Question for "pro-drunk drivers"

[MelissaWV]

YouTube - Steves Riding Lawn Mower DUI Arrest Video

 

[acptulsa]

It's not about rules at all. It's about self defense, and defense of innocents. You have a right to stop someone who's in the act of attacking/harming others. If their behavior doesn't meet that criteria, you should leave them alone.

And this most specifically includes people whose behavior doesn't meet that criteria YET, Walt, because to do anything else takes away our right to be 'crazy like a fox'. Just as soon as you say the speed limit applies to race tracks just as to public highways, what room is there for an American driver to excel? Well, if you think about that example long enough, you'll see how little allowance is made in this idiot proof, but no longer truly free, society for those who can excel to do so.

 

[WaltM]

I asked you the question, Walt, if death was the punishment for dwi, and you felt it'd help deter people from driving drunk, would you be all for that, or would you be pro drunk driver?

If I felt something would deter people, I'd be for it.

HOWEVER, I don't believe death is the ONLY way to deter people, so if there are cheaper and easier ways to deter, I'd be for it (and against excessive punishment, which is compared out)

I'm not talking about the punishment for seriously injuring or killing someone because you dwi'd, I'm talking about the punishment for driving a car at .08 bac or higher and that's it...

I'm not sure if .08% is a good "fits all", I didn't study the statistics.

I'm generally against zero tolerance policies, but that wouldn't change the fact that IF we had a "not a drop" policy, people know of it, and have no excuse if they had a choice.

 

[acptulsa]

If I felt something would deter people, I'd be for it.

How did we get a pro-war person on here?

 

[WaltM]

And this most specifically includes people whose behavior doesn't meet that criteria YET, Walt, because to do anything else takes away our right to be 'crazy like a fox'. Just as soon as you say the speed limit applies to race tracks just as to public highways, what room is there for an American driver to excel? Well, if you think about that example long enough, you'll see how little allowance is made in this idiot proof, but no longer truly free, society for those who can excel to do so.

if you define "freedom you desire" as being able to be crazy like a fox, and speed like a racer, put others at risk, then I'm against it. (I believe in many freedoms I'm owed and I can assure you you'd not recognize them)

 

[klamath]

Should a person be able to stand in the middle of a crowd pointing a partially loaded revolver randomly around, pulling the trigger? Until the firing pin strikes a live round he has not harmed anyone. I really appreciate the concept of not being arrested for a crime you have not yet commited however drunk driving and the above case deffinately makes one ponder?

 

[WaltM]

Finland has a "zero tolerance" law regarding drinking and driving. If you have any amount of alcohol in your system (even a beer), you lose your driver's license for life. The law seems to be effective, because Finland has the lowest causality rate for people killed by drunk drivers, and the lowest number of DUIs.

that may be effective as far as decreasing drivers altogether, which may work OK if you have an excess supply of necessary drivers. Some countries behave better, some countries enforce laws better, some countries need more drivers, all the difference comes here.

 

[payme_rick]

Understandable, Walt, and thank you for your answer..

Tricky subject

 

[WaltM]

Should a person be able to stand in the middle of a crowd pointing a partially loaded revolver randomly around, pulling the trigger? Until the firing pin strikes a live round he has not harmed anyone. I really appreciate the concept of not being arrested for a crime you have not yet commited however drunk driving and the above case deffinately makes one ponder?

that's basically what I'm asking. Do it blind folded to make sure it's random!

 

[WaltM]

Understandable, Walt, and thank you for your answer..

Tricky subject

and that's why I listed all the possible answers.

and as I expected, there's a great diversity.

You have somebody who believes driving blind folded should be legal.
You have somebody who says it's laughable to make blood content illegal
specsaregood still hasn't answered me if whether verbal threats should be legal

 

[acptulsa]

if you define "freedom you desire" as being able to be crazy like a fox, and speed like a racer, put others at risk, then I'm against it. (I believe in many freedoms I'm owed and I can assure you you'd not recognize them)

But until a person is proven to be unable to finish what he starts safely and correctly, where is the crime? Is it a crime to be exceptional? Should the winner of the spelling bee be jailed? And if not, who arbitrates what is 'dangerous behavior'?

You know, it's awfully hard these days to argue the marijuana laws are in place because the stuff's truly dangerous. Yet at one time this was the popular sentiment. Now organized crime has gotten fat off of profits from an enterprise which could have been legal all along, but for someone's mistaken impression of a mythical but extreme danger. And then there's 9/11, where real dangers were overlooked.

So, you're more afraid of a mythical drunk driver than a real and growing federal oppression? When will you concede that principle trumps little gains in this or that bit of safety? Read the book 1984 again. It's a marvelously idiot-proof society. The only dangerous thing left is the government.

This doesn't need to be addressed on the federal level. Can you stop whining about any perceived non-aggressive attack on drunken drivers to be aiding and abetting drunken drivers and tell me why Washington, D.C. needs to be involved? That might make your thread a lot more interesting. Certainly it will convince us that you didn't just come here with your 'owed' but mysterious liberties to be a pain in the neck...

