Legalize Drunk Driving

Originally posted by csulli456
Here`s another one for you Mr. Logic.
I drive a lot, more then most, about 20,000 + miles a year and I see it all.
Today as I was driving safely in the left lane on a highway in Yonkers NY, two cars racing at my estimate of about 130mph. came screaming by me and actually shook my car as they were went by within inches of the passenger side of my car.
They had these piece of crap little Hondas (no offense to Honda, I loved my Accord, great car) and they came up out of nowhere and had to go around me at the last second.
Now I don`t think anyone speeding is necessarily taking my life into their hands but this type of driving on a busy highway at two o~clock in the afternoon was so very stupid, dangerous and risky.
I was going about 70/75, very alert, and I never go past someone more then 5 or 10mph. faster then their speed. Inbetween cars, sure I go a little faster, but I never put someone else at risk. My car is safe, great handling system, and I am a very alert driver who has managed to avoid many accidents (knock on wood).

With your logic, it was completely their right to do this and since they didn`t crash into me I shouln`t be upset.
Truth is, they were probably buzzed from an afternoon holiday party after work (my opinion).
But that`s not the point.
The point is, you don`t put others at risk no matter how much you think you are in control.
My family`s right to live greatly surpasses your right to drive however the hell you want to.

That constitutes assault.

They engaged in an activity that recklessly endangered your person, and you could stand before a judge and say as much.

That crime has a specific victim that can stand before a judge and claim damages.

Thus, they did not have a right to threaten you with imminent danger.

A drunk that you pass on the road who is doing 10 under the speed limit while not veering into you is not the same thing. He did not place you in imminent danger.

reply to post by kalisdad


they are seperate acts within themselves, different ways of preventing accidents or harm of life, one does not need to be driving dangerously to cause such a situation as losing control of vehicle or having an accident, being impaired while driving over the influence is another such prevention and why it's most likely in force as another measure with reguards to all the other road rules in place.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by DrChuck

I don't have a right to be safe? Yet you have the right to drive drunk and endanger lives?

I do have the "right" to be safe.
.
My "right" to defend myself, is merely an extension and augmentation of my "right" to be safe.

Without the "right" to be safe, the "right" to defend oneself would be pointless and unjustified.

A right is an action.

Being safe is not an action.

If being safe was a right, the government would have to lock you up in a rubber room protected by the military.

That's the only way to be totally "safe"

I guess, but liberty isn't an action also. Am I denied the right to liberty?

Originally posted by DrChuck

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by DrChuck

I don't have a right to be safe? Yet you have the right to drive drunk and endanger lives?

I do have the "right" to be safe.
.
My "right" to defend myself, is merely an extension and augmentation of my "right" to be safe.

Without the "right" to be safe, the "right" to defend oneself would be pointless and unjustified.

A right is an action.

Being safe is not an action.

If being safe was a right, the government would have to lock you up in a rubber room protected by the military.

That's the only way to be totally "safe"

I guess, but liberty isn't an action also.

edit on 18-12-2010 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)

Liberty is the sphere of action you may take.

I say this with the highest level of respect for your right to your opinion, but this could very well be one of the dumbest, most irresponsible threads I have ever seen posted on the walls of ATS.

And that my friend is saying a mouthful.

If you have the right to get in your car drunk off your brain and run over my loved ones with your car while you wrecklessly plow your way into oncoming traffic, then I should have the right to come to your house and beat your skull in with a stick as an order of preventative measure.

Drunk drivers kill innocent mothers and children, people who didnt deserve to die that way.

I want you to watch this video before you go to bed at night, let it sink in.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by DrChuck

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by DrChuck

I don't have a right to be safe? Yet you have the right to drive drunk and endanger lives?

I do have the "right" to be safe.
.
My "right" to defend myself, is merely an extension and augmentation of my "right" to be safe.

Without the "right" to be safe, the "right" to defend oneself would be pointless and unjustified.

A right is an action.

Being safe is not an action.

If being safe was a right, the government would have to lock you up in a rubber room protected by the military.

