Question for "pro-drunk drivers"

[payme_rick]

And just to address walt's question to me about the punishment for injury or killing someone while dwi: I really dunno the level, but yes, some punishment because that person's actions resulted in the injury or death.. But as I said, not sure of the level..

I will say, for about 6-7 years I wanted the guy who killed my sister to die a slow and painful death, or for the authorities to at least give me a baseball bat and two cracks at the guy's skull..

Now if I met the guy I'd ask if he felt bad about what had happened to my sister.. I truely believe the guy would most-likely say he did feel bad... I'm pretty sure he thinks about it every day..

I'd first tell him I forgave him, then ask him to forgive me for my wanted him dead for so many years..

 

[WaltM]

But until a person is proven to be unable to finish what he starts safely and correctly, where is the crime?

So making a verbal threat and driving blind folded wouldn't be a crime in your book?

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'?

No it's not a crime to be exceptional. But the burden of proof is on you to show you're safe and not a threat.

There are many people who arbitrate dangerous behavior, people who ask these "who gets to decide questions" ultimately believe "nobody should".

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.

How was 9/11 overlooked? What crime was committed before the crime was committed?

Are you arguing that marijuana has the same chemical effect as alcohol as far as driving ability?

So, you're more afraid of a mythical drunk driver than a real and growing federal oppression?

No, I'm more afraid of the uncertainty of REAL drunk drivers, every growing government is oppression to some, freedom for others.

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...

why are my liberties more mysterious and less owed than yours?
Says who this time? a book? Your God?
I never said anything should be address on the federal level.

 

[WaltM]

And just to address walt's question to me about the punishment for injury or killing someone while dwi: I really dunno the level, but yes, some punishment because that person's actions resulted in the injury or death.. But as I said, not sure of the level..

I will say, for about 6-7 years I wanted the guy who killed my sister to die a slow and painful death, or for the authorities to at least give me a baseball bat and two cracks at the guy's skull..

Now if I met the guy I'd ask if he felt bad about what had happened to my sister.. I truely believe the guy would most-likely say he did feel bad... I'm pretty sure he thinks about it every day..

I'd first tell him I forgave him, then ask him to forgive me for my wanted him dead for so many years..

what if he's forgotten about it, would you? Or would you still want him dead?

Now for my question : had you known what the consequences were for DUI, would you have not paid $500, or even $5000 to find a ride home just to prevent all of the fines?

 

[dannno]

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.

If I were a cop (hah! no, seriously, just imagine..) hiding in the bushes waiting for somebody to disobey a traffic law at an intersection... and a person came up to the light, and there were no cars in site, and they ran the red light, I could not in good conscious give them a ticket.. If I felt they were putting somebody else in any sort of danger by running the red light, I would give them a ticket.

Playing chicken is inherently threatening, that could qualify as a crime off the bat. Threatening to murder somebody is a crime.

 

[WaltM]

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..

so you mean people who drive drunk AREN'T intentional??

 

[Brian4Liberty]

You should be punished for reckless driving and not for w/e you breathalyzer test says.

Yep, reckless driving with a special circumstance of under the influence. One problem with breathalyzers is accuracy. They have been proven to be wrong in the past (intentionally miscalibrated?)

DUI laws are about making money for the government, not about protecting lives.

Yep, they are now.

They HARDLY see arrests as bonuses or commissions to their job.

Police are given quotas. Sometimes on specific charges like DUI.

"Drunk driving" is not a problem. It's a subcategory of a larger problem, which is "Driving dangerously." If you're driving dangerously, whoever's job it is to ensure safety on the roadway would be justified in pulling you over and trying to arrive at the reason why it's happening. You might be in medical distress. You might be intoxicated. You might be having car trouble. You might have been trying to eat a cheeseburger, talk on your cellphone, change the radio station, and write down a grocery list at the same time.
...
The ultimate problem is the bad driving. Punish that, and tack on citations at the scenes of accidents, and publish statistics from independent sources which point out how many accidents happen for what reasons, but don't sit there and waste so much time and energy tracking down everyone who's over a "limit," while ignoring the people we see on the road everyday who might not be intoxicated, but are obviously driving really dangerously.

