank may not be unreasonable.  Arresting, trying, convicting, fining, and imprisoning him cannot be justified. 

DWI laws and those like it are nothing more than "because I said so" laws.  Because the "state" says you cannot and we will jack you up like nobody's business if you defy us.  That is not "law"; it is bald-faced tyranny with the flimsy veneer of "public safety" painted on it.  The appeal to emotion, combined with brutal enforcement and general public unwillingness to use their brains for something more than hat racks has given rise to general acceptance of this dangerous nonsense.

----------


## osan

> Po-Po= intercity slang probably from the 90's


Not to be confused with "Bo Bo", our beloved Commander In Chief.

----------


## tod evans

> Not to be confused with "Bo Bo", our beloved Commander In Chief.


Point!

----------


## truelies

> So you're saying it's only illegal if it annoys the cops...


Nope, I am saying the cops & most everyone else understands that 75mph is a good bit below the speed at which a quality interstate may be safely traveled AND that 80mph is within the error range for their speed detection gear soooooo driving in the 75 - 80 range is rarely hard enforced as there are more than enough truly reckless highway miscreants to give barney a good bag for the day.

----------


## truelies

*Originally Posted by MelissaWV

I poison your food. I'm not very good at it, so when I serve you your food, you notice the "rat poison" bottle right there next to the stew pot, put two and two together, and don't eat it. Is there a crime here? You weren't poisoned. My intentions were obvious and malicious, but you didn't actually eat it, so there's no crime.*


hmmmmm, your intended vic would be prefectly justified in pursing and putting you down with any weapon which comes to hand with FULL Community approval........at least in a society which understands and takes Liberty seriously.

----------


## truelies

> .......................  If need be, take away their keys.  But don't call the cops and send them to jail, hurting their chances for employment/their image.


yeah, right give them a chance to call the cops for false imprisonment once they sober up. Nah the barneys can have 'em.

----------


## Tpoints

> Wow poor guy. I've known a couple drunks who have gotten 4 or even 5 DUIs before turning their life around and getting into AA.


turn their life around? What were they doing wrong?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Nope, I am saying the cops & most everyone else understands that 75mph is a good bit below the speed at which a quality interstate may be safely traveled AND that 80mph is within the error range for their speed detection gear soooooo driving in the 75 - 80 range is rarely hard enforced as there are more than enough truly reckless highway miscreants to give barney a good bag for the day.


There was a quote once:

The best way to make a law obsolete is to strictly enforce it.  [paraphrased]

Can someone dig that up for me?  I'm too lazy and a google search yielded nothing.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> yeah, right give them a chance to call the cops for false imprisonment once they sober up. Nah the barneys can have 'em.


The cops don't arrest citizens for false imprisonment.  Even if they did, that's not the way it should be.  What I'm talking about is a liberty-oriented ideology.  You let the individuals and their friends decide how to best handle the situation.  What's wrong with the situation I just laid out?  Would it not be better than sending the person to jail?

----------


## muh_roads

I shed my libertarianism when it comes to public roads.  Driving is the most dangerous thing human beings do on a daily basis.  If you don't respect that, then I don't care if you are locked away.

He has clearly demonstrated he drives recklessly when drunk.  So simply taking his license away is not enough.

I would go so far as to ban handheld cellphone use.  Pay attention to the road you terrible $#@!ing drivers.

----------


## Tpoints

> *I shed my libertarianism when it comes to public roads.*  Driving is the most dangerous thing human beings do on a daily basis.  If you don't respect that, then I don't care if you are locked away.
> 
> He has clearly demonstrated he drives recklessly when drunk.  So simply taking his license away is not enough.
> 
> I would go so far as to ban handheld cellphone use.  Pay attention to the road you terrible $#@!ing drivers.


that says it all.

----------


## Origanalist

> that says it all.


I agree. It says "I love big government as long as it's *my* big government.

----------


## muh_roads

I'm not sure how privatizing roads would change drunken behavior.  But, yeah, I'm not against them.

----------


## muh_roads

> I agree. It says "I love big government as long as it's *my* big government.


If you had a loved one killed by a drunk driver you would think differently.

Locking people away for multiple offenses of jeopardizing other peoples lives doesn't break the John Birch Society code unless you are an anarchist.

----------


## Tpoints

> I'm not sure how privatizing roads would change drunken behavior.  But, yeah, I'm not against them.


but you're sure government enforced DUI law will change drunken behavior?

----------


## muh_roads

> but you're sure government enforced DUI law will change drunken behavior?


It will if he is behind bars.  Taking his license away and claiming that is enough to keep him from getting behind the wheel again is stupid.

Prison is meant for people that cause a violent action against others.  I'm not sure I would give a life sentence though.

----------


## Origanalist

> If you had a loved one killed by a drunk driver you would think differently.
> 
> Locking people away for multiple offenses of jeopardizing other peoples lives doesn't break the John Birch Society code unless you are an anarchist.


That wasn't the only thing he said though;



> I would go so far as to ban handheld cellphone use. Pay attention to the road you terrible $#@!ing drivers.


I have no problem jailing the guy in question as he was obviously driving recklessly and hit someone. Life sentence?

----------


## truelies

> The cops don't arrest citizens for false imprisonment.  .............


yeah they do.

----------


## truelies

> I shed my libertarianism when it comes to public roads.  Driving is the most dangerous thing human beings do on a daily basis.  If you don't respect that, then I don't care if you are locked away.
> 
> He has clearly demonstrated he drives recklessly when drunk.  So simply taking his license away is not enough.
> 
> I would go so far as to ban handheld cellphone use.  Pay attention to the road you terrible $#@!ing drivers.


Paladin, you do realise that the troll crew arguing drunk driving as a natural right are most likely out to DISCREDIT Liberty at worst or at best have the take on 'liberty' appropriate to an immature 20 something still living off mom & pop while waxing righteous indignant at the very thought of being held personally accountable for anything.

----------


## tod evans

Just in case you missed it last go-round while you were busy lapping up pearls of "wisdom" from governments propaganda arm..

*Boy*.




> Take your "*ordered*" idea of liberty and march it goose-step whence you came, I'll have no part of it.





> Paladin, you do realise that the troll crew arguing drunk driving as a natural right are most likely out to DISCREDIT Liberty at worst or at best have the take on 'liberty' appropriate to an immature 20 something still living off mom & pop while waxing righteous indignant at the very thought of being held personally accountable for anything.

----------


## truelies

Keep trolling uncle. With 'friends' like you Liberty has all the enemies its defeat will ever require.

----------


## tod evans

> Keep trolling uncle. With 'friends' like you Liberty has all the enemies its defeat will ever require.


Have you read anything Ron Paul has written?

Ever listened to him speak?

My idea of "Liberty" is well represented by Dr.Pauls position...

"Liberty" at the hands of a police state as you advocate is the antithesis of anything I'll be part of.

*Boy*

----------


## MelissaWV

> Paladin, you do realise that the troll crew arguing drunk driving as a natural right are most likely out to DISCREDIT Liberty at worst or at best have the take on 'liberty' appropriate to an immature 20 something still living off mom & pop while waxing righteous indignant at the very thought of being held personally accountable for anything.


It is very telling that you still paint the discussion with this broad brush and have to resort to insults.  What a shame.

----------


## Origanalist



----------


## presence

> Po-Po= intercity slang probably from the 90's
> 
> Barnies= Barney Fife of Andy Griffith fame usually used in upper Midwest and westward
> 
> Johnny= Johnny Law 60's Southern Midwest.
> 
> 
> I don't know any Eastern slang...
> 
> Heat, Fuzz,The Man, Pigs, etc are pretty universal..


The Man
Narcs
Stormtroopers
Nazis
Doughnut Squad
Doughnut Commandos
5-0
Copper
Bacon
Pork
Babylon 
Tinman
The Brass
Heavy
Boys in Blue
Don'tazemebro
Flat foot
The Law
Johnny Law
Whoop-Whoop

----------


## truelies

> ........................My idea of "Liberty" is well represented by Dr.Pauls position.................


sure thing uncle- I've got no doubt Dr Paul is all in with your drunk driver liberation movement. LMAO

----------


## truelies

> It is very telling that .............................


I can spot trolling a mile away-yeppers.

BTW- are you REALLY such a whack job that you think a failed attempt at murder should be passed off as 'no harm/no foul'?

YES!!!! in your own words you are just that sort of whack job.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I can spot trolling a mile away-yeppers.
> 
> BTW- are you REALLY such a whack job that you think a failed attempt at murder should be passed off as 'no harm/no foul'?
> 
> YES!!!! in your own words you are just that sort of whack job.


So my really long post where I argue that attempted murder should be punished... you read that and got that I think it should be passed off as "no harm/no foul."

Right-o.

----------


## tod evans

> sure thing uncle- I've got no doubt Dr Paul is all in with your drunk driver liberation movement. LMAO


Fool (your word) ,I have never advocated drunk driving, go back and read my posts.

You have attributed things to me not said, a very foolish behavior.

Further you insult every member on this board who refuses to bow to your idea of liberty, well *boy*, you are wrong, wrong to insult people, wrong to attempt to paraphrase and wrong to advocate for a police state.

I'm done with this thread and done with your ideas of a police state. Kiss my ass *boy*!

----------


## presence

2:55 - end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpgWAAmVwDM



2:13-2::26  Ron Paul interview on the Morton Downly Jr. SHow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&fe...&v=lyV9Owe3ojA

----------


## Cabal

I don't see how it is just to seek restitution from or punishment upon someone who has caused no damage to persons or property, drunk or not.

I think drunk driving is foolish, in general, but I do not see how it is necessarily criminal. 

Lots of activities are potentially dangerous, this does not mean punishment and restitution should follow from them.

If someone causes destruction of property or harm to persons whether drunk or not, whether behind a wheel or not, they should be held accountable and responsible.

----------


## Ender

> I don't see how it is just to seek restitution from or punishment upon someone who has caused no damage to persons or property, drunk or not.
> 
> I think drunk driving is foolish, in general, but I do not see how it is necessarily criminal. 
> 
> Lots of activities are potentially dangerous, this does not mean punishment and restitution should follow from them.
> 
> If someone causes destruction of property or harm to persons whether drunk or not, whether behind a wheel or not, they should be held accountable and responsible.


1000% in agreement.

----------


## muh_roads

> 2:55 - end
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpgWAAmVwDM
> 
> 2:13-2::26  Ron Paul interview on the Morton Downly Jr. SHow
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&fe...&v=lyV9Owe3ojA


Paul also says you have the right to ask Government to intervene if someone is polluting your property.

When a drunk driver kills somebody ($#@!ing kills somebody for christ sake) that we all are forced to pay for and use, then government should intervene and punish the individual.

I don't like Government Police either but privatizing roads would eventually become a similar monopoly.  Sure the Privatized road companies all having their individual security, and that would be "better" for a time...but soon those companies become monopolies.  Then you have something that is just like big brother on a corporate level.  And since this huge private fictional company donates so much to the politicians, you could just consider this monopolistic corporate entity part of the secondary shadowy government anyway.

I wouldn't $#@! too much with how transportation currently works.  It is vital for an economy that needs to move every single day.  One bad day and the markets could collapse.  That includes private markets as well.

