Legalize Drunk Driving

page: 43
64
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 




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


Do you also agree that people should have the right to randomly shoot at a square full of other people, and police should act only AFTER someone is hit?

If someone is pointing a gun at you or someone else, are you not allowed to breach even his right to life (not even talking about less important rights for liberty and property) to terminate the increased probability of harm, even if no harm is done YET too? How is this any different from the thread topic?

If you believe the harm must be already done for the law to step in, you must agree that the above scenarios are perfectly OK and should be tolerated by police, until someone is killed, because they both constitute only increase in percentage of risk. Otherwise you are inconsistent in your logic.

See? ANYTHING can be taken to the extreme. Thats why extremism is bad.




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Do you also agree that people should have the right to randomly shoot at a square full of other people, and police should act only AFTER someone is hit?


I'll take this one Foamthrower,

Maslo, the answer is 'no'.

You already know this, please stop asking questions for effect.

edit on 30-12-2010 by Exuberant1 because: for dramatic effect



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

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.





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.


That drunk driver is Andrew Thomas Gallo:


On the night Adenhart pitched six scoreless innings, Gallo was out drinking with his stepbrother. Just past midnight, he barreled through a red light in Fullerton at 65 mph and rammed his minivan into a vehicle carrying the four friends.

Gallo fled on foot and was captured two miles from the scene. His blood-alcohol content was more than twice the legal limit more than two hours after the crash.

"Not only was he driving under the influence, he was obliterated," the judge said, noting that Gallo was on probation at the time for an earlier drunk driving conviction. "Mr. Gallo, you have devastated four families — really five families with your own."


All ready convicted and still on probation for the conviction of drunk driving, Gallo fled the scene establishing a guilty mind...Mens Rea

The prosecuting attorney in this case was Susan Price:


In the murder case against Andrew Gallo , the man accused of killing Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart and two others, the attorneys each wasted no time. First words out of prosecutor Susan Price 's mouth: "An evening of pure indulgence, a night of total disregard." Within a few minutes, she repeated it again, word for word, and at the end of her 43-minute opening, she said it a third time.


The defense attorney was Jaqueline Goodman:


Defense attorney Jacqueline Goodman 's main theme: "Andrew Gallo is not a murderer." Immediately, Goodman, who likes to pace, walked over to her client and touched his shoulder, and said it again. Then she walked back toward the jury and said it a third time.


Her strategy was:


What Goodman is alluding to , and what this case is really about, is the difference between second-degree murder and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. Had the D.A. charged the lesser crime, I'm guessing Gallo would have pleaded and there'd be no trial. The base sentence for G.V.M.W.I. is up to 10 years. Second-degree murder ups the stakes considerably. The base sentence is 15 years to life, plus the D.A. is charging enhancements that can tack on years to the bottom end.

It sounds like Goodman is trying to get the jury to believe the D.A. overcharged. But this is a shadow trial issue. She has to do this subtly and indirectly because she can't argue that they should convict him of G.V.M.W.I. The law won't let her.


Susan Price as the prosecutor also had a strategy:


In some cases in which a defendant could be convicted of one of two possible crimes for a single act, the defendant has a right to have the jury told that he can be convicted of either crime but not both. First- and second-degree murder is an example. That is because the elements necessary to prove second-degree murder are encompassed in the elements of first degree. First degree simply has more elements.

But the state Supreme Court has ruled that a person could be convicted of both G.V.M. while intoxicated and second-degree murder. That's because some of the elements of G.V.M.W.I. (such as proof of being under the influence) are not encompassed in the elements of second-degree murder. They are considered completely separate crimes.

The D.A. could have charged Gallo with three counts of both second-degree murder and manslaughter. But then Price would have risked the jury splitting the baby and convicting him on the lesser charges. The D.A.'s Office believes it has the evidence for murder under an "implied malice" theory: Because Gallo had a prior DUI, he allegedly had the malice – or what the Penal Code colorfully refers to as an "abandoned and malignant heart" – necessary to raise a homicide from manslaughter to murder.


The risk versus benefit of such a strategy was:


So Price went all or nothing. Either she'll prove malice (and the other elements of murder, none of which seem relatively difficult) and the jury convicts Gallo of second-degree murder, or Gallo will walk.


Gallo was a convicted drunk driver who fled the scene which easily establishes a guilty mind...Mens Rea...MENS REA

Mens Rea



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





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


The legal definition of license:


The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.


