TX Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for 9th DWI

[PaulConventionWV]

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.

But for assault to be punishable, you have to prove intent, and drunk driving does not show intent, so drunk driving is not assault unless the person is actually trying to hurt someone. That doesn't mean it's subjective. That means you have to provide objective, hard evidence and present it before a jury.

If someone assaults someone else with a car, it doesn't matter whether they're drunk or not. Drunkenness is not a measure of your intent to harm or cause injury to others.

 

[Tpoints]

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.

Did I misunderstand you use of assault? I thought the whole point of assault as you brought it up was, IT DID NOT CAUSE INJURY.

Do you need injury to be a crime or not?

 

[Tpoints]

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.

Again, I use you for target practice with specific intent of NOT hurting you. I KNOW it'll have a 80% chance of hitting you, but it's not my intent. Does that count? I can openly tell you I have ZERO REGARD for your life, which would constitute reckless, negligence, even criminal negligence.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Did I misunderstand you use of assault? I thought the whole point of assault as you brought it up was, IT DID NOT CAUSE INJURY.

Do you need injury to be a crime or not?

No. In order for it to be a crime, you have to show one of two things:

1. someone was damged or harmed by the actions of another person,

or

2. proof that the person was trying to hurt you.

 

[Tpoints]

No. In order for it to be a crime, you have to show one of two things:

1. someone was damged or harmed by the actions of another person,

or

2. proof that the person was trying to hurt you.

How do you prove he was trying to hurt you? Do you ask him? He can always say "I'm not trying, I might not care if it happens, but I'm not trying to". I'm sensing that you're going to tell me, whenever one plans on committing a crime "just add alcohol", then you can say you didn't have intent.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Again, I use you for target practice with specific intent of NOT hurting you. I KNOW it'll have a 80% chance of hitting you, but it's not my intent. Does that count? I can openly tell you I have ZERO REGARD for your life, which would constitute reckless, negligence, even criminal negligence.

If it's not your intent, then why are you shooting at me, knowing that you will probably hit me? That constitutes assault in my mind. Even if you are not trying to hurt me, you should know that you can and will get prosecuted for intentionally doing things that you know will probably hurt someone. To me, criminal negligence and assault are the same thing. If you are trying to hit someone with a bullet by using them for target practice and you know hitting them will result in injury or death, then that's assault.

Also, it's impossible to use someone for target practice while trying to not hit them. If you are using them for target practice, then that means you are trying to hit them.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

How do you prove he was trying to hurt you? Do you ask him? He can always say "I'm not trying, I might not care if it happens, but I'm not trying to". I'm sensing that you're going to tell me, whenever one plans on committing a crime "just add alcohol", then you can say you didn't have intent.

You prove it by presenting evidence. That's usually how things work. Seriously, are you this thick in real life or are you being facetious?

And no, I'm not saying just adding alcohol proves the person did not have intent. I'm saying it doesn't matter whether the person had alcohol or not. If you can prove intent, it doesn't matter whether there was any alcohol in their system just like it doesn't matter if there was marijuana in their car.

 

[presence]

No. In order for it to be a crime, you have to show one of two things:

1. someone was damged or harmed by the actions of another person,

or

2. proof that the person was trying to hurt you.

Actually no. You need both. AND not OR.... unless it is a "strict liability" "statutory" offence.

 

[Tpoints]

If it's not your intent, then why are you shooting at me, knowing that you will probably hit me? That constitutes assault in my mind. Even if you are not trying to hurt me, you should know that you can and will get prosecuted for intentionally doing things that you know will probably hurt someone. To me, criminal negligence and assault are the same thing. If you are trying to hit someone with a bullet by using them for target practice and you know hitting them will result in injury or death, then that's assault.

I don't need to justify to you why I am shooting towards you even knowing the results. That's MY business, just like you driving drunk is not MY business to ask. I know it constitutes assault in your mind, too bad I don't care. Yes, I am well aware the law sides with you, a person who has no regard for my freedom to shoot at you even though I explicitly told you I have zero intention of hurting you.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Actually no. You need both. AND not OR.... unless it is a "strict liability" "statutory" offence.

I don't think both are needed in order for the person to have to pay restitution. They may not serve a prison sentence, but they are still required to make their accidental victim whole, one way or another.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't need to justify to you why I am shooting towards you even knowing the results. That's MY business, just like you driving drunk is not MY business to ask. I know it constitutes assault in your mind, too bad I don't care. Yes, I am well aware the law sides with you, a person who has no regard for my freedom to shoot at you even though I explicitly told you I have zero intention of hurting you.

But if you are shooting at me, then you are assaulting me. If I drive drunk, I am not necessarily trying to do anything to anybody. There is a big difference there.

Shooting at someone and driving drunk are not the same thing, because shooting at someone shows intent to hurt them, driving drunk does not. If you shoot at me, your actions are directed at me. If you are driving, whether drunk or not, your actions aren't directed at anyone unless I can prove that you literally chased me with your car.

 

[Tpoints]

I don't think both are needed in order for the person to have to pay restitution. They may not serve a prison sentence, but they are still required to make their accidental victim whole, one way or another.

Oh ok, slow down.

IN REALITY, IN FACT, not both are needed. There are such things as "strict liability crimes".

Whether in your book they would be crimes, that's another story. So I'll try to be careful when I am asking your opinion (because I am quite familiar with currently existing laws, or at least its principles behind it)

 

[presence]

I don't think both are needed in order for the person to have to pay restitution. They may not serve a prison sentence, but they are still required to make their accidental victim whole, one way or another.

