TX Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for 9th DWI

[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 bullshit. 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 fucking 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.