 

[payme_rick]

As for the gun pointing into the crowd anf firing analogy, no, you shouldn't be able to do that..

But that would be equivelent to playing chicken with oncoming traffic intentionally, or driving through a stop sign intentionally and hoping no one in car or on foor gets in the way..

 

[tremendoustie]

Should a person be able to stand in the middle of a crowd pointing a partially loaded revolver randomly around, pulling the trigger? Until the firing pin strikes a live round he has not harmed anyone. I really appreciate the concept of not being arrested for a crime you have not yet commited however drunk driving and the above case deffinately makes one ponder?

That's attacking others, and recklessly putting them in imminent danger -- absolutely you could stop them.

That's very different from creating hard fast rules, which are often applied in circumstances where a person is not putting others in imminent harm. It's morally wrong to arrest someone who's driving in a controlled manner, on a mostly abandoned road, just because their BAC is 0.08.

 

[dannno]

Let me explain something, WaltM, you don't seem to get it.

You have somebody who believes driving blind folded should be legal.

I believe driving blind-folded is currently legal. There are no laws on the books, that I know of, that make driving blind folded illegal.

Somebody who is driving blind-folded will drive recklessly, and they should be punished for that. They shouldn't be punished for driving with a blind fold on, they should be punished for driving recklessly. You don't need to think of EVERY POSSIBLE DISTRACTION a person might have while driving and criminalize it, you criminalize BAD DRIVING. It's the same as alcohol. If somebody is plastered, they should get in trouble for driving recklessly. If a cop sees someone driving recklessly it shouldn't matter if they have alcohol in their system.

If they DO have a lot of alcohol in their system, the cop should OFFER (if they are nice) to take the person home if they are close, or get them a cab somewhere, and have their car towed somewhere it can be stored. If the person refuses and drives off, then the cop should follow them and give them another ticket if they drive recklessly. Maybe then they will take the offer.

You keep acting like if drunk driving was legal then people could just go around driving drunk with no consequences.. that is why most people here aren't considering any of your arguments because they aren't coherent.

 

[klamath]

As for the gun pointing into the crowd anf firing analogy, no, you shouldn't be able to do that..

But that would be equivelent to playing chicken with oncoming traffic intentionally, or driving through a stop sign intentionally and hoping no one in car or on foor gets in the way..

Going by the literal argument that no crime has been commited until someone else is harmed, playing chicken or intentionally running red lights does not qualify as a crime until someone is hit.

 

[misterx]

Drunk driving is not dangerous in all instances. Only when you are wasted and the government admits this by setting the limit. The problem is that the limit is set arbitrarily. You should be punished for reckless driving and not for w/e you breathalyzer test says.

I hate people who drink and drive, but I have to agree with this. The same goes for texting and cell phone laws. These laws are almost like pre-crime laws. The acts don't cause injury in and of themselves. It is running into people that causes the injury, and you don't have to be doing any of these things to do that. Punish people for the act that causes the injury, not the act that you think will lead to an act that may or may not cause an injury. You might as well make it a crime to drive while stupid too, because that is just an accident waiting to happen.

 

[acptulsa]

You keep acting like if drunk driving was legal then people could just go around driving drunk with no consequences.. that is why most people here aren't considering any of your arguments because they aren't coherent.

Thank you, Danno.

What good is putting someone in jail, Walt, compared to taking them to civil court and getting what criminal courts have so far been very, very poor at collecting (but very, very good at preventing criminals from paying by taking them off their jobs and jailing them)--recompense for the victims?

You might as well make it a crime to drive while stupid too, because that is just an accident waiting to happen.

Exactly. Indeed, the .08% limit is just that--an arbitrary way to measure if someone has had enough alchohol to be stupid. And that, of course, depends on the person. So there it is--if someone is making arbitrary judgements about who is too stupid, what is the difference between us and a totalitarian regime?

Like I said, to experience the ultimate idiot-proof society, just read Orwell...

 

[tremendoustie]

Going by the literal argument that no crime has been commited until someone else is harmed, playing chicken or intentionally running red lights does not qualify as a crime until someone is hit.

Nobody has said that you can't stop someone until after they have harmed others.

If a person points a gun at you, you don't have to way for them to pull the trigger before you defend yourself.

That's the point -- it needs to be defense of yourself or innocents from imminent attack -- not the enforcement of arbitrary rules you've made up, for property you don't own.

 

[misterx]

Should a person be able to stand in the middle of a crowd pointing a partially loaded revolver randomly around, pulling the trigger? Until the firing pin strikes a live round he has not harmed anyone. I really appreciate the concept of not being arrested for a crime you have not yet commited however drunk driving and the above case deffinately makes one ponder?

There's a big difference there. In that case, it's reasonable to assume that the person in question has intent to injure. That is not present in drunk driving.

 

[klamath]

That's attacking others, and recklessly putting them in imminent danger -- absolutely you could stop them.

That's very different from creating hard fast rules, which are often applied in circumstances where a person is not putting others in imminent harm. It's morally wrong to arrest someone who's driving in a controlled manner, on a mostly abandoned road, just because their BAC is 0.08.

Driving recklessly does not harn another only that a higher potential for harm exists.