----------


## Tpoints

> I don't see how it is just to seek restitution from or punishment upon someone who has caused no damage to persons or property, drunk or not.
> 
> I think drunk driving is foolish, in general, but I do not see how it is necessarily criminal. 
> 
> Lots of activities are potentially dangerous, this does not mean punishment and restitution should follow from them.
> 
> If someone causes destruction of property or harm to persons whether drunk or not, whether behind a wheel or not, they should be held accountable and responsible.


So for this thread's purposes, what is his appropriate punishment?

----------


## Tpoints

> Paladin, you do realise that the troll crew arguing drunk driving as a natural right are most likely out to DISCREDIT Liberty at worst or at best have the take on 'liberty' appropriate to an immature 20 something still living off mom & pop while waxing righteous indignant at the very thought of being held personally accountable for anything.


so you're saying Lew Rockwell is out to discredit Liberty? 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

----------


## Cabal

> So for this thread's purposes, what is his appropriate punishment?


Punishment for what?

----------


## Tpoints

> Punishment for what?


The man who had his 9th DWI.

----------


## Cabal

> The man who had his 9th DWI.


I'd say restitution owed for any medical bills and property (vehicle) damage of the victim, caused by the accident, would be an appropriate start. I suppose a case could also be made for further restitution on the basis of imposition and lost time, especially if the sustained injuries interfered with work, or something to that effect.

----------


## Tpoints

> I'd say restitution owed for any medical bills and property (vehicle) damage of the victim, caused by the accident, would be an appropriate start. I suppose a case could also be made for further restitution on the basis of imposition and lost time, especially if the sustained injuries interfered with work, or something to that effect.


Well, restitution doesn't plan to happen anytime soon. This country only knows fines and prison.

----------


## KingNothing

> shouldn't you have to infringe on another persons life, liberty, or property before having yours removed permanently?


Agreed, but at the same time.... .32!!  .32!  That is absurdly drunk, and this was his NINTH DUI!? It is only a matter of time before this guy kills people.

----------


## KingNothing

> Could this not have been resolved by barring him from having a drivers license?


How did he still even have a license after NINE DUIs?  Are we sure that he was a licensed driver?

----------


## KingNothing

> Wow.
> 
> We have one of the harshest prison systems in the world.



No, we don't. And thank god for that. We just have the most extensive prison system in the world.

----------


## KingNothing

> A fair criticism, I should have said maybe "In the Western World" or some such.
> 
> The fact remains that we have more people in prison than any other nation on earth.


At least you admit your original statement was completely and unabashedly absurd.

As far as "western" nation goes, we still aren't the harshest, we are just the most extensive.  There are plenty of nations in our backyard that treat prisoners far more poorly than we do - and I think the way we treat prisoners is terrible.

----------


## KingNothing

> Really, it shouldn't be illegal to drink and drive.  It should be illegal to cause damage using a vehicle while being drunk.


I agree completely with this, but at some point it becomes a numbers game -- this guy is rolling the dice each time he gets loaded (.32 BAC!  That is so freaking high!) and it really is only a matter of time before he throws a Yahtzee and kills a family of four.  The judge sentenced him to life in prison with chances at parole after 5-years.  In the mean time, I'm sure (I hope, anyway) he will get the treatment he needs.  At the same time, I don't think he should be held in the same arena as rapist, murderers and other thugs.

If a government is to exist, it should be allowed to forcibly remove people who habitually put others in danger.  This guy shouldn't be executed, he shouldn't be injured... he should be removed from normal society, and treated.

----------


## KingNothing

> Good point. We can't forget the creation of Checkpoints and elimination of the Bill of Rights as an (un?)intended consequence of this war on drugs (alcohol being the excuse in this case).



I believe that higher courts have ruled that Checkpoints are legal because they provide a net gain to safety, when considering the dangers of impaired driving to the loss of liberty involved in each search.  I do not agree with that assumption, or the belief that utilitarian motives are ideal.  At some point, however, it utilitarian ends have to be considered.  If I were a judge on this particular case, I couldn't let this guy go without giving him a "harsh" punishment --- a long period of time removed from society, during which he would be treated and released only upon confirmation from medical experts that he was not likely to put other people at risk.

----------


## osan

> At least you admit your original statement was *completely* and *unabashedly* *absurd*.
> 
> As far as "western" nation goes, we still aren't the harshest, we are just the most extensive.  There are plenty of nations in our backyard that treat prisoners far more poorly than we do - and I think the way we treat prisoners is terrible.


Employing such hyperbole adds nothing of value to the conversation.  His assertion was simply mistaken and you would have done yourself greater credit had you confined your response to that, particularly in light of his forthright acknowledgement in response to your corrective statement.  Better yet would have been to refrain from any such reference whose subtext boils down to, "I was right and you were wrong, neener neener _NEENER_!!"

----------


## KingNothing

> Gee whiz, 258 responses spelling it out and you still don't get it...
> 
> Punish the offender for the criminal act of endangering others, enhance the sentence for elevated BAC......BUT NEVER charge for "pre-crime"..
> And yes DWI is pre-crime...



Don't lose sight of the fact that the man who inspired this thread has NINE DUIs, and his latest saw him driving with a .32 BAC.  This isn't a guy who was nabbed for a .08 a time or two.  I think that at lower blood-alcohol levels, your point is valid.  Once someone is repeatedly caught driving while smashed, something needs to be done before he kills people.  And the odds of a terrible accident happening while driving at .32 (which is enough to put people in comas) is just too high to allow the actor to continue.

----------


## Origanalist

> Employing such hyperbole adds nothing of value to the conversation.  His assertion was simply mistaken and you would have done yourself greater credit had you confined your response to that, particularly in light of his forthright acknowledgement in response to your corrective statement.  Better yet would have been to refrain from any such reference whose subtext boils down to, "I was right and you were wrong, neener neener _NEENER_!!"


Yes, but it makes him feel really smart.  Esteem therapy.

----------


## Tpoints

> Agreed, but at the same time.... .32!!  .32!  That is absurdly drunk, and this was his NINTH DUI!? It is only a matter of time before this guy kills people.


Yeah, but that's still not yet!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> At least you admit your original statement was completely and unabashedly absurd.


No, I do not.

Fifth in order of executions behind such beacons of freedom as China and Iran does not negate the comment as "absurd".

I'll admit to it being a mild exxageration, that is all.

Oh, and WRT to the neg rep comment: the deed is already done.

Done last night again in fact, after a stunning meal in Boston's North End.

A couple of glasses of a really good house Merlot and a twist on a old favorite, a Manhattan made with Southern Comfort.

No carnage ensued.

----------


## AuH20

With freedom comes responsibility. Apparently, this lunatic never got the memo. Forget lifetime imprisonment. There should be an isolated island where they drop these headcases off.

----------


## Origanalist

> I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.


Seems that's not a very popular opinion....

----------


## KingNothing

> No, I do not.
> 
> Fifth in order of executions behind such beacons of freedom as China and Iran does not negate the comment as "absurd".
> 
> I'll admit to it being a mild exxageration, that is all.
> 
> Oh, and WRT to the neg rep comment: the deed is already done.
> 
> Done last night again in fact, after a stunning meal in Boston's North End.
> ...


You're really bragging because you had three or four drinks (or more?) and then drove home without killing yourself or others?  Really?

You know that "buzzed driving is drunk driving" is actually true, right?  Would Ron Paul condone such an action?  You can drive like that and not hurt anyone.  In fact, most of the time people do make it home safely.  I can't recall the exact stat, but I'm relatively certain that most people who get into an alcohol-related accident drive under the influence, on average, 100 or so times before hurting themselves.  

It's just an unnecessary risk to take, and I kindly ask that you refrain from doing so - or at the very least, that you refrain from bragging about it.  Driving buzzed or worse doesn't make you a badass-rebel.  It doesn't make you cool.  It doesn't make you fun or interesting.  It makes you stupid.

From a philosophical standpoint, do you think it would be preferable to have everyone consuming 4+ drinks during dinner, and then driving afterwards?  If you don't think everyone should do (I'm sure you'll retort with some ego-feeding, pseudo-badass remark about how drinking is great and more people should enjoy a glass or four, though), why do you think you should do it?  Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher level of conduct?  Isn't that what is required for Liberty to really hold and flourish?  Isn't that why Ron Paul was such a great standard-bearer?  He's lived a moral life, and led by example.  Why ignore that example?

As a rule, don't drink and drive.  There's no need to complicate things beyond that.  Have a designated driver.  Call a cab.  Drink when you get home.  Do anything other than drinking and driving.

----------


## KingNothing

As far as capital punishment goes, our ranking is high because we're one of the few western nations that still engages in the barbaric act.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Not bragging.

Nope, merely stating a simple fact.

Having couple of glasses of wine and a cocktail at dinner and then driving an hour later will not normally end in spontaneous decapitation.

I also ride motorcycles without a helmet and don't wear a seat belt either.




> You're really bragging because you had three or four drinks (or more?) and then drove home without killing yourself or others?  Really?
> 
> You know that "buzzed driving is drunk driving" is actually true, right?  Would Ron Paul condone such an action?  You can drive like that and not hurt anyone.  In fact, most of the time people do make it home safely.  I can't recall the exact stat, but I'm relatively certain that most people who get into an alcohol-related accident drive under the influence, on average, 100 or so times before hurting themselves.  
> 
> It's just an unnecessary risk to take, and I kindly ask that you refrain from doing so - or at the very least, that you refrain from bragging about it.  Driving buzzed or worse doesn't make you a badass-rebel.  It doesn't make you cool.  It doesn't make you fun or interesting.  It makes you stupid.
> 
> From a philosophical standpoint, do you think it would be preferable to have everyone having 4+ drinks during dinner, and then driving afterwards?  If you don't think everyone should do (I'm sure you'll retort with some ego-feeding, pseudo-badass remark about how drinking is great and more people should enjoy a glass or four, though), why do you think you should do it?  Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher level of conduct?  Isn't that what is required for Liberty to really hold and flourish?  Isn't that why Ron Paul was such a great standard-bearer?  He's lived a moral life, and led by example.  Why ignore his example?
> 
> As a rule, don't drink and drive.  There's no need to complicate things beyond that.  Have a designated driver.  Call a cab.  Drink when you get home.  Do anything other than drinking and driving.





> *Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher level of conduct?  Isn't that what is required for Liberty to really hold and flourish?  Isn't that why Ron Paul was such a great standard-bearer?  He's lived a moral life, and led by example.  Why ignore his example?*


Yes, he has, yet I see him engage in "unsafe behavior".

Riding that tractor without a seat belt.

Riding that bike without a helmet.

I've seen him driving or being driven in cars and vans without a seat belt.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same type of "freedom" here.

If freedom means living a puritanical and self censored life, because you cannot ever, ever, *EVER* do anything that might put you or anybody else at the *slightest* risk of anything, then maybe I've been wrong all along, and am in the wrong place.

----------


## phill4paul

> Not bragging.
> 
> Nope, merely stating a simple fact.
> 
> Having couple of glasses of wine and a cocktail at dinner and then driving an hour later will not normally end in spontaneous decapitation.
> 
> I also ride motorcycles without a helmet and don't wear a seat belt either.
> 
> Yes, he has, yet I see him engage in "unsafe behavior".
> ...