Being both guilty in mind and guilty in fact are required for all (non strict liability / per se) criminal offenses.

Civil offenses (restitition) and Strict Liablility Criminal offences do not require the element of mens rea (guilty mind) as I read it; if they do the mens rea bar is set at "consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk". Neither the criminal or civil elements of DUI law, as codified, seem to require any element of mens rea as it is a Strict Liability, though I'm sure mens rea could be an aggrivating factor.

Strict liability can be determined by looking at the intent of the legislature. If the legislature seems to have purposefully left out a mental state element (mens rea) because they felt mental state need not be proven, it is treated as a strict liability. However, when a statute is silent as to the mental state (mens rea) and it is not clear that the legislature purposely left it out, the ordinary presumption is that a mental state is required for criminal liability. When no mens rea is specified, under the Model Penal Code or MPC,
the default mens rea requirement is recklessness, which the MPC defines as "when a person
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk
with respect to a material element".[SUP][3][/SUP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have per se laws defining it as a crime to drive with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above a specified level, currently 0.08 percent (0.08 g alcohol per 100 ml blood).

http://www.iihs.org/laws/dui.aspx

The term illegal per se means that the act is inherently illegal. Thus, an act is illegal without extrinsic proof of any surrounding circumstances such as lack of scienter (knowledge) or other defenses. Acts are made illegal per se by statute, constitution, or case law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_per_se

 

[Tpoints]

But if you are shooting at me, then you are assaulting me. If I drive drunk, I am not necessarily trying to do anything to anybody. There is a big difference there.

Shooting at someone and driving drunk are not the same thing, because shooting at someone shows intent to hurt them, driving drunk does not. If you shoot at me, your actions are directed at me. If you are driving, whether drunk or not, your actions aren't directed at anyone unless I can prove that you literally chased me with your car.

you are assuming that drunk driving, or crappy driving, is punished for the harm it causes. It isn't, it's punished for the high probability of it. I didn't need to specifically want to hurt you in assault, I only need to not care for the results that I know is highly likely to happen. And that's the point. Your intention and knowledge in the context of driving needs only to reach either violating a traffic law, or increase probability of causing harm.

This is where all the similarity comes in. You don't need to intend to hurt a person to be charged or punished for firing a weapon, you only need to knowingly fire your weapon without a good reason, a direct violation of most gun laws. Both shooting at/near a person and drunk driving show disregard for the result, though knowledge of it. I know you're going to tell me "but I can drive great with high BAC levels" and I can tell you "I can shoot very safely, why should I be subject to laws all other people are when I obviously have superior shooting skills".

 

[Tpoints]

Restitution for damages is civil. I was speakin about DUI's which are generally, in fact as codified, a statutory strict liability criminal offence. Both are needed for all non strict liablity crimes.

blah... editing for clarity bear with me

take your time. This is good!

 

[presence]

take your time. This is good!

Life hasn't been quite the same since my concussion last year.

 

[MelissaWV]

Getting dRunk and habitually smashing into people is not protected by any law I know of.

Fixed that for ya.

DUI laws are along the same lines as "hate crime" legislation. It's already a crime to smash into people during the course of regular operation of a motor vehicle, regardless of your state of intoxication, just like it's already a crime to lynch someone, regardless of whether or not they are a protected subset of humanity.

 

[Tpoints]

Fixed that for ya.

DUI laws are along the same lines as "hate crime" legislation. It's already a crime to smash into people during the course of regular operation of a motor vehicle, regardless of your state of intoxication, just like it's already a crime to lynch someone, regardless of whether or not they are a protected subset of humanity.

No, they are not the same. Hate crime legislation is intended to protect special groups, and discourage "preventable" crimes, and distinguish them from heat of passion defenses. DUI is punishing people for reckless disregard and negligence, this is to avoid the "I didn't intend to" defense. The main difference is that hate crime appears to punish intent (mens rea) and DUI specifically avoids it.

 

[MelissaWV]

No, they are not the same. Hate crime legislation is intended to protect special groups, and discourage "preventable" crimes, and distinguish them from heat of passion defenses. DUI is punishing people for reckless disregard and negligence, this is to avoid the "I didn't intend to" defense. The main difference is that hate crime appears to punish intent (mens rea) and DUI specifically avoids it.

It's along the same lines, to me, in that it seeks to take the same result, but make it seem more deplorable by tacking on what is really an irrelevant data point.

Earlier in this thread, and in the dozens of others on the subject, the ole "I hope your family gets killed by a drunk driver!" chestnut was trotted out. Somehow it's supposed to be worse, or more preventable, for someone to be driving drunk and strike a family. The last several nasty accidents around here had zero to do with drinking. Those folks are still dead. Likewise, punishing someone more harshly for beating someone up because the victim was gay or albino or female or foreign... it's stupid.

Even hearing that someone was charged with a DUI tends to paint a picture in most folks' minds. It is a massive stigma.

 

[Tpoints]

It's along the same lines, to me, in that it seeks to take the same result, but make it seem more deplorable by tacking on what is really an irrelevant data point.

Oh, here's the difference again. Hate crime requires actual crime, most likely actual bodily injury (maybe threats are an exception). Hate crime never punishes mens rea on its own, as many would like to believe (although some groups may wish to make it so). DUI does not require actual injury, no more than speeding or running red light does. Again , DUI punishes recklessness, negligence, specifically lacking mens rea. Perhaps a big similarity is, they are both designed to discourage and prevent what is believed to be preventable. Hate crime is based on the belief that without the hate, there may be no crime. Similarly, DUI is based on the belief that when the driver is sober, he's a better and safer driver.