TX Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for 9th DWI

[Anti Federalist]

The second amendment does not allow you to go about randomly shooting at innocent people; the equivalent of driving drunk.

edit: It would be absurd to think that it is okay to take a gun down to my local shopping mall and randomly shoot into the crowds of shoppers, so long as I don't hit anyone.

There are plenty of people, quite of few of them in the same MADD crowd that we are dealing with here, that do not agree.

That weapon, just sitting there, is de facto a source of death.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Driving that will get you arrested too.

+ rep

Or this. Problem will most likely be solved the next time he gets in a wreck.

 

[tod evans]

best you stay where you are at, uncle. Folks of your sort find my community a decidely unhealthy place to visit.

I'd be honored to stop by,I've never had a problem in the lower class neighborhoods I've visited.

 

[AFPVet]

I just have to get this out there... no victim, no crime. I don't believe in pre-crime... I didn't think it worked when I was a cop, and I don't think it works now. All it does is clogs up the system and/or makes money for the state. If you hurt someone, then you pay the price.

 

[AGRP]

Driving that will get you arrested too.

Theyre legal in some areas as long as they have proper lights and signals.

 

[truelies]

There are plenty of people, quite of few of them in the same MADD crowd that we are dealing with here, that do not agree.

That weapon, just sitting there, is de facto a source of death.

Well so you say- BUT.............the flack you and your sort are getting seems to be 100% due to your insane attempts to justify driving/shooting impaired in a manners which guarandamntees lots of broken dead innocents. Act like an adult with guns & vehicles rather than like a stupid 20 something living in mom's basement and no one will bother you.

 

[AGRP]

I just have to get this out there... no victim, no crime. I don't believe in pre-crime... I didn't think it worked when I was a cop, and I don't think it works now. All it does is clogs up the system and/or makes money for the state. If you hurt someone, then you pay the price.

He injured at least one person. In a voluntary society, i would like to believe his community would come together to trade his vehicle for something like a golf cart, horse, bike, etc.

 

[truelies]

.......... no victim, no crime. ......................

When the vic is dead or broken its a bit LATE to question the dangerous stupidity of drunk driving. Wanna drink? FINE!!!!!! Take a cab home. Everyone wins , except YOUR pathetic self-absorbed immature ego.

 

[MelissaWV]

How about some creative, liberty inspired, solutions besides locking him away and pointless cat fights?

Already discussed punishing the actual acts that cause harm or danger, but several people are so blinded by their outrage at WHY the person caused the harm or danger, that they really don't care about that silly technicality.

 

[MelissaWV]

When the vic is dead or broken its a bit LATE to question the dangerous stupidity of drunk driving. Wanna drink? FINE!!!!!! Take a cab home. Everyone wins , except YOUR pathetic self-absorbed immature ego.

...or driving while eating, or tired, or being distracted by whining children, or on the phone, or listening to the GPS, or sex acts, or not knowing how to turn on your lights/wipers, or fiddling with the radio, or smoking, or being attacked by insects/other animals in your vehicle, or having to pee too badly, or under the influence of perfectly legal drugs, or having had some NyQuil, or...

I am sure you are just as rabid about laws against all of these things.

Or how about punishing people who are driving dangerously regardless of the potential chemical root of it? No. That's not even an option in this thread.

 

[truelies]

........................Nice work.

Nah, its your sort of self-absorbed danger to the community who make the Stasi appear to have a rationale for existence.

BTW, just WHAT do you feel should be the fate of one who kills/mains while driving impaired? 100hours community service? A stern talking too? Nothing, if the perp is yer buddy?

Personally I will go with Death to be inflicted by the hand of the vics next of kin and total forfeiture of all assets.

 

[MelissaWV]

Nah, its your sort of self-absorbed danger to the community who make the Stasi appear to have a rationale for existence.

BTW, just WHAT do you feel should be the fate of one who kills/mains while driving impaired? 100hours community service? A stern talking too? Nothing, if the perp is yer buddy?

Personally I will go with Death to be inflicted by the hand of the vics next of kin and total forfeiture of all assets.

BTW, do you feel the fate of one who kills/maims while driving (impaired or not) should be equal to the fate of someone who damages only property while driving (impaired or not)?

 

[tod evans]

Nah, its your sort of self-absorbed danger to the community who make the Stasi appear to have a rationale for existence.

BTW, just WHAT do you feel should be the fate of one who kills/mains while driving impaired? 100hours community service? A stern talking too? Nothing, if the perp is yer buddy?

Personally I will go with Death to be inflicted by the hand of the vics next of kin and total forfeiture of all assets.

Remove the "impaired" clause and you'd have better luck selling your fish...

Trying to argue mens rea is a loosing argument, especially in the case of those who are impaired.

 

[Danan]

(Disclaimer: I've only read all posts up to the quoted one. Sorry if I repeat something that was already said.)

Legitimate drunk driving has always been illegal. But how is "drunk" determined? The presence of alcohol, or so impaired that driving is obviously effected?

Most of us want drivers to be safe, but this can go too far, and we are already going down the road you want to take us. How many texting while driving incidents before life in prison? How about putting on make-up while driving? Shaving? Or how about the true number one cause of accidents, driving while tired?

And while we are at it, let's make getting a license a true test of competency. No more bad drivers on the road. No more beginner drivers on the road. No more drivers that come to complete stops in the fast lane of the freeway so they can slowly cut across all lanes of traffic to make an exit that they are missing.