  Meh, neo-prohibitionists are everywhere. "Buzzed driving is drunk driving." Lol. What a hoot. Two glasses of wine and a mixed drink over a couple of hours w/ dinner, for a man of your size/weight, wouldn't even equate to a "buzz." To anyone except a prohibitionist.

  ETA.In fact.. just a guess here...do I remember you saying that you weighed around 230?  So by calculations, not even including the full meal, your BAC was .019%. You deadly, horrible, miscreant.

----------


## Philhelm

> Meh, neo-prohibitionists are everywhere. "Buzzed driving is drunk driving." Lol. What a hoot. Two glasses of wine and a mixed drink over a couple of hours w/ dinner, for a man of your size/weight, wouldn't even equate to a "buzz." To anyone except a prohibitionist.


Meanwhile, the prohibitionists are texting Icelandic sagas while driving...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Meh, neo-prohibitionists are everywhere. "Buzzed driving is drunk driving." Lol. What a hoot. Two glasses of wine and a mixed drink over a couple of hours w/ dinner, for a man of your size/weight, wouldn't even equate to a "buzz." To anyone except a prohibitionist.
> 
>   ETA.In fact.. just a guess here...do I remember you saying that you weighed around 230?  So by calculations, not even including the full meal, your BAC was .019%. You deadly, horrible, miscreant.


LOL at 230, keep going...6'4" and every bit of 300.

----------


## phill4paul

> LOL at 230, keep going...6'4" and every bit of 300.


  Lol. Guess I was a bit off the mark.   Well, that would put your BAC at .007 then. You deadly, horrible, miscreant.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Lol. Guess I was a bit off the mark.   Well, that would put your BAC at .007 then. You deadly, horrible, miscreant.


I am a horrible, horrible man.

I'm off to repent.

----------


## Ender

> You're really bragging because you had three or four drinks (or more?) and then drove home without killing yourself or others?  Really?
> 
> You know that "buzzed driving is drunk driving" is actually true, right?  Would Ron Paul condone such an action?  You can drive like that and not hurt anyone.  In fact, most of the time people do make it home safely.  I can't recall the exact stat, but I'm relatively certain that most people who get into an alcohol-related accident drive under the influence, on average, 100 or so times before hurting themselves.  
> 
> It's just an unnecessary risk to take, and I kindly ask that you refrain from doing so - or at the very least, that you refrain from bragging about it.  Driving buzzed or worse doesn't make you a badass-rebel.  It doesn't make you cool.  It doesn't make you fun or interesting.  It makes you stupid.
> 
> From a philosophical standpoint, do you think it would be preferable to have everyone consuming 4+ drinks during dinner, and then driving afterwards?  If you don't think everyone should do (I'm sure you'll retort with some ego-feeding, pseudo-badass remark about how drinking is great and more people should enjoy a glass or four, though), why do you think you should do it?  Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher level of conduct?  Isn't that what is required for Liberty to really hold and flourish?  Isn't that why Ron Paul was such a great standard-bearer?  He's lived a moral life, and led by example.  Why ignore that example?
> 
> As a rule, don't drink and drive.  There's no need to complicate things beyond that.  Have a designated driver.  Call a cab.  Drink when you get home.  Do anything other than drinking and driving.


Don't get out much do you? 

I do not drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. but in my previous California street-kid life, I knew plenty that did. And I hate to tell you, but many were better drivers after a couple of drinks.

A "higher level of conduct" is knowing oneself and your own personal limitations w/o forcing your doctrines of right or wrong on someone else. If someone drinks and causes a serious accident, then prosecute them, but to punish people who have done nothing but have a couple of beers is asinine.

----------


## Origanalist

> Meanwhile, the prohibitionists are texting Icelandic sagas while driving...


This^^^^

----------


## Origanalist

> Don't get out much do you? 
> 
> I do not drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. but in my previous California street-kid life, I knew plenty that did. And I hate to tell you, but many were better drivers after a couple of drinks.
> 
> A "higher level of conduct" is knowing oneself and your own personal limitations w/o forcing your doctrines of right or wrong on someone else. If someone drinks and causes a serious accident, then prosecute them, but to punish people who have done nothing but have a couple of beers is asinine.





> as·i·nine
>    [as-uh-nahyn] Show IPA 
> 
> adjective 
> 1. 
> foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid: It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statements. 
> 
> 2. 
> of or like an ass: asinine obstinacy; asinine features.

----------


## KingNothing

> and every bit of 300.


Jesus.

Nevermind, then.  It seems the food, not the drink, is your vice.  

I was assuming you were 180-lbs or so, and had five or six drinks in an hour (a bottle of wine and a mixed drink, or thereabouts) or less.

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't drink at all.  I'm just suggesting that they shouldn't drive while drunk. It's stupid. Driving with a .02 BAC is not a problem.  Hell, I think studies have shown that driving with a .08 BAC isn't much of a problem (still, at .08 I would say you should just take a cab).  This thread, however, contained tacit defenses of a guy who has had 9 DUIs, and the latest with a .32-BAC.  To put that in perspective, you'd need to have something on the order of 6-drinks per hour for three hours to get to that level.  That is a problem.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Jesus.
> 
> Nevermind, then.  It seems the food, not the drink, is your vice.


In addition to being a horrible, inconsiderate man, I'm also a disgusting fat ass, right?

LOL

----------


## Origanalist

> In addition to being a horrible, inconsiderate man, I'm also a disgusting fat ass, right?
> 
> LOL


And the hit's just keep coming.........

----------


## Anti Federalist

> And the hit's just keep coming.........


Smokers and fat asses (and apparently people who have a couple drinks with dinner) are acceptable targets for ostracizing and public humiliation within our happy little band of refuseniks.

Let me make one off color remark about homosexuals though...

----------


## Origanalist

> Smokers and fat asses (and apparently people who have a couple drinks with dinner) are acceptable targets for ostracizing and public humiliation within our happy little band of refuseniks.
> 
> Let me make one off color remark about homosexuals though...




Look familiar?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Look familiar?


LOL - Skaters gonna skate.

----------


## gerryb1

Should we all be allowed to discharge our firearms in the city, and only be prosecuted if they can prove our stray bullets hit someone?

----------


## Origanalist

> Should we all be allowed to discharge our firearms in the city, and only be prosecuted if they can prove our stray bullets hit someone?


Yes, cannons too.

In fact, rocket launchers sound really fun.

----------


## phill4paul

> Should we all be allowed to discharge our firearms in the city, and only be prosecuted if they can prove our stray bullets hit someone?


  Should we be sentenced to *life* in prison because we own a firearm and *might* discharge it within city limits at some *future* time and *possibly* injure someone?

----------


## gerryb1

> Should we be sentenced to *life* in prison because we own a firearm and *might* discharge it within city limits at some *future* time and *possibly* injure someone?


If you go out in the city and discharge your weapon every afternoon, after previously being sentenced to a lesser sentence for doing so 8 times, yes.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Should we be sentenced to *life* in prison because we own a firearm and *might* discharge it within city limits at some *future* time and *possibly* injure someone?


Your mandatory (private) insurance will drop you.

No more guns for you.

----------


## phill4paul

> Your mandatory (private) insurance will drop you.
> 
> No more guns for you.


  No $#@!. It's coming.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This thread, however, contained tacit defenses of a guy who has had 9 DUIs, and the latest with a .32-BAC.  .


I, for one am not defending this man, since he *has* caused demonstrable harm to somebody and should be held accountable for *that*.

I fail to see how throwing him in a cage for the rest of his life, at my expense, helps make the person he injured "whole" again.

----------


## AuH20

> I, for one am not defending this man, since he *has* caused demonstrable harm to somebody and should be held accountable for *that*.
> *
> I fail to see how throwing him in a cage for the rest of his life,* at my expense, helps make the person he injured "whole" again.


We need an island.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Your mandatory (private) insurance will drop you.
> 
> No more guns for you.





> No $#@!. It's coming.


Off topic: read what Phill and I are talking about here.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...55#post4749655

*This* is how you will be disarmed.

----------


## jbauer

> Should we be sentenced to *life* in prison because we own a firearm and *might* discharge it within city limits at some *future* time and *possibly* injure someone?


But this guy didn't "might discharge" his weapon.  He discharged it.  At what point is enought enough?  Not sure that life in prison does much other then admit that "we" can't help him.

----------


## phill4paul

> I, for one am not defending this man, since he *has* caused demonstrable harm to somebody and should be held accountable for *that*.
> 
> I fail to see how throwing him in a cage for the rest of his life, at my expense, helps make the person he injured "whole" again.


  No, it will not make the injured person whole. Nor will it even allow any form of recompense. Better to have sentenced him to a term in a State facility for alcohol rehabilitation then ten years under Substance Abuse Felony Probation and a mandatory Antabuse prescription with frequent and random testings.  If this had been done for his third DUI (as allowed by sentencing guidelines) then perhaps there wouldn't have been numbers 4 through 9.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I shed my libertarianism when it comes to public roads.  Driving is the most dangerous thing human beings do on a daily basis.  If you don't respect that, then I don't care if you are locked away.
> 
> He has clearly demonstrated he drives recklessly when drunk.  So simply taking his license away is not enough.
> 
> I would go so far as to ban handheld cellphone use.  Pay attention to the road you terrible $#@!ing drivers.


You obviously don't understand liberty in the first place, or you would realize the inability of laws and government to solve any of these problems.  More laws simply don't help.  What makes you think banning cell phones is going to turn out any better than Prohibition in the 1920s?  Has anyone read about the prohibition days?  It is almost universally agreed that it was a disaster, and we are doing the same thing with drugs and with speeding and so many other things, including alcohol.  Laws just don't help.  That's not to mention the stolen freedom we have when we keep enacting laws that invade privacy and erode our civil liberties.  As a libertarian at all, what are you doing supporting stuff like this?   Like I said, if you really understood liberty in the first place, then you would understand that there's no room for exceptions just because you view something as "too important".  A lot of republicans say the same thing about drugs, but look where we are with that.

----------


## phill4paul

> But this guy didn't "might discharge" his weapon.  He discharged it.  At what point is enought enough?  Not sure that life in prison does much other then admit that "we" can't help him.


  No. He did not kill anyone. He was sentenced to life to "prevent" him from killing anyone.

  "This is someone who very deliberately has refused to make changes and continued to get drunk and get in a car and *before he kills someone* we decided to put him away," said Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley.

  I've mentioned it before so I should again. ACTUALLY killing someone, Intoxication Manslaughter, will only bring a sentence of 2-20. This man, though an offender, has yet to kill anybody. They sentenced him to life for a PRE-crime.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> sure thing uncle- I've got no doubt Dr Paul is all in with your drunk driver liberation movement. LMAO


Well he is.  Seriously, have you ever read any of his books or listened to his speeches on the subject?   It should be painfully obvious if you have, that he is on our side.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I can spot trolling a mile away-yeppers.
> 
> BTW- are you REALLY such a whack job that you think a failed attempt at murder should be passed off as 'no harm/no foul'?
> 
> YES!!!! in your own words you are just that sort of whack job.