Absolutely. (And well-written as always)

Reckless driving is already illegal.
Murder is already illegal.

Prosecute drunk drivers for the crimes they commit.

Prosecuting someone for being drunk because they might kill someone is the same as prosecuting someone for carrying a gun because they might kill someone.

Yep.

Public intoxication statutes were enacted not because of the danger drunks pose to others, but for "moral" reasons.

Yes, the situation we face today is neo-prohibition, directly the result of a single special interest (prohibition) lobby-group, MADD. If we continue down this road, we will make a full circle.


No one has mentioned the most egregious of violations of our liberty due to the war on alcohol: road blocks and checkpoints. It's a direct violation of the 4th amendment. Show your papers. Everyone is assumed guilty. Resources are wasted. Traffic jams are created, often late at night. Driving tired is one of the most dangerous ways to drive, and this can make the problem worse if people are stuck for long periods.

 

[WaltM]

Threatening to murder somebody is a crime.

tell these people who say "nobody was hurt yet" why it's a crime.

 

[Romulus]

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?

YouTube - Steves Riding Lawn Mower DUI Arrest Video

Why does the cop call that a highway? That video is fucking hilarious! LOL!

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.

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

good points klamath. Reckless actions ought to have consequences in a free society not just arbitrary rules to which there is no standard.

I dont see this publicly going well for the liberty movement.

 

[YumYum]

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



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.

You give a drunk an inch, they will take a mile. Too many people are killed in this country by drunk drivers. Texas used to have a law that you could drink while you were driving; as long as you weren't drunk. Guess what? Texas had the highest death rate of people killed by drunk drivers. We should have a zero tolerance law like Finland does. This way, drunks will buy two cases of beer instead of one when they go on a bender, so they won't have to make a return trip to the liquor store. I'm all for saving lives.

Did you ever stop to think that we don't have a zero tolerance law because of the revenue the courts and lawyers get for busting people for drunk driving? First offense is a fifteen hundred dollar fine plus court cost and attorney's fees.

 

[klamath]

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.

I am not argung the BAC limit. In todays world with all the evidence of the effects of drunk driving it is reasonable to assume a person that intentionally drinks then get into a motor vehicle has an intent to injure.

 

[WaltM]

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



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.

WILL ? How do you know? How do you know there aren't exceptions?

How many exceptions would make it so that the driver is given benefit of doubt, rather than you saying "WILL" drive recklessly?

Oh, I haven't even gotten to , why should a person be punished for driving recklessly? He's NOT hurt anybody YET.

 

[payme_rick]

Walt:

If I did have the money, sure, I'd do it all of the time because it'd be safer than me driving..

 

[dannno]

tell these people who say "nobody was hurt yet" why it's a crime.

Because drinking alcohol and getting into a car is not inherently threatening. It's only threatening if they drive recklessly.. in which case they should be pulled over for that and charged with that.. There is no reason to single out all of the causes of reckless driving, that's just ridiculous.

 

[acptulsa]

So making a verbal threat and driving blind folded wouldn't be a crime in your book?

Is this a fishing expedition? Either could be done without being in any way criminal. Should a blindfolded driver who is out on the Bonneville Salt Flats with no one within a hundred miles be considered a criminal in your book? Because with one size fits all laws, it would be a crime, but is no danger to any person.

No it's not a crime to be exceptional. But the burden of proof is on you to show you're safe and not a threat.

Is that a Constitutional opinion?

There are many people who arbitrate dangerous behavior, people who ask these "who gets to decide questions" ultimately believe "nobody should".

And Kim Jong Il knows exactly who should get to decide.

How was 9/11 overlooked? What crime was committed before the crime was committed?

