TX Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for 9th DWI

[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 bullshit 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 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.

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".[SUP][1][/SUP] 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.[SUP][1][/SUP] 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_under_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.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Assault in some US jurisdictions[SUP][which?][/SUP] 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

Apprehendtransitive verb

1
: arrest, seize <apprehend a thief>

2
a : to become aware of : perceive
b : to anticipate especially with anxiety, dread, or fear

3
: to grasp with the understanding : recognize the meaning of

intransitive verb
: understand, grasp

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.