"Attempt" implies someone was actually trying to kill someone else.  This is not the case with drunk driving unless it can be proven.

----------


## jbauer

> No. He did not kill anyone. He was sentenced to life to "prevent" him from killing anyone.
> 
>   "This is someone who very deliberately has refused to make changes and continued to get drunk and get in a car and *before he kills someone* we decided to put him away," said Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley.
> 
>   I've mentioned it before so I should again. ACTUALLY killing someone, Intoxication Manslaughter, will only bring a sentence of 2-20. This man, though an offender, has yet to kill anybody. They sentenced him to life for a PRE-crime.


It is my understanding that he didn't kill someone but did hurt them.  You state that the system is screwed up because "had" he killed someone he would have gotten manslaughter.  He shouldn't get manslaughter, he should be lined up and mowed over just like he did to someone else.  You can use all these liberty this and liberty that ideas but this guy infringed on someone elses liberty.  How do you account for that?   How do you account for someone who clearly has shown that he has no intention on not driving drunk?  Do you put the statistical chances of killed by driver even between drunk driver and sober driver?

----------


## jbauer

> Well he is.  Seriously, have you ever read any of his books or listened to his speeches on the subject?   It should be painfully obvious if you have, that he is on our side.


I've read all his books and listened to most his speeches.  He has never said anything I can recall about drunk driving.  He has said we should take personal responsibility for our actions.  It sounds like this guy hurt someone and refuses to remedy his situation.  What do you suggest?  Let him continue to drive drunk until he kills someone?  He commited a "just" crime.  He refused to take responsibility for it.  He continued to commit said crime.  He hurt someone.  What is left to do?  Is life excessive?  Probably.  Is the life he is in the process of taking worthy of a crime?  I say yes.  I think it is resonable to assume that it is much more likley that a drunk driver will kill someone then a sober driver.

----------


## phill4paul

> It is my understanding that he didn't kill someone but did hurt them.  You state that the system is screwed up because "had" he killed someone he would have gotten manslaughter.  He shouldn't get manslaughter, he should be lined up and mowed over just like he did to someone else.  You can use all these liberty this and liberty that ideas but this guy infringed on someone elses liberty.  How do you account for that?   How do you account for someone who clearly has shown that he has no intention on not driving drunk?  Do you put the statistical chances of killed by driver even between drunk driver and sober driver?


  If you had read my responses to this thread then you would know my positions to your questions. But, why not give it another go....

  Yes. He was intoxicated and he injured another party. There are sentencing guidelines for these violations. None of which prescribe a life sentence including the harshest. A better judgement would have been incarceration in a rehabilitation center w/ an additional sentence of Antabuse and 10 years probation w/ random and frequent testing. Then, possibly, he could have given some restitution to the person he injured. As it is the victim will probably never see any form of restitution.

  You say he should be lined up and mowed down for merely causing an accident in which no one was killed. So that is how we are doing it now? Killing people for causing injuries. Well, with a handle like Jack Bauer go figure. 

   Do I put the statistical chances of being killed at even between a drunk driver and a sober one? No. *Statistically speaking a sober driver is the one that will do me in.* Even by the NHTSA standards which are severely skewed towards prohibitionism.

----------


## jbauer

> If you had read my responses to this thread then you would know my positions to your questions. But, why not give it another go....
> 
>   Yes. He was intoxicated and he injured another party. There are sentencing guidelines for these violations. None of which prescribe a life sentence including the harshest. A better judgement would have been incarceration in a rehabilitation center w/ an additional sentence of Antabuse and 10 years probation w/ random and frequent testing. Then, possibly, he could have given some restitution to the person he injured. As it is the victim will probably never see any form of restitution.
>   You say he should be lined up and mowed down for merely causing an accident in which no one was killed. So that is how we are doing it now? Killing people for causing injuries. Well, with a handle like Jack Bauer go figure. 
>   Do I put the statistical chances of being killed at even between a drunk driver and a sober one? No. Statistically speaking a sober driver is the one that will do me in. Even by the NHTSA standards which are severely skewed towards prohibitionism.


Thank you for your response.  I have skimed the 600 responses but haven't put together a spreadsheet with who has which stance.  Liberitarians want just laws and just concequences.  We have neither.  We have to many laws and to light of concequences.  If you truley want to take away laws then you need to  make the concequence of the laws we still have equall to the crime.  I can't think of a better way to make the punishment equall then to put him through the same thing.  

If you think there is any statistical anaylisis that says you're less likley to be killed by a drunk driver then a sober driver you're guilty of not looking at the information objectivly.  The only way you could come to such a conclution is to increase the quantity of sober drivers realitive to the quantity of drunk drivers thus causing the total deaths by sobber drivers to increase not the rate at which they cause a death.

Sorry for my mispellings, I'm playing phone center roulette.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I've read all his books and listened to most his speeches.  He has never said anything I can recall about drunk driving.  He has said we should take personal responsibility for our actions.  It sounds like this guy hurt someone and refuses to remedy his situation.  What do you suggest?  Let him continue to drive drunk until he kills someone?  He commited a "just" crime.  He refused to take responsibility for it.  He continued to commit said crime.  He hurt someone.  What is left to do?  Is life excessive?  Probably.  Is the life he is in the process of taking worthy of a crime?  I say yes.  I think it is resonable to assume that it is much more likley that a drunk driver will kill someone then a sober driver.


I'm not arguing about the guy in the op.  Yeah, he hurt someone.  I don't think a life sentence was necessary.  My comment in that post, however, was generally in regard to drunk driving laws and whether or not they should exist/be enforced.

----------


## Tpoints

> No, it will not make the injured person whole. Nor will it even allow any form of recompense. Better to have sentenced him to a term in a State facility for alcohol rehabilitation then ten years under Substance Abuse Felony Probation and a mandatory Antabuse prescription with frequent and random testings.  If this had been done for his third DUI (as allowed by sentencing guidelines) then perhaps there wouldn't have been numbers 4 through 9.


since when was the liberty movement about making victims whole? that's God's job.

----------


## Tpoints

> With freedom comes responsibility. Apparently, this lunatic never got the memo. Forget lifetime imprisonment. There should be an isolated island where they drop these headcases off.


Like Gitmo? Or some billionaire resort?

----------


## phill4paul

> If you think there is any statistical anaylisis that says you're less likley to be killed by a drunk driver then a sober driver you're guilty of not looking at the information objectivly.  The only way you could come to such a conclution is to increase the quantity of sober drivers realitive to the quantity of drunk drivers thus causing the total deaths by sobber drivers to increase not the rate at which they cause a death.


  Well, see there is the rub. I could say that if I never drive between 8pm and 9am and that I live in a dry county that statistically I would have a much greater chance of being killed at the hands of a sober driver. 
   The FACT still remains that it is the sober drivers which cause the MAJORITY of fatal accidents.

----------


## jbauer

> I'm not arguing about the guy in the op.  Yeah, he hurt someone.  I don't think a life sentence was necessary.  My comment in that post, however, was generally in regard to drunk driving laws and whether or not they should exist/be enforced.


Different conversation, sorry if we got things tangled.  As to drunk driving laws.  There is a place and a time to drink.  Drinking and driving increases the chances of causing harm to another and thus taking away their liberty.  For me its pretty simple.  Don't drink and drive.  If you want to drop a whole case of Jack Daniells go for it.  But don't do an activity that clearly increases the chances of causing another harm.  

Like I said in my previous post.  I'm ok with taking away drinking and driving.  But if you harm someone or kill someone you should expect the same in concequences.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Different conversation, sorry if we got things tangled.  As to drunk driving laws.  There is a place and a time to drink.  Drinking and driving increases the chances of causing harm to another and thus taking away their liberty.  For me its pretty simple.  Don't drink and drive.  If you want to drop a whole case of Jack Daniells go for it.  But don't do an activity that clearly increases the chances of causing another harm.  
> 
> Like I said in my previous post.  I'm ok with taking away drinking and driving.  But if you harm someone or kill someone you should expect the same in concequences.


I agree that you should not do these things, but I don't think there should be any laws regarding it.  Most people who drink and drive actually make it home okay.  It increases the chances, certainly, but it's still pre-crime.  Chances are, arresting someone who is drinking and driving is punishing someone who never would have hurt anyone had they been allowed to go home.  If I'm just over the "legal limit" and I'm going 55 down a rural highway with no one around, am I still guilty of "attempted murder" as some people here would put it?  Am I guilty of assault for driving slowly when nobody's around to be assaulted?  My position is that we should stop trying to prevent people from hurting others by blanketing a certain conduct as "criminal" and start focusing on catching the real criminals who hurt people.  Stop the absurd notion that the law can protect us from danger.  All it can do is fulfill our sense of justice by locking up the offender or making them pay restitution.

----------


## Tpoints

> I agree that you should not do these things, but I don't think there should be any laws regarding it.  Most people who drink and drive actually make it home okay.  It increases the chances, certainly, but it's still pre-crime.  Chances are, arresting someone who is drinking and driving is punishing someone who never would have hurt anyone had they been allowed to go home.  If I'm just over the "legal limit" and I'm going 55 down a rural highway with no one around, am I still guilty of "attempted murder" as some people here would put it?  Am I guilty of assault for driving slowly when nobody's around to be assaulted?  My position is that we should stop trying to prevent people from hurting others by blanketing a certain conduct as "criminal" and start focusing on catching the real criminals who hurt people.  Stop the absurd notion that the law can protect us from danger.  All it can do is fulfill our sense of justice by locking up the offender or making them pay restitution.


So if I use you for target practice, it's a pre-crime and unpunishable until I actually hit you? I mean, I can give you lots of reasons and ways your chances of getting hit are lower than you expect.

----------


## jbauer

> I agree that you should not do these things, but I don't think there should be any laws regarding it.  Most people who drink and drive actually make it home okay.  It increases the chances, certainly, but it's still pre-crime.  Chances are, arresting someone who is drinking and driving is punishing someone who never would have hurt anyone had they been allowed to go home.  If I'm just over the "legal limit" and I'm going 55 down a rural highway with no one around, am I still guilty of "attempted murder" as some people here would put it?  Am I guilty of assault for driving slowly when nobody's around to be assaulted?  My position is that we should stop trying to prevent people from hurting others by blanketing a certain conduct as "criminal" and start focusing on catching the real criminals who hurt people.  Stop the absurd notion that the law can protect us from danger.  All it can do is fulfill our sense of justice by locking up the offender or making them pay restitution.


Agree, but you can only have this happen if people take and accept personal responsiblity for their actions.  Something humans by and large aren't able to do.  I still contend that if you make the punishment fit the crime we would have significantly less problems.  I'm perfectly ok with legalizing drinking and driving, but if you drink/drive and hurt or kill then you should get back 10x the crime you did.  I think it would solve our problems overnight.

----------


## jbauer

> So if I use you for target practice, it's a pre-crime and unpunishable until I actually hit you? I mean, I can give you lots of reasons and ways your chances of getting hit are lower than you expect.


Just as long as you don't miss him and hit me

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So if I use you for target practice, it's a pre-crime and unpunishable until I actually hit you? I mean, I can give you lots of reasons and ways your chances of getting hit are lower than you expect.


