TX Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for 9th DWI

[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.

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.

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 shit 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 shit 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]