Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Legalize Drunk Driving

page: 7
64
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Okay. So, to re-phrase my previous scenario, in order to meet your ever-changing requirements. If a LEO (or anyone for that matter) sees a person pointing a pistol at the back of your head, they should be prohibited from taking action until after they have pulled the trigger and extinguished your life. After all, that would be "pre-crime" and you could not possibly "feel" threatened by an action you are unaware is occurring. Correct?


What if the gun was a toy gun and they were shooting a movie?

The officer is only allowed to take action if he perceives a threat to another person's life.

If the officer knows the person having the gun pointed at their head is in no danger, he can not do anything.




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Okay. So, to re-phrase my previous scenario, in order to meet your ever-changing requirements. If a LEO (or anyone for that matter) sees a person pointing a pistol at the back of your head, they should be prohibited from taking action until after they have pulled the trigger and extinguished your life. After all, that would be "pre-crime" and you could not possibly "feel" threatened by an action you are unaware is occurring. Correct?


What if the gun was a toy gun and they were shooting a movie?

The officer is only allowed to take action if he perceives a threat to another person's life.

If the officer knows the person having the gun pointed at their head is in no danger, he can not do anything.



It’s like trying to talk to a brick wall... I will put no more energy into this.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You are using “threaten” and “assault” interchangeably. I do not think that this is correct.

I feel threatened by you but you have not yet assaulted me. I will take action against your threats to prevent myself from being assaulted by you. If that means also taking steps from preventing you from assaulting other people, like calling the cops because I perceive you to be a threat to other people then that’s what I’ll do.

edit on 17-12-2010 by worlds_away because: spelling... typing fast and I’m tired


Threatening someone with physical violence is assault.

Physical contact does not need to be made in order to be charged with assault.

The threat of physical violence itself constitutes assault.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Why should DUI/DWI be illegal?


Summary: Motion parallax, the ability to recover depth from retinal motion, is a crucial part of the visual information needed for driving. Recent work indicates that the perception of depth from motion parallax relies on the slow eye movement system. It is well known that that alcohol intoxication reduces the gain of this slow eye movement system, the basis for the "horizontal gaze nystagmus" field sobriety test. The current study shows that alcohol intoxication also impairs the perception of depth from motion parallax due to its influence on the slow eye movement system. Observer thresholds in both active and passive motion parallax tasks are significantly increased by acute alcohol intoxication. Perhaps such a failure of motion parallax plays a role when intoxicated drivers must make quick judgements with what could be inaccurate or missing perceptual information about the location of obstacles around them.
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...


ALCOHOL IMPAIRS SPEED OF INFORMATION PROCESSING AND SIMPLE AND CHOICE REACTION TIME AND DIFFERENTIALLY IMPAIRS HIGHER-ORDER COGNITIVE ABILITIES
alcalc.oxfordjournals.org...



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


not going to lie... I've driven with alcohol in my bloodstream many time... including in just the past hour

yet in the hundreds of time I have done this, I have never cause or even come close to causing an accident

now my father on the other hand has had his liscence revolked numerous times for this exact thing, and all but one of those times, he also caused no destruction of property or harm to a person(the one time he did it was thankfully harm to just himself)

you show a side of drunk driving that many don't see

and for that I S&F you...



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


How do you know DUI laws do not stop a large people from drinking and driving?


because once or twice a month I go out to the bar, sing a few songs and have a few drinks... then drive home

whether I am above the legal limit or not has never stopped me from doing this...

and in the 14 years that I have been doing this I have never caused or even come close to causing an accident

but if I had been pulled over, I may have had to pay steep fines for my actions despite the fact that I hrut nobody and cause no personal property damage...


I see exactly where the OP is coming from



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
The premise of this thread is just plain wrong on so many levels notwithstanding he OP's intent to invoke shock value and controversy. The defense logic presented reminds me of a yard sale with trinkets of misguided, fanatical thinking strewn about.

First and foremost, the laws prohibit "driving under the influence." The OP conjures the false illusion that it is OK to drive drunk if you do no harm/commit no crime. That somehow you are innocent of a crime unless you do damage. WRONG! If you are driving and impaired that is illegal.

Secondly (as can be said for theft, murder, larceny) It is not a crime UNLESS YOU ARE CAUGHT.

In a nutshell, or in this case a beer cap...........Weak sauce.
edit on 17-12-2010 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
What if the gun was a toy gun and they were shooting a movie?


Huh?


The officer is only allowed to take action if he perceives a threat to another person's life.


(This is really like arguing with one of my kids) Okay, so now the victim doesn't have to feel threatened?

Regardless, with that statement and this one...


If the officer knows the person having the gun pointed at their head is in no danger, he can not do anything.


You have just admitted an Officer must take action against an intoxicated driver, if he "feels" that intoxicated driver is a "threat" to someone else. Which is the purpose of the DWI laws, in the first place. And, you've already acknowledged a vehicle can become a deadly weapon, just as easily as a gun.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
They did have drive through liquor stores in New Orleans years ago. You could get drinks to go!

No time to stop and go inside, places to go, people to run over.... THUMP!


they have drive through liquor stores in Missouri also...

at least they did when I lied there just a few years ago



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


The idea that crime can only exist if a particular party is physically harmed (or their property) is indeed preposterous. My initial assumption in this bastion of intelligent individuals that make up ATS would be that such ideas would be reconsidered and thought out. Yet never the less I am often surprised at the content that gets posted on this website. However, such is the freedom that the internet grants, and the freedom on the interenet is something I wish never to be censored.