And when you start down this path there is only one outcome: more draconian laws, more law enforcement, bigger budgets, and more people in jail. And in the end, the worse drivers on the road will probably still be out there, because you can't outlaw stupid.

The really interesting thing about those problems is, that the crucial point is not so much that the laws regarding driving are so bad, but rather the fact that the government shouldn't even be in the position to make these kinds of laws. It's first and foremost a property rights issue.

If roads were privately owned, as every good and service should be, the owner would have to decide whether there should be a driver's license required or not. Whether there should be a limit on the blood alcohol level and how high this should be. The same is true for speed limits, etc. And also, of course, for the fines for breaking these rules as well as there execution.

The entrepreneur would have to balance the additional revenue from drunk, speeding drivers against the lost revenue from all the people who seek alternatives to that road, because it would have an abyssmal death rate with a total laissez-faire policy. And I'm almost certain, that roads would be a lot safer in this system than today's roads, because that would have a much more beneficial impact on profits.

I also think that this is a good opportunity to criticize some libertarians who believe it's against the NAP for the government to enforce driver's licenses (which would, in some way, almost certainly exist in a private road system), etc. The government is the owner of the street. The owner choses the rules. There is nothing intrinsicly bad about that. The reason it's a mess is because the government owns the road (obviously bought with stolen money) and therefore no competition over the best set of rules for the marginal costumor of "driving" exists, because nobody is able to compete with a government that offers a service you have to pay for whether you use it or not.

The same principle is true for public education, health care, etc. As long as these things are publically owned, governments are going to make the rules. They are mostly going to be very bad rules, but democracy is a really bad way of determining what should be done instead. The way to sort these problems out is via free markets and competition.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

ideas are not objects. the bible itself is an object in that is just a physical printed book(or online data on disk).
but the ideas expressed in some of the books of the bible can cause people to act in violent ways.
you aren't talking to some rube. stop trying to changed my argument of one of ideas to one of objects. it isn't going to work.

hitler didn't make people slaughter others, the ideas of socialist nationalism did.

Anything can have meaning to a person, it doesn't have to be words. Words don't speak for themselves. People can give them their own meaning, and it's not the Bible's fault that some people choose to interpret them in a way that suggests they should be violent. Like I said, people are going to kill and lust for power whether or not it has anything to do with the Bible. People have used all sorts of ideologies to commit heinous acts.

The ideas of socialist nationalism only worked as an excuse to carry out violent acts. The plans and processes of carrying out these acts didn't just spring from pages, they took places in the hearts and minds of men who perverted them for an agenda. The only reason Germans killed was because they thought it served their best interest to support that agenda.

Regardless, however, the Bible never condoned violence. Read in its context, nothing violent can be derived as being a command by God unless men pervert it in such a way that it does. They were violent with or without the Bible, but criminals will sometimes use things that have cultural meaning in order to gain support like Hitler did. That doesn't mean the ideologies themselves were responsible. Every single German had the choice to obey or not.

All you're doing is replacing guns with ideas, and all of a sudden people don't have control over themselves. That's bullshit. You're only saying that because you have your own agenda of opposing Christianity. You do that by telling us the most popular Christian literature is responsible for things people almost universally think are bad. The idea of anti-Christianity didn't force you to do it, though. You conceived of that in your own mind and acted on your own behest. No words control you. You are not a slave to ideas and text. People who commit violent acts on behalf of their beliefs are only acting out the evil in their own hearts.

In other words, the ideas came from men, not the other way around. You can't blame this on a certain ideology, especially when that ideology never condoned violence. The fact that people use it for evil only shows that people will interpret anything in a way that fits their own conceptions about the world. So stop blaming Christianity and hold people accountable for their own individual actions. To expand it to the idea is to stereotype that person's beliefs on a much wider spectrum.

 

[Tod]

If roads were privately owned, as every good and service should be, the owner would have to decide whether there should be a driver's license required or not. Whether there should be a limit on the blood alcohol level and how high this should be. The same is true for speed limits, etc. And also, of course, for the fines for breaking these rules as well as there execution.

Things such as roads that are publicly owned are de facto owned by the public and the duly elected representatives of the public are the ones making the laws, much as employees of a private road-owning company would do. As our representatives, lawmakers have decided that there should be a limit on blood alcohol and how high it should be. The same is true for speed limits, etc. And also, of course, for the fines for breaking these rules as well as their enforcement.

Wait...is there an echo in here?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

//

 

[PaulConventionWV]

How can there be an "attack" if there was no victim?

Yes, I did.

So did lots of other people.

We did lots of other things as well.

I would trade that world for today's surveillance state, instantly.

I believe you mean you would trade today's surveillance state for that world...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Nope, but she gets to spend her remaining days on the miscreant res and her Property gets confiscated to 100% of the amount required to make her vics whole.......and YES if one dies so should she.


Why do you have such trouble with personal responsibilty, sport?

It's not personal responsibility when arbitrary sentences are being handed down. I can't be expected to bend to your rules, and likewise for you. I was arguing with a liberal not long ago who used that same line of reasoning to say it's okay for the government to steal and tax endlessly. If you don't comply and you get arrested: personal responsibility, they said. As if I should be responsible for some jackwad who tries to take money from me and then suffer the arbitrary consequences of the thief when I choose not to give it up.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Really, it shouldn't be illegal to drink and drive. It should be illegal to cause damage using a vehicle while being drunk.

Why does the "while being drunk" part matter? It's the same as if somebody completely sober did some damage, either way, they are to be held responsible for the damage.