Nope.  That's assault.  If you're trying to hit me, then you're obviously attempting to hurt me.  If you're not trying to hurt me, then I can't guarantee that I won't retaliate and kill you in self-defense if I think you are shooting at me.  You probablly would get convicted of assault if you were shooting in such a way that I thought you were shooting at me in plain sight.

If you don't get convicted and it happens a second time, then I can almost guarantee you will get convicted that time.

----------


## phill4paul

> Nope.  That's assault.  If you're *trying* to hit me, then you're obviously attempting to hurt me.


  Many here don't understand this.

----------


## truelies

> Nope.  That's assault.  If you're trying to hit me, then you're obviously attempting to hurt me.  If you're not trying to hurt me, then I can't guarantee that I won't retaliate and kill you in self-defense if I think you are shooting at me.  You probablly would get convicted of assault if you were shooting in such a way that I thought you were shooting at me in plain sight.
> 
> If you don't get convicted and it happens a second time, then I can almost guarantee you will get convicted that time.


Then you should be OK with folks privately disposing of known habitual drunk drivers.

----------


## truelies

> ........................................... *Statistically speaking a sober driver is the one that will do me in.* .....................


yeah, a nominally sober driver yakking on a cellphone, who can't be bothered to maintain their vehicle, who has no grasp of the concept to fast for conditions, who thinks stop signs/lights are for others, who has less than rudimentary drivings skills & can't be bothered to improve....................

All evasions of personal responsibility on a par with drunk driving.

----------


## phill4paul

> yeah, a nominally sober driver yakking on a cellphone, who can't be bothered to maintain their vehicle, who has no grasp of the concept to fast for conditions, who thinks stop signs/lights are for others, who has less than rudimentary drivings skills & can't be bothered to improve....................
> 
> All evasions of personal responsibility on a par with drunk driving.


  Says the individual that admits to speeding. Even though he might have a mechanical malfunction which sends him into another lane at a higher rate of speed that might be the difference between an injurious collision and an terminal one.    Have you not decided to opt out as opposed to putting myself and others at risk? .

----------


## phill4paul

> Then you should be OK with folks privately disposing of known habitual drunk drivers.


  Are you?

----------


## KingNothing

> I agree that you should not do these things, but I don't think there should be any laws regarding it.  Most people who drink and drive actually make it home okay.  It increases the chances, certainly, but it's still pre-crime.  Chances are, arresting someone who is drinking and driving is punishing someone who never would have hurt anyone had they been allowed to go home.  If I'm just over the "legal limit" and I'm going 55 down a rural highway with no one around, am I still guilty of "attempted murder" as some people here would put it?  Am I guilty of assault for driving slowly when nobody's around to be assaulted?  My position is that we should stop trying to prevent people from hurting others by blanketing a certain conduct as "criminal" and start focusing on catching the real criminals who hurt people.  Stop the absurd notion that the law can protect us from danger.  All it can do is fulfill our sense of justice by locking up the offender or making them pay restitution.



Literally no one here disagrees with this.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Literally no one here disagrees with this.


Actually, truelies has been disagreeing with it for days.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Actually, truelies has been disagreeing with it for days.


And that other dude that got banned. Don't forget him.

----------


## MelissaWV

> And that other dude that got banned. Don't forget him.


Well he got banned, so idk if he still believes it   Maybe he's had an epiphany.

----------


## Tpoints

> Should we be sentenced to *life* in prison because we own a firearm and *might* discharge it within city limits at some *future* time and *possibly* injure someone?


Oh no, even better. We should never charge a person even IF he discharges his weapon, as long as he didn't injure a person or damage property. If a person uses your body or house a target practice, he should be free to do it until he actually hits you.

----------


## Tod

> I knew of a guy who got a DWI in east Texas while riding his horse.. Also, one that got a DWI while driving his tractor.


Around here there have been cases of Amish being cited in their buggies.  "But offisher, the horse knowz zthe wayy home!"

----------


## phill4paul

> Oh no, even better. We should never charge a person even IF he discharges his weapon, as long as he didn't injure a person or damage property. If a person uses your body or house a target practice, he should be free to do it until he actually hits you.


  Again with the inane comparison of using someone for 'target' practice. The difference has been explained. Re-read the thread.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Then you should be OK with folks privately disposing of known habitual drunk drivers.


No.  Do you seriously not understand the concept of assault?  There's no attempt to maim or kill in drunk driving, unless it can be proven.  It's the same way with shooting.  If you're obviously doing something in a way that suggests you're trying to hurt someone, then it's assault.  Drunk driving is not assault, so retaliation would not be justified.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> yeah, a nominally sober driver yakking on a cellphone, who can't be bothered to maintain their vehicle, who has no grasp of the concept to fast for conditions, who thinks stop signs/lights are for others, who has less than rudimentary drivings skills & can't be bothered to improve....................
> 
> All evasions of personal responsibility on a par with drunk driving.


So when are we going to have police start looking under people's hoods to make sure their cars are in good condition?  How about looking in your house to make sure you don't have anything suspicious or potentially dangerous.  Bad oxygen sensor?  It's to the slammer for you, buddy!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Literally no one here disagrees with this.


Unless I'm imagining things, there are a few people in this thread who do.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Oh no, even better. We should never charge a person even IF he discharges his weapon, as long as he didn't injure a person or damage property. If a person uses your body or house a target practice, he should be free to do it until he actually hits you.


I just explained the concept of assault to you and apparently it went right over your head.

----------


## bolil

Getting dRunk and habitually smashing into people is not protected by any law I know of.  I would think differently if his DUIs were preempted by traffic stops and not runnin fools down in the street.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Not hardly. I am well able to gage the safety difference in 80mph in a well maintained vehicle on a Nebraska interstate at noon on a sunny summer day in light traffic and 80mph down a winding residential street where kids are at play. 
> 
> Once again trolls- Why MUST you drive hammered? Too cheap with other folks blood to take a taxi?


Or you live in a place where taxis don't go?  That's pretty common here in WV.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So 1mph above and 100mph above are the same danger?


Doesn't matter 'cause it's the law.  Why do you want laws if you don't think you are subject to them?  Doesn't that nullify the purpose of the law?  It's the same with drunk driving.  What if someone is over "the limit" but decides that they're perfectly safe to drive?  According to you, they should be allowed to, since they think it's still safe, just like you apparently think it's still safe to speed.

By the way, people who drive really slow are more likely to be in crashes than people who drive fast.

----------


## jbauer

> Well, see there is the rub. I could say that if I never drive between 8pm and 9am and that I live in a dry county that statistically I would have a much greater chance of being killed at the hands of a sober driver. 
>    The FACT still remains that it is the sober drivers which cause the MAJORITY of fatal accidents.


You must never have lived in a dry county.  Trust me the liquor and meth flow quite freely.

----------


## Shredmonster

Just so everyone gets their facts straight the average person that causes a fatality due to drinking measures .28.    Not .08   
And the typical drunk driver has already lost their license and has on average 10 DWI's.
How do I know this ?  Have a friend who is a lobbyist who testified to the State when they went from .1 to .08

There is a thing called reality.    Back in the 70's they had a limit of .15      Most people can drive fine after drinking at this level.   Yeah they are a little slower regarding reactions but that is not what causes fatalities.       

Instead you have the government brainwashing you telling you .08 is dangerous.  Total bull$#@!.    It is a game to rake dollars for the system and to support a whole industry of attorneys and the rehabilitation parasites.    There is a judge in my town that is part owner of a huge rehab operation.   Who do you think he sends the people he sentences to ????    The whole system has been corrupted.

The law is not reasonable anymore as shown by the actual statistics.

Use to be up the officers discretion.  If you were fine to drive they told you to go home.  They can tell when you can't drive.   This process has become perverted by attorneys threatening to sue cops if they let anyone go.

If someone hurts somebody then yeah they should be punished.  .32 is ridiculous but .08 is a joke.   

I also wrestle with the conceptualization of taking someone who has not hurt anybody and sticking them in jail and ruining their life when they have not hurt anyone.    Nobody seems to ever address this.   It could be argued every one of you have the potential to hurt someone - freak out and grab a knife etc...   so lets just lock everyone up to protect everyone.     The slippery slope to the loss of freedom.

Now you have the $#@!ing gestapo out there entrapping people by waiting for them to come out of the bars at night.   It has gone way way way too far.

----------


## jbauer

> So when are we going to have police start looking under people's hoods to make sure their cars are in good condition?  How about looking in your house to make sure you don't have anything suspicious or potentially dangerous.  Bad oxygen sensor?  It's to the slammer for you, buddy!


Um....they do its called passing inspection.  Not all states do it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Um....they do its called passing inspection.  Not all states do it.


Well, point taken, but it really doesn't take a lot to pass inspection.  Also, it's done by businesses who regularly service vehicles, not by cops.  It's also not treated like DUI.

----------


## Tpoints

> Again with the inane comparison of using someone for 'target' practice. The difference has been explained. Re-read the thread.


Oh, how about reverse target practice? What does it matter? If the argument as some here use is "Until he injures you there is no fault, we should never ever ever punish a person before he actually hurts another person, that's Fascism and pre-crime!!" Wouldn't it still apply? Or do you agree it's a bull$#@! standard?

----------


## Tpoints

> Nope.  That's assault.  If you're trying to hit me, then you're obviously attempting to hurt me.  If you're not trying to hurt me, then I can't guarantee that I won't retaliate and kill you in self-defense if I think you are shooting at me.  You probablly would get convicted of assault if you were shooting in such a way that I thought you were shooting at me in plain sight.
> 
> If you don't get convicted and it happens a second time, then I can almost guarantee you will get convicted that time.


Sorry, I didn't see this response until you reminded me. 

So you accept that, even though short of actually injuring somebody, "attempt" is suffice for punishment? What if it was reckless? Do you punish people for intention only? Or do actions and results matter? Where do you draw the line for what constitutes ATTEMPT OR ASSAULT?

* If you're not trying to hurt me, then I can't guarantee that I won't retaliate and kill you in self-defense if I think you are shooting at me.* 
What gives you the right to use "self defense"? Just because you're overreacting? Just because you *THINK* I am going to shoot at you? You almost sound like you'd be happy if vigilantes stopped pre-crime as long as it's not the police doing it.

----------


## Tpoints

> Just so everyone gets their facts straight the average person that causes a fatality due to drinking measures .28.    Not .08   
> And the typical drunk driver has already lost their license and has on average 10 DWI's.
> How do I know this ?  Have a friend who is a lobbyist who testified to the State when they went from .1 to .08
> 
> There is a thing called reality.    Back in the 70's they had a limit of .15      Most people can drive fine after drinking at this level.   Yeah they are a little slower regarding reactions but that is not what causes fatalities.       
> 
> Instead you have the government brainwashing you telling you .08 is dangerous.  Total bull$#@!.    It is a game to rake dollars for the system and to support a whole industry of attorneys and the rehabilitation parasites.    There is a judge in my town that is part owner of a huge rehab operation.   Who do you think he sends the people he sentences to ????    The whole system has been corrupted.
> 
> The law is not reasonable anymore as shown by the actual statistics.
> ...