That's the only way to be totally "safe"

I guess, but liberty isn't an action also.

edit on 18-12-2010 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)

Liberty is the sphere of action you may take.

Liberty is a condition or mode of being, not an action or a "sphere of action".

reply to post by BlackOps719


Killing people is murder, laws against murder are good.

Drunk driving laws are not necessary to prosecute murder.

reply to post by BlackOps719


May God bless you and keep you and your family safe. Thank you.

Originally posted by DrChuck

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by DrChuck

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by DrChuck

I don't have a right to be safe? Yet you have the right to drive drunk and endanger lives?

I do have the "right" to be safe.
.
My "right" to defend myself, is merely an extension and augmentation of my "right" to be safe.

Without the "right" to be safe, the "right" to defend oneself would be pointless and unjustified.

A right is an action.

Being safe is not an action.

If being safe was a right, the government would have to lock you up in a rubber room protected by the military.

That's the only way to be totally "safe"

I guess, but liberty isn't an action also.

edit on 18-12-2010 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)

Liberty is the sphere of action you may take.

Liberty is a condition or mode of being, not an action or a "sphere of action".

No, rightful liberty is the sphere of action one may engage in without causing harm or property damage to another.

Originally posted by csulli456

What if I manufactured a gun that shot straight most of the time but every so often shot sideways and killed the next guy at the target range? Would it still be ok to use this gun with no ill intent?

Your analogy sucks. No offense.

I got pulled over the night before Thanksgiving. I had had ONE beer at the bar, and was giving a friend a ride home. I was pulled over by the cop for "avoiding" him. I was then told to get out of the car.
"Why do I need to get out?"
"Because I told you to."
"You need a legal reason, officer."
"BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T GET OUT I'LL THROW YOU OUT!"
He then opened my car door, pulled me out, and slammed me over the hood. I don't like bullies getting physical with me, especially when I can't do anything to resist. After slamming me over the hood of my own car, he expected me to walk a straight line, stand on one foot, blah blah blah... Keep in mind, "roadsides" are DESIGNED TO MAKE YOU FAIL, whether you're drunk or not.

They then impounded my car, and took me to jail then the hospital for a blood test because of "suspicion of drunk driving." They would NOT ALLOW ME TO TAKE A BREATHALYZER.
That was almost a month ago. I STILL have not received any proof from the pigs that I was even "over the limit" that night (which I wasn't; if I was they wouldn't have denied me a breathalyzer. :@@.

So, I got taken to jail for DUI without any proof I was drunk. :/ Srsly?

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by csulli456
Here`s another one for you Mr. Logic.
I drive a lot, more then most, about 20,000 + miles a year and I see it all.
Today as I was driving safely in the left lane on a highway in Yonkers NY, two cars racing at my estimate of about 130mph. came screaming by me and actually shook my car as they were went by within inches of the passenger side of my car.
They had these piece of crap little Hondas (no offense to Honda, I loved my Accord, great car) and they came up out of nowhere and had to go around me at the last second.
Now I don`t think anyone speeding is necessarily taking my life into their hands but this type of driving on a busy highway at two o~clock in the afternoon was so very stupid, dangerous and risky.
I was going about 70/75, very alert, and I never go past someone more then 5 or 10mph. faster then their speed. Inbetween cars, sure I go a little faster, but I never put someone else at risk. My car is safe, great handling system, and I am a very alert driver who has managed to avoid many accidents (knock on wood).

With your logic, it was completely their right to do this and since they didn`t crash into me I shouln`t be upset.
Truth is, they were probably buzzed from an afternoon holiday party after work (my opinion).
But that`s not the point.
The point is, you don`t put others at risk no matter how much you think you are in control.
My family`s right to live greatly surpasses your right to drive however the hell you want to.

That constitutes assault.

They engaged in an activity that recklessly endangered your person, and you could stand before a judge and say as much.

That crime has a specific victim that can stand before a judge and claim damages.

Thus, they did not have a right to threaten you with imminent danger.

