Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Legalize Drunk Driving

page: 42
64
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by WashingtonGrewHemp
 


Ummm... What?

You make no sense! What are you trying to say? Legalize drinking and driving, "the jews want to kill us" that way so don't let them kill us?

Dude, I think you need to lay off the drinking of your own inventory and then driving, I think the last accident you had messed up your head!

Magnum
edit on 10/12/28 by Magnum007 because: ha!




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by HelionPrime
I'd reply in graphic detail about exactly how my friend was killed in a car driven by someone over the limit, but I might get modded.

F#cking dick head.


Killing someone is murder.

Laws against murder are good.

Driving drunk while not hurting or damaging anyone else's property is not murder - in fact its not anything at all.

edit on 17-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Driving while intoxicated is attempted murder at best, attempted genocide at worst, and should be prosecuted as such.

/TOA



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 





Driving while intoxicated is attempted murder at best, attempted genocide at worst, and should be prosecuted as such.


Your histrionics ignores a very basic principle of law and that is mens rea


As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.

A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.


The act of drunk driving is reckless at best and in the event it causes a death, manslaughter at worst.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


There you go, you have just admitted that it is NOT a crime. It is a percentage of risk.

Do you not understand this? I think it is risky to allow people to speak their mind, just as in Canada they have passed legislation to limit speech because of the risk of it.

I think we should pass legislation to say that no one should be allowed free speech, because it is dangerous, there is an element of risk.

Do you not SEE?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Fair enough Saltheart... you win...

But, tell ya what. To celebrate on our bizarre meeting of minds, why don't we get together for a roadtrip. I'll grab a gallon or two of vodka and I'll celebrate my right to drink and drive. You can ride shotgun and say whatever you want. Anything at all. Everything goes. Me slamming straight vodka, as we barrel down the freeway at high speed... You waxing philosophic with absolute impunity and freedom.

Man what a powerful and beautiful thing it would be... Just two guys living the dream...

Of course, we will both sign contracts, beforehand, to mitigate culpability for our exercise of freedoms... But only so we can protect you from litigation as everyone knows how dangerous unregulated speech is.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Never said that you cannot PUNISH someone for harming someone.

See, here is the deal, I brought this up pages ago. If someone causes harm while drinking and driving, throw them away for as long as you wish.

The WHOLE problem is, you are punishing people by stealing from them, for doing risky behavior. Kinda like taxation on risky behavior. You know, like tobacco, sugars, trans fats, etc etc etc.

You are using government taxation, instead of punishment for crime to enforce behavioral modifications.

I do NOT appreciate behavioral modifications when I or others are not committing acts of criminal behavior.

Do you not UNDERSTAND this basic tenet?

You can use hyperbole all you want, but in a court of law, you would fail.

That is all I am asking, LAW.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Actually my example was allegory and not hyperbole... but why split hairs? The point was to exhibit the difference between an exercise of free speech VS a willful participation in a behavior that is completely preventable and causes risk not only to the participant, but to everyone who happens to be in that persons sphere of influence.

This is the part of it all that you don't seem to comprehend. If drunks only killed themselves when they crashed cars, then this wouldn't even be a debate. One person does NOT have the freedom to infringe upon the safety of another.

Every single drunk driving injury and fatality is totally avoidable. Every single one. And, thus, they are preventable. This entire "There is no crime until somebody dies." rationale is skewed and irrational. If a person were to be caught pouring concentrated cyanide into the water supply - should the police have to wait until a citizen actually dies before they shut off the water supply and arrest the perpetrator? Of course not. Yet, in the instance of this issue, this is exactly the approach that some would lead us to believe is best.

Intent applies. Willful negligence applies. Willful disregard of others applies.


Willful Negligence.

Intentional performance of an unreasonable act in disregard of a known risk, making it highly probable that harm will be caused. Willful negligence usually involves a conscious indifference to the consequences. There is no clear distinction between willful negligence and gross negligence.


Source


If we wish to free ourselves from enslavement, we must choose freedom and the responsibility this entails.


Leo Buscaglia

Freedom and responsibility are two shadows of the same idea. One, bereft of the other, cannot exist.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Well sorry, you have willful intent to influence people by your speech.

Anything you say could cause harm.

We better regulate that.

Anything can be taken to an extreme argument. I could argue that you breathing is giving out CO2, better regulate and license that.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
To me, this makes sense.

A drinking driver isn't victimizing anyone until someone is hurt. Hurting someone is most definitely a crime, and should be punished as such.