The government knew much of what was coming, yet did nothing to stop it. This fact is well documented. Just watch PBS now and then.

Are you arguing that marijuana has the same chemical effect as alcohol as far as driving ability?

That was a rather laughable leap. I was talking about Prohibition, not operating motor vehicles. Mobsters benefit from Prohibition. No one else does (except crooked cops). It's a fallacy to believe one can stop every vice. If I'm directly referencing fast driving at all, it is as a vice, I suppose. But I was merely addressing my principles and yours from a different point of view, in order to get some perspective and, if you will, 'binocular vision'.

No, I'm more afraid of the uncertainty of REAL drunk drivers, every growing government is oppression to some, freedom for others.

Freedom from what? The uncertainties of life? Yes, to be sure. Few people relish the uncertainty that comes of living amongst criminals. And to oppress one is to give the other freer movement. But there are limits to how much freedom one would give up for that 'freedom', aren't there?

why are my liberties more mysterious and less owed than yours?

You intimated the same, I did not.

Says who this time? a book? Your God?
I never said anything should be address on the federal level.

You also never asked which anti-drunk driving laws we oppose. So, I'll ask for you: Hey, guys--anyone here opposed to local, community drunk driving laws?

 

[WaltM]

You give a drunk an inch, they will take a mile.

Same thing they say about the government.

*facepalm*

Too many people are killed in this country by drunk drivers.

I bet you these people can't cite how many people are killed by the boogeyman government because of these laws.

Texas used to have a law that you could drink while you were driving; as long as you weren't drunk. Guess what? Texas had the highest death rate of people killed by drunk drivers. We should have a zero tolerance law like Finland does.

I don't think the US is a perfect place for zero tolerance, it may lead to lots of bribes and corruption, but those punished, are still punished, I just hope it doesnt lose its good drivers in the process.

This way, drunks will buy two cases of beer instead of one when they go on a bender, so they won't have to make a return trip to the liquor store. I'm all for saving lives.

Did you ever stop to think that we don't have a zero tolerance law because of the revenue the courts and lawyers get for busting people for drunk driving? First offense is a fifteen hundred dollar fine plus court cost and attorney's fees.

Good question. That's like people who argue against boogeyman pharma, they want you to get well, but not too well, sick, but not dead, they want$ ur money$

But what you're arguing for, could also slippery slope into arguments for death penalty, nobody can argue against, that executing a person is cheaper than keeping them alive for 10 years.

 

[misterx]

I am not argung the BAC limit. In todays world with all the evidence of the effects of drunk driving it is reasonable to assume a person that intentionally drinks then get into a motor vehicle has an intent to injure.

Intent is not the same as likely. You're telling me that people drink ten beers and get in their car looking for someone to smash into? They don't need the beers to do that, if that's their intent.

 

[WaltM]

Walt:

If I did have the money, sure, I'd do it all of the time because it'd be safer than me driving..

but somehow you magically found the money every month after that, didn't you?

are you saying that you paid $500 a month when you returned to driving? if so, wouldn't $500 a month hired you a driver on call?

 

[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.

If you don't have hard and fast rules for law inforcement your open the door to the law enforcement officer making the rules of what is reckless that can change for the judgement of every cop.

 

[WaltM]

Intent is not the same as likely. You're telling me that people drink ten beers and get in their car looking for someone to smash into? They don't need the beers to do that, if that's their intent.

not the same, obviously, but intent also is likelihood. I'm not sure if likelihood you can control is necessarily worse than likelihood you can't control.

 

[tremendoustie]

If you don't have hard and fast rules for law inforcement your open the door to the law enforcement officer making the rules of what is reckless that can change for the judgement of every cop.

Fine, as long as when they falsely arrest someone, that cop has to personally make restitution for the harm they have caused. Oh, and let people choose an alternative protection/police agency, if they don't like the service the current one is giving them. THAT would be accountability.