Basically you're totally OK with DWI, "pre-crime" and "statistics", your only problem is the level they set legal BAC.

----------


## Tpoints

> Doesn't matter 'cause it's the law.  Why do you want laws if you don't think you are subject to them?  Doesn't that nullify the purpose of the law?  It's the same with drunk driving.  What if someone is over "the limit" but decides that they're perfectly safe to drive?  According to you, they should be allowed to, since they think it's still safe, just like you apparently think it's still safe to speed.
> 
> *By the way, people who drive really slow are more likely to be in crashes than people who drive fast.*


Really? Oh, I see, you conveniently used the words "likely to be in crashes" not "cause crashes". I bet you won't say "causes fatalities" either. And you don't tell me what "really slow" vs "fast" means. Because if we go to the extremes, a parked car is safer than a car at 100mph, unless you're on a racetrack. 

"Doesn't that nullify the purpose of the law?" Yes, and why shouldn't we nullify bad laws? Doesn't Ron Paul admire people who practice civil disobedience like Ghandi and MLK Jr?

----------


## Shredmonster

> Basically you're totally OK with DWI, "pre-crime" and "statistics", your only problem is the level they set legal BAC.


How do you possibly come to this conclusion when I just stated "If somebody hurts somebody...."   ???  Does that sound like pre-crime to you ?

What did you just read the first couple paragraphs of what I said ?  Did you not read the last paragraph and last line ?

Pretty sure I am speaking in proper English.

----------


## jllundqu

> why is this dangerous substance "legal" then?
> 
> life sentence...but not for sandusky, corizone, or teh bernack...


lol....the bernack...

----------


## Tpoints

> How do you possibly come to this conclusion when I just stated "If somebody hurts somebody...."   ???  Does that sound like pre-crime to you ?
> 
> What did you just read the first couple paragraphs of what I said ?  Did you not read the last paragraph and last line ?
> 
> Pretty sure I am speaking in proper English.


Ok, why would BAC matter if you require actual injury? Either you believe BAC matters or you don't. Either you believe you need injury and actual fatality, or you don't and prevention is ok. What's wrong with "trapping" if you recognize that something is a crime?

----------


## presence

> Sorry, I didn't see this response until you reminded me. 
> 
> So you accept that, even though short of actually injuring somebody, "attempt" is suffice for punishment? What if it was reckless? Do you punish people for intention only? Or do actions and results matter? Where do you draw the line for what constitutes ATTEMPT OR ASSAULT?
> 
> * If you're not trying to hurt me, then I can't guarantee that I won't retaliate and kill you in self-defense if I think you are shooting at me.* 
> What gives you the right to use "self defense"? Just because you're overreacting? Just because you *THINK* I am going to shoot at you? You almost sound like you'd be happy if vigilantes stopped pre-crime as long as it's not the police doing it.






> *Mens rea is* *Latin for "guilty mind".[1] In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime**.* The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, _actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea_, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an _actus reus_ accompanied by some level of _mens rea_ to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence).  As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who  acted with the absence of mental fault. *The exception is strict liability crimes.
> *
>  In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract or tort,  for example. However, if a tort is intentionally committed or a  contract is intentionally breached, such intent may increase the scope of liability as well as the measure of damages payable to the plaintiff.
>  Therefore, _mens rea_ refers to the mental element of the offence that accompanies the _actus reus_.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea




> _Actus reus_, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the _mens rea_, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, India, Pakistan, South Africa, New Zealand, England, Ghana, Wales, Ireland and the United States. In the United States, some crimes also require proof of an attendant circumstance


.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus




> A *tort*, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong.[1]  Tort law deals with situations where a person's behaviour has unfairly  caused someone else to suffer loss or harm. A tort is not necessarily an  illegal act but causes harm. The law allows anyone who is harmed to  recover their loss. Tort law is different from criminal law,  which deals with situations where a person's actions cause harm to  society in general. A claim in tort may be brought by anyone who has  suffered loss after suing a civil law suit. Criminal cases tend to be  brought by the state, although private prosecutions are possible.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort




> In law, *strict liability* is a standard for liability which may  exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict  liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss  caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of _mens rea_). Strict liability is prominent in tort law (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability





> *Driving under the influence* (*DUI*), *driving while intoxicated* (*DWI*), *drunken driving*, *drunk driving*, *drink driving*, *operating under the influence*, *drinking and driving*, or *impaired driving* is the act of driving a motor vehicle with blood levels of alcohol  in excess of a legal limit ("Blood Alcohol Content", or "BAC"). Similar  regulations cover driving or operating certain types of machinery while  affected by drinking alcohol or taking other drugs, including, but not limited to prescription drugs. This is a criminal offense in most countries.
> []
> With the advent of a scientific test for blood alcohol content  (BAC), *enforcement regimes moved to pinning culpability for the offense  to strict liability* based on driving while having more than a  prescribed amount of blood alcohol, although this does not preclude the  simultaneous existence of the older subjective tests.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving..._the_influence




> In law, *assault* is a crime that involves causing a victim to apprehend violence. The term is often confused with battery,  which involves physical contact. The specific meaning of assault varies  between countries, but can refer to an act that causes another to  apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more limited sense  of a threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force.[1][2] Assault in some US jurisdictions[_which?_]  is defined more broadly still as any intentional physical contact with  another person without their consent; but in the majority of the United  States, and in England and Wales and all other common law jurisdictions in the world, this is defined instead as battery.  Some jurisdictions have incorporated the definition of civil assault  into the definition of the crime making it a criminal assault to  intentionally cause another person to apprehend a harmful or offensive  contact.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault





> *Apprehend*transitive verb
> 
> 1
> *:* arrest, seize <_apprehend_ a thief> 
> 
> 2
> _a_ *:* to become aware of *:* perceive 
> _b_ *:* to anticipate especially with anxiety, dread, or fear 
> 
> ...


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apprehend

----------


## Tpoints

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea


Mens rea is an element, not a crime per se. Not all laws today require it, which is why there is "reckless" or "criminal negligence". Or, as you quoted "strict liability"

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sorry, I didn't see this response until you reminded me. 
> 
> So you accept that, even though short of actually injuring somebody, "attempt" is suffice for punishment? What if it was reckless? Do you punish people for intention only? Or do actions and results matter? Where do you draw the line for what constitutes ATTEMPT OR ASSAULT?
> 
> * If you're not trying to hurt me, then I can't guarantee that I won't retaliate and kill you in self-defense if I think you are shooting at me.* 
> What gives you the right to use "self defense"? Just because you're overreacting? Just because you *THINK* I am going to shoot at you? You almost sound like you'd be happy if vigilantes stopped pre-crime as long as it's not the police doing it.


Actions and results matter, as well as intent.  You should only be prosecuted for crimes committed or crimes attempted.  Drunk driving is neither, simple as that.  I draw the line with the evidence.  If someone is driving and they try to run someone down, drunk or not, they should be prosecuted.  If they do it while they are drunk, then of course they should be subject to the law which forbids assaulting people.  If you cause an accident, then you are to blame for the accident.  However, if you cause no accident, then you cannot possibly be blamed for anything, as drunk driving in and of itself does not show intent, and it does not hurt anyone in and of itself, either.  

No, I'm not saying I'd be happy to kill someone or if someone killed someone else for an attempt.  What I am saying is that people have a right to self defense, and if you do something that causes the person to think you are attacking them, you can reasonably expect them to defend themselves.  It doesn't even matter if they are right or wrong for doing it.  I'm just saying, shooting randomly at people is not a good idea because it can get you shot.  If it can be shown in a court of law that the person did not meet the standards for reasonable self-defense, then they will be prosecuted for murder or assault.

Who says I'm overreacting?  What if it really looks like someone who is shooting at me is actually trying to shoot me?  I think it would be reasonable to act in self defense.  It's really not that hard of a concept, but it still seems to be going way over your head.  What's sad is that most of this is actually already part of the judicial system.  If you do something that looks like you are attacking them, then you could very well be prosecuted for assault and/or attempted murder.  If you don't want to be prosecuted for attempted murder and found guilty, then only use your gun when absolutely necessary.  It's common sense, really.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Really? Oh, I see, you conveniently used the words "likely to be in crashes" not "cause crashes". I bet you won't say "causes fatalities" either. And you don't tell me what "really slow" vs "fast" means. Because if we go to the extremes, a parked car is safer than a car at 100mph, unless you're on a racetrack.


It was a rhetorical jab, really.  There have been studies that show that people travelling slower than the average rate of speed of traffic are more likely to be in accidents than people going above the average rate of speed of traffic.  That's why I said it that way, and I stand by it.  




> "Doesn't that nullify the purpose of the law?" Yes, and why shouldn't we nullify bad laws? Doesn't Ron Paul admire people who practice civil disobedience like Ghandi and MLK Jr?


That's exactly my point.  Speeding laws are bad, and so are DUI laws, so if you can nullify a speeding law by arbitrarily deciding it is okay for you to speed if you think it is safe, then that nullifies that law.  Why shouldn't the same principle apply to people who think they are safe enough to drive even though they have had a few drinks?  The point is that you don't seem to have much regard for the strict standards of the law, so how can you expect others to be held to that standard?  It's a double standard.  But obviously that went way over your head because you completely missed that point and instead started talking about Ghandi and King Jr. without really knowing what the context was.  Sometimes I think you unintentionally trick yourself into changing the subject because your cognitive dissonance won't let you face logical arguments.

----------


## Tpoints

> Actions and results matter, as well as intent.  You should only be prosecuted for crimes committed or crimes attempted.  Drunk driving is neither, simple as that.  I draw the line with the evidence.  If someone is driving and they try to run someone down, drunk or not, they should be prosecuted.  If they do it while they are drunk, then of course they should be subject to the law which forbids assaulting people.  If you cause an accident, then you are to blame for the accident.  However, if you cause no accident, then you cannot possibly be blamed for anything, as drunk driving in and of itself does not show intent, and it does not hurt anyone in and of itself, either.


Do you conveniently ignore reckless, negligent or strict liability? I mean, I know those laws exist. Do they exist if you had your way? Why isn't drunk driving reckless or negligent?

----------


## Tpoints

> Who says I'm overreacting?  What if it really looks like someone who is shooting at me is actually trying to shoot me?


I say it. Oh, my opinion doesn't count? I don't care if it "LOOKS LIKE" something, if you use the "assault" logic, you don't need injury. If you need injury, you can't use "assault". Can't be both. Drunk driving would not be assault on its own, because it lacks specific intention, but you can argue every time when something LOOKS LIKE intentional, that it's not.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Do you conveniently ignore reckless, negligent or strict liability? I mean, I know those laws exist. Do they exist if you had your way? Why isn't drunk driving reckless or negligent?


Recklessness or negligence are only aggravating factors.  They are not crimes, like you said yourself.  In order for there to be a crime, there has to have been actual damage, and recklessness and/or negligence can help determine the sentence.  Drunk driving may be reckless and/or negligent, but it has to actually have caused someone some harm in order to justify taking legal action against that person.  