DUI laws do not prevent people from driving drunk, it only provides a huge source of revenue at the cost of our citizens who don't actually harm someone. That's why our government saturates our senses with the belief that potential victims have rights, because if victimless crimes were done away with--our country could no longer facilitate a highly profitable prison complex system.

But, that's what our criminal justice system does--it cannibalizes our citizens. Something that isn't hard to do, as most of our citizens are busy calling witch with a frothy mouth.

People love to watch others suffer, it's a fact of life. Hating someone and wanting someone's life ruined for a victimless crime is true hatred.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
After 42 pages, I'm still confused by the claim that the mere act of Driving While Intoxicated should be acceptable and the stated justification is "because I can".

I think everyone (who is honest) will agree with the following:


  • Driving safely is a legal activity
  • Driving safely requires concentration, attention and reactionary skills
  • Drinking alcoholic beverages is a legal activity
  • Consumption of alcoholic beverages causes physiological impairment on an relative scale
  • Intoxicating drugs, by their nature, cause physiological impairment


The combination of the two activities, driving and consuming alcoholic beverages or ingesting or injecting intoxicating drugs, is what increases danger to others, who have not agreed to participate in the increased danger. So, when a person voluntarily consumes intoxicating substances, with full knowledge of the impairment caused by such intoxication, he/she voluntarily and temporarily relinquishes the "right" to engage in activities which may cause harm to others. In this case, driving an automobile. When he/she refuses to voluntarily and temporarily relinquish that "right", the consequence is arrest and, potentially, punishment.

Now, if there were alternate routes, dedicated for the use of all drivers who agreed to participate in the dangerous activity of DWI/DUI, I would agree they should be free to do so. Though I would question the sanity of it, I would definitely have a lifetime subscription to the pay-per-view channel.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Hey, this is one of the few things that I see on the other side of the argument.

BUT, I have to argue the points, because I have seen someone that has never been in an accident and has gotten numerous of these charges.

Now, in that same time frame, I have seen bad drivers get in many accidents.

How bout we have those that are in accidents, that are driving recklessly, say talking on a phone, be punished the same as say a drunk driver?

Let us go down this avenue of discussion.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I was barking up that tree back on page 1 of this thread.

Unfortunately, it's too easy to jump on the moral bandwagon to even consider anything of the sort. Drunk driving is worse than falling asleep at the wheel, worse than driving without proper prescription glasses, worse than driving inattentively while on a cell phone or whilst mooning the car full of girls in the lane next to you.

These things are all conveniently ignored in favor of "DRUNK DRIVING BAAAAD and you're bad for even talking about it without acknowledging it should have the death penalty applied!".

Good luck, though.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Sorry friend, I like your threads, but this is ludricrous.

There's not way that we as society should allow the general population to decide how much is too much and whether or not they are ok to drive.

I mean really.

~Keeper



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


They already do. It's just that they may happen to get stopped and searched if they break any other traffic rules after drinking.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Woman Charged With Vehicular Manslaughter In Alleged Texting Crash


losangeles.cbslocal.com...

Absolutely.

But, I think you meant charging phone users, before they cause an accident. Do I think no one should use cell phones, while driving? I do. Do I think they should be cited for doing so? Yeah, I'm pretty sure I do. However, I would have to see some solid stats on the increased risks, to speculate on making cell phone use an arrestable offense. But, if it is shown to be equally dangerous, I would.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Here you go.
First Link

It's been tested, and it's a lot worse.
(Sorry, I always get a chuckle out of lmgtfy)
edit on 12/29/2010 by EsSeeEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The act of drunk driving is reckless at best and in the event it causes a death, manslaughter at worst.


Don't count on it.

The drunk driver that killed three people including rookie Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart, was convicted of three counts of 2nd degree murder. He was just sentenced to 51 years to life in prison.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden
The drunk driver that killed three people including rookie Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart, was convicted of three counts of 2nd degree murder. He was just sentenced to 51 years to life in prison.


And now, posing the question to everyone here: Should every act of mis-deed that could cause an accident (which could cause a death) be treated the same as the above drunk driving tragedy?

If someone dies because you're texting behind the wheel, should you have the very real potential to get life in prison?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Your histrionics ignores a very basic principle of law and that is mens rea



A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.


Is a driver aware that DUI is criminal? Of course, otherwise he wont even get a license. So mens rea is satisfied.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well sadly Americans are not smart enough to know when they are and aren't drunk.






top topics



 
64
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join