The very existence of license establishes criminal intent, and in the case of a license to drive, by your logic, the criminal intent is simply driving.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 




Maslo, the answer is 'no'. You already know this, please stop asking questions for effect.


OK, now that we have established you are all right in principle with police acting preventivelly before the harm is done, on the grounds of only severelly increased risk of harm, we can talk about the level of risk that should justify such action. Why drunk driving no, but pointing guns yes?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You completelly missed my point. I was pointing out that the driver must know that DUI is criminal (since all drivers have licenses which require you to know traffic laws), so mens rea is obviously satisfied.

The criminality of license is a completely separate thing - which is also false IMHO. How did you jump from definition of license to "The very existence of license establishes criminal intent" and "the criminal intent is simply driving" is a mystery to me..



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





You completelly missed my point. I was pointing out that the driver must know that DUI is criminal (since all drivers have licenses which require you to know traffic laws), so mens rea is obviously satisfied.


You are completely missing my point...obviously:




The criminality of license is a completely separate thing - which is also false IMHO. How did you jump from definition of license to "The very existence of license establishes criminal intent" and "the criminal intent is simply driving" is a mystery to me..


The very definition of license means that the license holder has been granted permission to commit a crime. The application of a license then establishes criminal intent, the only difference between it and a conviction of a crime is that the license holder has gained exemption from the arrest, prosecution and conviction of that crime...in this case driving. No licenses are being granted for drunk driving. Thus, the crime that is forgiven by way of a license to drive is driving.

The leap of logic is arguing that because a person knows that they will have their license revoked if they drive drunk they are establishing mens rea. When this argument is combined with the argument that driving drunk establishes mens rea for attempted murder, and in the event that that the act of drunk driving led to the death(s) of a person or people, establishes mens rea for 2nd or 1st degree murder, the leap of logic is epic in its proportion.

Establishing mens rea is not so easy, unless a prosecutor runs across a case like Gallo's, who did much of the prosecutors work in establishing a guilty mind all on his own.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo


OK, now that we have established you are all right in principle with police acting preventivelly before the harm is done, on the grounds of only severelly increased risk of harm, we can talk about the level of risk that should justify such action. Why drunk driving no, but pointing guns yes?



Do not engage in deception.

Your shooter was discharging his weapon into a crowd of people. He was not merely 'pointing guns'.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


And a drunk behind the wheel is not merely sitting in a stationary car. One moving projectile = another. Deception indeed.


~Heff



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Would you equate a drunk who is obeying all of the rules of the road and the best living driver to Maslo's shooter who is firing his gun at/into a crowd of people?

edit on 30-12-2010 by Exuberant1 because: for effect.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I think the comparison is inadequate as it is not directly apples to apples.

My personal version would be: If you were scheduled to have surgery and the surgeon wandered into the operating theater chugging from a bottle of vodka - would these catch phrases about "no crime until there is a victim" console you and would you readily agree to the surgery on principle?

To me, this argument is more apples to apples. A case of a person claiming that their freedoms override the reality that their actions are placing others at unnecessary risk.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 




Your shooter was discharging his weapon into a crowd of people. He was not merely 'pointing guns'


OK point taken, I will rephrase - Why drunk driving no, but randomly shooting guns yes? Because driving drunk is more equivalent to random shooting than merely pointing a gun.

Even then, are you saying that if someone points a gun at you, police has no right to act and should wait until he shoots you? I will modify it - if someone willfully aims a loaded gun at a crowd of people, very probably going to shoot, should police ignore it?
edit on 30/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


My personal version would be: If you were scheduled to have surgery and the surgeon wandered into the operating theater chugging from a bottle of vodka - would these catch phrases about "no crime until there is a victim" console you and would you readily agree to the surgery on principle?


Why is this surgeon allowed to operate drunk?

Why would a person contract with a hospital that allows surgeons to operate drunk? Don't they have any sober surgeons?

And why is such a hospital even in business?

You should come up with a better analogy. The surgeon one is too unrealistic.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Do you know why people purposefully point loaded guns at each other?

I'm just asking so I know why you think a person would point a loaded gun at another - give me your reasons.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Why is this surgeon allowed to operate drunk?