A drunk that you pass on the road who is doing 10 under the speed limit while not veering into you is not the same thing. He did not place you in imminent danger.

edit on 18-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

That`s my point.
If a sober person is putting my life in danger by driving erratically it is the same as a drunk even if the drunk is driving slow.
The drunk can fall asleep and run up a sidewalk.
Know how many times that has happened???
The drunk can slowly veer into oncoming traffic and head on kill someone.
Know how many times that has happened????
It doesn`t take high speeds for a drunk to wreck and kill someone.

Originally posted by csulli456
That`s my point.
If a sober person is putting my life in danger by driving erratically it is the same as a drunk even if the drunk is driving slow.
The drunk can fall asleep and run up a sidewalk.
Know how many times that has happened???
The drunk can slowly veer into oncoming traffic and head on kill someone.
Know how many times that has happened????
It doesn`t take high speeds for a drunk to wreck and kill someone.

If a drunk hurts someone, they have necessarily engaged in battery.

Battery has a specific victim.

In the greatest society there must be places, by law or decree, that must accept some of the most deviant of behaviors, and there must be others that demand the most rigid and strict.

This is just a terrible idea. Do you really think it matters if they hurt some one or not? It's about the risk of doing so. Driving under the influence is stupid for too many reasons to name. If you are willing to risk the lives of those around you and yourself... I would say that you are lucky the penalty is not larger than it is.

No, no and a thousand times no. Each year, so many people go about their day, not realizing that it will be their last day on earth because some drunken moron had the idea of taking control of a two ton vehicle and driving it around.

Go tell your idea to some one who has a friend or family member who was killed by a drunk driver. See if they think it is a good one. here is a hint... It's a bad idea.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by BlackOps719

 

Killing people is murder, laws against murder are good.

Drunk driving laws are not necessary to prosecute murder.

But as you stated earlier, the drunk driver has no ill intent.
He just wants to get where he is going.
I don`t think it`s the same as murder.
people need to be educated that drinking and driving can result in death.
We are educated on this subject, now let`s use our freakin brains and not repeat the same mistakes made in the past.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
In the greatest society there must be places, by law or decree, that must accept some of the most deviant of behaviors, and that there should be other that demand the most strict and rigid of behavior.

The greatest society is one in which all men are free to do whatever it is they want to do, as long as whatever it is they are doing is not harming others or damaging their property.

Originally posted by csulli456

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by BlackOps719

 

Killing people is murder, laws against murder are good.

Drunk driving laws are not necessary to prosecute murder.

But as you stated earlier, the drunk driver has no ill intent.
He just wants to get where he is going.
I don`t think it`s the same as murder.
people need to be educated that drinking and driving can result in death.
We are educated on this subject, now let`s use our freakin brains and not repeat the same mistakes made in the past.

No, I stated we should change the murder, assault, and battery laws to automatically include intent if a person is drunk.

Exactly the opposite of what you just stated I said.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by DrChuck

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Liberty is the sphere of action you may take.

Liberty is a condition or mode of being, not an action or a "sphere of action".

No, rightful liberty is the sphere of action one may engage in without causing harm or property damage to another.

It is still a condition or a mode of being. A condition that you may take any action without causing harm to another. Safety is no different. Safety is a condition where you may be free from harm. While liberty is a condition where you may be autonomous, and be free from oppression.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
In the greatest society there must be places, by law or decree, that must accept some of the most deviant of behaviors, and that there should be other that demand the most strict and rigid of behavior.

The greatest society is one in which all men are free to do whatever it is they want to do, as long as whatever it is they are doing is not harming others or damaging their property.

There are those who wish to damage others or their property, or at least do not care. They go well with others that share that attitude. Why deprive them of their liberties?

Do we need to ban the fight clubs where all participants are willing?

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
In the greatest society there must be places, by law or decree, that must accept some of the most deviant of behaviors, and that there should be other that demand the most strict and rigid of behavior.

The greatest society is one in which all men are free to do whatever it is they want to do, as long as whatever it is they are doing is not harming others or damaging their property.

There are those who wish to damage others or their property, or at least do not care. They go well with others that share that attitude. Why deprive them of their liberties?

Do we need to ban the fight clubs where all participants are willing?

Looks like I won this round if that's the best you have to offer.