Like I said, drunk driving, in and of itself, although it may be negligent or reckless, doesn't harm anyone and it doesn't show intent to harm.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I say it. Oh, my opinion doesn't count? I don't care if it "LOOKS LIKE" something, if you use the "assault" logic, you don't need injury. If you need injury, you can't use "assault". Can't be both. Drunk driving would not be assault on its own, because it lacks specific intention, but you can argue every time when something LOOKS LIKE intentional, that it's not.


Now you're just being ridiculous.  The point was that I may not be overreacting.  You said I was overreacting and I pointed out that that is not necessarily true.  Are you trying to be facetious?

----------


## Tpoints

> Recklessness or negligence are only aggravating factors.  They are not crimes, like you said yourself.  In order for there to be a crime, there has to have been actual damage, and recklessness and/or negligence can help determine the sentence.  Drunk driving may be reckless and/or negligent, but it has to actually have caused someone some harm in order to justify taking legal action against that person.  
> 
> Like I said, drunk driving, in and of itself, although it may be negligent or reckless, but it doesn't harm anyone and it doesn't show intent to harm.


Oh, I see, you're conflating drunk driving with mere reckless and negligence. It's not, INCLUDES reckless and negligence at the very least, intention at worst. The risk of injury comes with the reckless, negligence, or intention (or in strict liability, it doesn't matter). 

Do I understand you if I said, in essence, you would be ok with assault, negligence, and drunk driving all swept into non-crime, but offers victims and plaintiffs to sue, recover or even "take care of it on the spot"? I mean, you admitted you have no problem acting on an assault, so would you have a problem with a vigilante acting on interfering with drunk drivers?

----------


## Tpoints

> Now you're just being ridiculous.  The point was that I may not be overreacting.  You said I was overreacting and I pointed out that that is not necessarily true.  Are you trying to be facetious?


I am saying you are just as overreacting as you claim a person acting on drunk driving is. It's totally subjective until you give a reason to justify it. Either you require injury and assault would be perfectly legal. Or you do not, and assault is not legal, not lawful, punishable and measurable with some subjective standard.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Oh, I see, you're conflating drunk driving with mere reckless and negligence. It's not, INCLUDES reckless and negligence at the very least, intention at worst. The risk of injury comes with the reckless, negligence, or intention (or in strict liability, it doesn't matter). 
> 
> Do I understand you if I said, in essence, you would be ok with assault, negligence, and drunk driving all swept into non-crime, but offers victims and plaintiffs to sue, recover or even "take care of it on the spot"? I mean, you admitted you have no problem acting on an assault, so would you have a problem with a vigilante acting on interfering with drunk drivers?


You're not getting it.  Someone is only justified in retaliating if they are actually assaulted.  You can't go out of the way to retaliate against drunk drivers if they have done nothing to cause you to retaliate.  Also, I never said assault was a non-crime.  Assault is a crime, but if you do something that looks like assault without actually trying to hurt them, then that doesn't mean you won't be found guilty of assault because if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.  

I also would have no problem with "vigilantes" trying to persuade someone to not drive drunk by offering them a ride home or otherwise trying to prevent it, but the use of force is not justified.  You can't try to hurt someone or 

Drunk driving can include recklessness or negligence, not necessarily, but even those things by themselves don't constitute a crime.  If you can prove intent, then go for it, but like I said, drunk driving in and of itself does not show intent, so the drunk driver is neither hurting someone, nor are they necessarily trying to hurt someone.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I am saying you are just as overreacting as you claim a person acting on drunk driving is. It's totally subjective until you give a reason to justify it. Either you require injury and assault would be perfectly legal. Or you do not, and assault is not legal, not lawful, punishable and measurable with some subjective standard.


But for assault to be punishable, you have to prove intent, and drunk driving does not show intent, so drunk driving is not assault unless the person is actually trying to hurt someone.  That doesn't mean it's subjective.  That means you have to provide objective, hard evidence and present it before a jury.

If someone assaults someone else with a car, it doesn't matter whether they're drunk or not.  Drunkenness is not a measure of your intent to harm or cause injury to others.

----------


## Tpoints

> You're not getting it.  Someone is only justified in retaliating if they are actually assaulted.  You can't go out of the way to retaliate against drunk drivers if they have done nothing to cause you to retaliate.  Also, I never said assault was a non-crime.  Assault is a crime, but if you do something that looks like assault without actually trying to hurt them, then that doesn't mean you won't be found guilty of assault because if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.  
> 
> I also would have no problem with "vigilantes" trying to persuade someone to not drive drunk by offering them a ride home or otherwise trying to prevent it, but the use of force is not justified.  You can't try to hurt someone or 
> 
> Drunk driving can include recklessness or negligence, not necessarily, but even those things by themselves don't constitute a crime.  If you can prove intent, then go for it, but like I said, drunk driving in and of itself does not show intent, so the drunk driver is neither hurting someone, nor are they necessarily trying to hurt someone.


Did I misunderstand you use of assault? I thought the whole point of assault as you brought it up was, IT DID NOT CAUSE INJURY.

Do you need injury to be a crime or not?

----------


## Tpoints

> Drunk driving can include recklessness or negligence, not necessarily, but even those things by themselves don't constitute a crime.  If you can prove intent, then go for it, but like I said, drunk driving in and of itself does not show intent, so the drunk driver is neither hurting someone, nor are they necessarily trying to hurt someone.


Again, I use you for target practice with specific intent of NOT hurting you. I KNOW it'll have a 80% chance of hitting you, but it's not my intent. Does that count? I can openly tell you I have ZERO REGARD for your life, which would constitute reckless, negligence, even criminal negligence.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Did I misunderstand you use of assault? I thought the whole point of assault as you brought it up was, IT DID NOT CAUSE INJURY.
> 
> Do you need injury to be a crime or not?


No.  In order for it to be a crime, you have to show one of two things:

1.  someone was damged or harmed by the actions of another person,

or 

2. proof that the person was trying to hurt you.

----------


## Tpoints

> No.  In order for it to be a crime, you have to show one of two things:
> 
> 1.  someone was damged or harmed by the actions of another person,
> 
> or 
> 
> 2. proof that the person was trying to hurt you.


How do you prove he was trying to hurt you? Do you ask him? He can always say "I'm not trying, I might not care if it happens, but I'm not trying to". I'm sensing that you're going to tell me, whenever one plans on committing a crime "just add alcohol", then you can say you didn't have intent.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Again, I use you for target practice with specific intent of NOT hurting you. I KNOW it'll have a 80% chance of hitting you, but it's not my intent. Does that count? I can openly tell you I have ZERO REGARD for your life, which would constitute reckless, negligence, even criminal negligence.


If it's not your intent, then why are you shooting at me, knowing that you will probably hit me?  That constitutes assault in my mind.  Even if you are not trying to hurt me, you should know that you can and will get prosecuted for intentionally doing things that you know will probably hurt someone.  To me, criminal negligence and assault are the same thing.  If you are trying to hit someone with a bullet by using them for target practice and you know hitting them will result in injury or death, then that's assault.

Also, it's impossible to use someone for target practice while trying to not hit them.  If you are using them for target practice, then that means you are trying to hit them.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How do you prove he was trying to hurt you? Do you ask him? He can always say "I'm not trying, I might not care if it happens, but I'm not trying to". I'm sensing that you're going to tell me, whenever one plans on committing a crime "just add alcohol", then you can say you didn't have intent.


You prove it by presenting evidence.  That's usually how things work.  Seriously, are you this thick in real life or are you being facetious?

And no, I'm not saying just adding alcohol proves the person did not have intent.  I'm saying it doesn't matter whether the person had alcohol or not.  If you can prove intent, it doesn't matter whether there was any alcohol in their system just like it doesn't matter if there was marijuana in their car.

----------


## presence

> No.  In order for it to be a crime, you have to show one of two things:
> 
> 1.  someone was damged or harmed by the actions of another person,
> 
> or 
> 
> 2. proof that the person was trying to hurt you.



Actually no.  You need both.  AND not OR.... unless it is a "strict liability" "statutory" offence.

----------


## Tpoints

> If it's not your intent, then why are you shooting at me, knowing that you will probably hit me?  That constitutes assault in my mind.  Even if you are not trying to hurt me, you should know that you can and will get prosecuted for intentionally doing things that you know will probably hurt someone.  To me, criminal negligence and assault are the same thing.  If you are trying to hit someone with a bullet by using them for target practice and you know hitting them will result in injury or death, then that's assault.


I don't need to justify to you why I am shooting towards you even knowing the results. That's MY business, just like you driving drunk is not MY business to ask. I know it constitutes assault in your mind, too bad I don't care. Yes, I am well aware the law sides with you, a person who has no regard for my freedom to shoot at you even though I explicitly told you I have zero intention of hurting you.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Actually no.  You need both.  AND not OR.... unless it is a "strict liability" "statutory" offence.


I don't think both are needed in order for the person to have to pay restitution.  They may not serve a prison sentence, but they are still required to make their accidental victim whole, one way or another.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't need to justify to you why I am shooting towards you even knowing the results. That's MY business, just like you driving drunk is not MY business to ask. I know it constitutes assault in your mind, too bad I don't care. Yes, I am well aware the law sides with you, a person who has no regard for my freedom to shoot at you even though I explicitly told you I have zero intention of hurting you.


But if you are shooting at me, then you are assaulting me.  If I drive drunk, I am not necessarily trying to do anything to anybody.  There is a big difference there.  

Shooting at someone and driving drunk are not the same thing, because shooting at someone shows intent to hurt them, driving drunk does not.  If you shoot at me, your actions are directed at me.  If you are driving, whether drunk or not, your actions aren't directed at anyone unless I can prove that you literally chased me with your car.

----------


## Tpoints

> I don't think both are needed in order for the person to have to pay restitution.  They may not serve a prison sentence, but they are still required to make their accidental victim whole, one way or another.


Oh ok, slow down. 

IN REALITY, IN FACT, not both are needed. There are such things as "strict liability crimes". 

Whether in your book they would be crimes, that's another story. So I'll try to be careful when I am asking your opinion (because I am quite familiar with currently existing laws, or at least its principles behind it)

----------


## presence

> I don't think both are needed in order for the person to have to pay restitution.  They may not serve a prison sentence, but they are still required to make their accidental victim whole, one way or another.


Being both guilty in mind and guilty in fact are required for all (non strict liability / per se) criminal offenses.

Civil offenses (restitition) and Strict Liablility Criminal offences do not require the element of mens rea (guilty mind) as I read it; if they do the mens rea bar is set at *"consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk"*.  Neither the criminal or civil elements of DUI law, as codified, seem to require any element of mens rea as it is a Strict Liability, though I'm sure mens rea could be an aggrivating factor.