Well, we are living in this imaginary world, for the sake of this thread, where plastered people can drive all they want and the only recourse is to punish them after their behavior causes insult, injury, or death.

In such a world, surely the "freedoms" granted to drivers would apply to all, especially upstanding citizens such as Doctors and any other professionals.


Originally posted by Exuberant1

Why would a person contract with a hospital that allows surgeons to operate drunk? Don't they have any sober surgeons?


Why would we contract to drive on roads that allow drivers to operate drunk? I am contemplating within the given parameters of the implications of this thought experiment. The hospital allows doctors to do whatever they want as long as there is no victim. Remember? No victim, no crime.

Whether or not they have sober surgeons is irrelevant as surgeons, in this world, are free to do as they please as long as it doesn't effect the property of others.


Originally posted by Exuberant1

And why is such a hospital even in business?


For the same reasons that drunks are allowed to drive at their whim. Personal freedom trumps all.


Originally posted by Exuberant1

You should come up with a better analogy. The surgeon one is too unrealistic.


Exactly my thoughts about this thread and the philosophy of my opponents, and a point I have been making, off and on, for some fifty-odd pages...

A world where people are allowed to do anything they want, even when it exerts undo danger upon others, who have no control over the consequences or actions of the one making the decisions is too unrealistic.

~Heff
edit on 12/30/10 by Hefficide because: sleep deprivation typo



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Why is this surgeon allowed to operate drunk?


Well, we are living in this imaginary world, for the sake of this thread, where plastered people can drive all they want and the only recourse is to punish them after their behavior causes insult, injury, or death.


In the imaginary world of this thread, drunk drivers can also be punished for driving recklessly.

It is just that 'drunk' does not automatically equal 'reckless driving'. The person actually has to be driving recklessly. In the imaginary world of this thread the planet's best driver who obeys all road rules always does not get arrested for drunk driving when he drives drunk.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Is that really important when faced with the situation?

Maybe he wants to murder someone from the crowd for gazzilion of possible reasons, is a lease killer, or he is a terrorist, or simply crazy, or under the influence of drugs... Just look at the murder statistics for possible motives.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

In the imaginary world of this thread, drunk drivers can also be punished for driving recklessly.

It is just that 'drunk' does not automatically equal 'reckless driving'. The person actually has to be driving recklessly. In the imaginary world of this thread the planet's best driver who obeys all road rules always does not get arrested for drunk driving when he drives drunk.



I may have missed something, and if so I apologize... but up to this point I have not seen anyone, of the opposition, cite reckless driving as a crime. In fact I have seen the term "no victim, no crime" used over and over again.

But let's look at the word reckless


reck·less (rkls)
adj.
1. a. Heedless or careless.
b. Headstrong; rash.
2. Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences: a reckless driver.

Source

Would willfully getting behind the wheel of a one ton+ vehicle, that is capable of going well over a hundred miles and hour while knowing oneself to be possibly impaired fit this definition to you?

The very OP to this thread, and a number of the replies are nothing but headstrong and rash statements of indifference to potential consequences if you ask me.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 




In the imaginary world of this thread, drunk drivers can also be punished for driving recklessly.


So that means that the surgeon would be allowed to operate drunk (just as the driver would be allowed to drive drunk), and others should stop him only AFTER he harmed the patient?

And I agree its not that accurate analogy, because alcohol in low doses does not impair finger dexterity and learned movements so much (rock concerts
), but it impairs exactly the abilities needed for driving - speed judging and fast reactions to moving visual inputs (because it specifically impairs involuntary eye saccadic movements important for these, even in very low doses). So there is a medical reason why alcohol in low doses is banned for tasks requring these, and can be tolerated in low doses even at other responsible tasks, but which do not require fast and accurate speed judging and fast visual reactions.
edit on 30/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
It's not that drunk driving equals reckless driving, it's in reguard to being over the limit or impaired from alcohol consumption whereby the standards for safe motor travel have been exceeded.

being over the limit means that alcohol is present in effect, an effect which impairs ones bodily functions such as co-ordination skills to a much lesser state than being sober, and when combined with acts such as driving a vehicle is posing a danger in reguards to safe motor travel as use.

does it imply that all drunk drivers reach only certain levels of intoxication, or are safe enough to drive on the road still, no of course not, even if higher limits were only in place, these would still be broken and the levels of safty even more in question of imposing that danger on the roads.





top topics
 
64
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join