> Strict liability can be determined by looking at the intent of the  legislature. If the legislature seems to have purposefully left out a  mental state element (mens rea) because they felt mental state need not  be proven, it is treated as a strict liability. However, when a statute  is silent as to the mental state (mens rea) and it is not clear that the  legislature purposely left it out, the ordinary presumption is that a  mental state is required for criminal liability. When no mens rea is  specified, under the Model Penal Code or MPC,* 
> the default mens rea  requirement is recklessness, which the MPC defines as "when a person  
> consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk 
> with respect  to a material element".*[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability




> *All 50  states  and the District of Columbia have* *per se laws** defining  it as a crime to drive with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or  above a specified level*, currently 0.08 percent (0.08 g alcohol per 100  ml blood).


http://www.iihs.org/laws/dui.aspx




> The term *illegal per se* means that the act is inherently  illegal. Thus, an act is illegal without extrinsic proof of any  surrounding circumstances such as lack of _scienter_ (knowledge) or other defenses. Acts are made illegal _per se_ by statute, constitution, or case law.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_per_se

----------


## Tpoints

> But if you are shooting at me, then you are assaulting me.  If I drive drunk, I am not necessarily trying to do anything to anybody.  There is a big difference there.  
> 
> Shooting at someone and driving drunk are not the same thing, because shooting at someone shows intent to hurt them, driving drunk does not.  If you shoot at me, your actions are directed at me.  If you are driving, whether drunk or not, your actions aren't directed at anyone unless I can prove that you literally chased me with your car.


you are assuming that drunk driving, or crappy driving, is punished for the harm it causes. It isn't, it's punished for the high probability of it. I didn't need to specifically want to hurt you in assault, I only need to not care for the results that I know is highly likely to happen. And that's the point. Your intention and knowledge in the context of driving needs only to reach either violating a traffic law, or increase probability of causing harm. 

This is where all the similarity comes in. You don't need to intend to hurt a person to be charged or punished for firing a weapon, you only need to knowingly fire your weapon without a good reason, a direct violation of most gun laws. Both shooting at/near a person and drunk driving show disregard for the result, though knowledge of it. I know you're going to tell me "but I can drive great with high BAC levels" and I can tell you "I can shoot very safely, why should I be subject to laws all other people are when I obviously have superior shooting skills".

----------


## Tpoints

> Restitution for damages is civil.  I was speakin about DUI's which are generally, in fact as codified, a statutory strict liability criminal offence.  Both are needed for all non strict liablity crimes.
> 
> blah... editing for clarity bear with me


take your time. This is good!

----------


## presence

> take your time. This is good!


Life hasn't been quite the same since my concussion last year.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Getting dRunk and habitually smashing into people is not protected by any law I know of.


Fixed that for ya.

DUI laws are along the same lines as "hate crime" legislation.  It's already a crime to smash into people during the course of regular operation of a motor vehicle, regardless of your state of intoxication, just like it's already a crime to lynch someone, regardless of whether or not they are a protected subset of humanity.

----------


## Tpoints

> Fixed that for ya.
> 
> DUI laws are along the same lines as "hate crime" legislation.  It's already a crime to smash into people during the course of regular operation of a motor vehicle, regardless of your state of intoxication, just like it's already a crime to lynch someone, regardless of whether or not they are a protected subset of humanity.


No, they are not the same. Hate crime legislation is intended to protect special groups, and discourage "preventable" crimes, and distinguish them from heat of passion defenses. DUI is punishing people for reckless disregard and negligence, this is to avoid the "I didn't intend to" defense. The main difference is that hate crime appears to punish intent (mens rea) and DUI specifically avoids it.

----------


## MelissaWV

> No, they are not the same. Hate crime legislation is intended to protect special groups, and discourage "preventable" crimes, and distinguish them from heat of passion defenses. DUI is punishing people for reckless disregard and negligence, this is to avoid the "I didn't intend to" defense. The main difference is that hate crime appears to punish intent (mens rea) and DUI specifically avoids it.


It's along the same lines, to me, in that it seeks to take the same result, but make it seem more deplorable by tacking on what is really an irrelevant data point.

Earlier in this thread, and in the dozens of others on the subject, the ole "I hope your family gets killed by a drunk driver!" chestnut was trotted out.  Somehow it's supposed to be worse, or more preventable, for someone to be driving drunk and strike a family.  The last several nasty accidents around here had zero to do with drinking.  Those folks are still dead.  Likewise, punishing someone more harshly for beating someone up because the victim was gay or albino or female or foreign... it's stupid.  

Even hearing that someone was charged with a DUI tends to paint a picture in most folks' minds.  It is a massive stigma.

----------


## Tpoints

> It's along the same lines, to me, in that it seeks to take the same result, but make it seem more deplorable by tacking on what is really an irrelevant data point.


Oh, here's the difference again. Hate crime requires actual crime, most likely actual bodily injury (maybe threats are an exception). Hate crime never punishes mens rea on its own, as many would like to believe (although some groups may wish to make it so). DUI does not require actual injury, no more than speeding or running red light does. Again , DUI punishes recklessness, negligence, specifically lacking mens rea. Perhaps a big similarity is, they are both designed to discourage and prevent what is believed to be preventable. Hate crime is based on the belief that without the hate, there may be no crime. Similarly, DUI is based on the belief that when the driver is sober, he's a better and safer driver.

----------


## Danke

//

----------


## MelissaWV

> Oh, here's the difference again. *Hate crime requires actual crime*, most likely actual bodily injury (maybe threats are an exception). Hate crime never punishes mens rea on its own, as many would like to believe (although some groups may wish to make it so). DUI does not require actual injury, no more than speeding or running red light does. Again , DUI punishes recklessness, negligence, specifically lacking mens rea. Perhaps a big similarity is, they are both designed to discourage and prevent what is believed to be preventable. Hate crime is based on the belief that without the hate, there may be no crime. Similarly, DUI is based on the belief that when the driver is sober, he's a better and safer driver.





> Can Speech be a Hate Crime?
> 
> The answer is apparently yes, at least in lefty Boulder, Colorado, where 23-year-old Zachrey Harris has been sentenced to 20 days in jail and two years of probation for using racial slurs against a Nigerian student and a Saudi student at the University of Colorado.
> 
> ...
> 
> For now, an American citizen is going to spend time in jail for "ethnic intimidation" for his ignorant words....





> Yesterday I saw a story on New York 1 about how a LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender) center in NYC lowered a huge Rainbow (gay) flag from their headquarters. The flag was said to be a show of solidarity and defiance after a rainbow flag was burned and left outside of the center on April 14th. 
> 
> I must confess that I somehow missed this important news story when it happened. The only reason that I even glimpse at New York 1 is because its the default channel when I turn on my Time Warner Cable. The story I heard yesterday made me take a look at the original story. 
> 
> What immediately amused me was the fact that the NYPD and local politicians are calling this a hate crime. 
> 
> Wait a minute! Hasnt the Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag is protected under the first amendment? Hasnt the Left and their cronies at the ACLU consistently defended this act? 
> 
> So lets get this straight. Burning the American flag is freedom of speech, but burning the Rainbow flag is a hate crime  give me a freakin break already! Maybe burning the Rainbow flag in front of the LGBT center was stupid, or even distasteful, but a hate crime?


^ Granted, this one involves destruction of property, but he makes a good point about the US flag.




> In Connecticut, there are several hate crimes laws that address hate speech on the Internet. Hate speech that threatens, intimidates, or harasses could be punished under these statutes (CGS §§53-37b, 53a-40a, 53a-181b). CGS § 53-37 addresses speech that ridicules a person.





> California P.C. 11412  Threats obstructing exercise of religion.


^ Felony




> As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in a 2003 case involving a First Amendment challenge to the Commonwealth of Virginia's cross-burning statute:
> 
> 
> 
>  the burning cross often serves as a message of intimidation, designed to inspire in the victim a fear of bodily harm. Moreover, the history of violence associated with the Klan shows that the possibility of injury or death is not just hypothetical.when a cross burning is used to intimidate, few if any messages are more powerful. (Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 357 [2003])


^ Lets assume the cross belonged to the people doing the burning.  It was a crime due to the intimidation, the POTENTIAL for harm.

And a glimpse into the future:



> A student who admitted posting racially offensive comments on Twitter about footballer Fabrice Muamba has been jailed for 56 days.
> 
> Swansea University student Liam Stacey, 21, from Pontypridd, admitted inciting racial hatred over remarks about the Bolton Wanderers player, who collapsed during a FA Cup tie at Tottenham.
> 
> A district judge in Swansea called the comments "vile and abhorrent".
> 
> Muamba, 23, who suffered a cardiac arrest, is still in intensive care. 
> 
> Sentencing Stacey at Swansea Magistrates' Court, District Judge John Charles told him: "In my view, there is no alternative to an immediate prison sentence.


Sorry, but if you think hate crimes are only applicable once property or person has been damaged, you're a bit behind the times.

----------


## Tpoints

> ^ Granted, this one involves destruction of property, but he makes a good point about the US flag.
> 
> ^ Felony
> 
> ^ Lets assume the cross belonged to the people doing the burning.  It was a crime due to the intimidation, the POTENTIAL for harm.
> 
> And a glimpse into the future:
> 
> Sorry, but if you think hate crimes are only applicable once property or person has been damaged, you're a bit behind the times.


oh, I did say threats are a possible exception. But threats are a crime anyway. Also, hate crime isn't what the victim says, or what the police opine, until you point to actual statutes for additional penalty in the trial, they don't count (as they are just added stigma, not actual punishment).

----------


## MelissaWV

> oh, I did say threats are a possible exception. But threats are a crime anyway. Also, hate crime isn't what the victim says, or what the police opine, until you point to actual statutes for additional penalty in the trial, they don't count (as they are just added stigma, not actual punishment).


The trouble with "threats" is that it's so open to interpretation it's pointless.  Truelies has been arguing all along that being intoxicated is a threat.

However, not everything I posted was a threat at all.  I believe the college student in the first story called someone a "monkey," among other things.  There's a disheartening story about someone being arrested for praying silently, too, but as he was charged with disturbing the peace I didn't include it.  There have been repeated attempts to legislate speech that merely hurts feelings, rather than actually constitutes a credible threat.

Anyhow, not actually interested in derailing this whole thing.  I just see them as unnecessary laws.

----------


## presence

> _Rightful liberty is unobstructed action 
> according to our will
>   within limits drawn around us
>  by the equal rights of others.
> 
>  I do not  add ‘within the limits of the law’ 
> because law is often but the tyrant’s  will, 
> and always so when it violates the rights of the individual._ * 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson*


^^

----------


## carclinic

> It's not like this guy had a tenth DWI.  Jeez, had it with the big government getting all over our freedom to drive intoxicated.


LOL

----------


## Tpoints

> The trouble with "threats" is that it's so open to interpretation it's pointless.  ....................
> 
>  rather than actually constitutes a credible threat.
> 
> Anyhow, not actually interested in derailing this whole thing.  I just see them as unnecessary laws.


Wait, which one is it? Is there or is there not such as thing as a credible threat?

----------


## presence

> Wait, which one is it? Is there or is there not such as thing as a credible threat?


Couldn't we just call a "credible threat" an assault and require the same precedent as any other assault; 1)victim must 2)apprehend 3)immediate 4)personal violence?

----------


## Tpoints

> Couldn't we just call a "credible threat" an assault and require the same precedent as any other assault; 1)victim must 2)apprehend 3)immediate 4)personal violence?


yes, we could, or at least if you ask me. Not sure what Melissa's answer is. Then there are people who say "you MUST actually injure a person otherwise everything is OK"

----------