However in real life, the idea that one can drive drunk so as long as they harm no one is utterly idiotic. Same goes for the idea that laws and penalties for driving drunk serve no effect to coerce the population into not driving drunk. Sure you may know people at parties or the bar or whatever you go that do drive drunk, but think of the people that don't drive drunk because of those laws. You'll never know. Thus the argument that "people still do drive drunk" to support the idea that DUI's are ineffective is stupid. That's like saying there shouldn't be rape laws because rape still happens.

There is seldom logic in a world where only the self is considered. Any precautions taken in consideration of others despite what you think you yourself is able to achieve seem stupid and only impede your own goals. Selfishness is what has leaked into society and has bred the corruption we all discuss here on ATS. These "anti-law" and "anti-anything government related" ideas don't help produce a productive and benevolent society in which all men care for one another.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by mnemeth1
What if the gun was a toy gun and they were shooting a movie?


Huh?


The officer is only allowed to take action if he perceives a threat to another person's life.


(This is really like arguing with one of my kids) Okay, so now the victim doesn't have to feel threatened?

Regardless, with that statement and this one...


If the officer knows the person having the gun pointed at their head is in no danger, he can not do anything.


You have just admitted an Officer must take action against an intoxicated driver, if he "feels" that intoxicated driver is a "threat" to someone else. Which is the purpose of the DWI laws, in the first place. And, you've already acknowledged a vehicle can become a deadly weapon, just as easily as a gun.


Swerving over the line does not constitute a threat, nor does driving too fast, driving too slow, or any other things drunks do unless those actions induce a threat to another specific person.

If they do induce a threat, then the driver should be charge with assault, not drunk driving.

We have assault laws for a reason.
edit on 17-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Assault:

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...


At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.


Hence, drunk driving laws are unnecessary.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


If you swerve over the line when you are driving and come into the path of an oncoming vehicle, of course that is a threat! How is it not? If the two vehicles are close enough, chances are the other one will take precautions to avoid the accident, such as taking the ditch, potentially still causing harm to themself and their vehicle.

Of course you could argue that if one can drive drunk when the roads are empty, then they will never pose a threat to anyone. But when are the roads empty? What constitutes as empty? Because time is beyond all of our control, whether you drive home drunk on an empty road or on a full road is beyond your ability to control. Why should laws only apply when the road has others on it or just when you're on it?

All of our tax dollars go into paying for roads, so we all deserve equally safe roads.

You also say that an offence can only occur if someone else feels threatened. Well guess what? I feel threatened if there are drunk drivers on the road, whether they are coming at me or not. I think a lot of others would agree as well. This constitutes as a crime in your books, thus it should be illegal to drive drunk. Case closed?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by redgy
most intoxicated drivers are caught by doing something wrong in the first place, so even though no one has been hurt beforehand, they have infringed on some other traffic rule to warrent them being pulled over. it is an accident waiting to happen, whether its liked or not, they need to be kept off the roads and not allowed to drive while under influence of alcohol or drugs. not given free will to do as they please.


I agree... but you are pointing out that these people are already driving recklessly

a checkpoint for drunk driving that finds a person over the legal limit, although they have driven 30 miles and are capable of driving 30 more without causing harm or property damage would still be arrested

despite the fact that they hurt nothing nor nobody

this is the issue the OP is addressing



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


Besides feeling threatened, the threat must present imminent physical harm.

"Feeling threatened" by drunks is not enough.

One must be physically threatened with imminent harm.

I "feel threatened" by statist looters, however it doesn't become assault until one of them points a gun at me for not paying my share of the protection money.
edit on 17-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


Besides feeling threatened, the threat must present imminent physical harm.

"Feeling threatened" by drunks is not enough.

One must be physically threatened with imminent harm.
edit on 17-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Why does it have to be physical harm? Why can't it be emotional harm? Stress? You can't tell me that you don't know the increased potential in harm that a drunk driver can cause. YES, I agree that some drunk drivers are capable of making it home, but you would be an idiot to deny the fact that there is a major increase in your ability to cause harm when driving drunk. So with that said, if driving drunk was legal, and thus much more common, how fair is it that I sit at home wondering if my wife will make it home safe tonight because I know of the increased risk of car accidents? What about my child playing out on the street? Sure I can watch the child from my front yard, but I still can't stop a drunk driver from coming around the corner and destroying her.

What about my daughter? She went to party and now she will be coming home with a drunk driver because they are all drunk, but feel capable of driving home. I can't stop her because "She's 18 now". Am I not entitled to the peace of mind that anti-drunk driving legislation provides? Or am I overly paranoid?

None of the people in these situations are directly threatened, but due to your purposed change in laws, the roads are now much less safer for them, and my life has become a lot more stressful and worrisome because a simple commute home from a friends house at night has turned into a fiasco threatened by drunk drivers who think themselves capable.
edit on 113131p://555 by For(Home)Country because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

So, what you are saying is... If a LEO (or anyone for that matter) sees another person pointing a pistol at your face, they should be prohibited from taking any action until after that person has pulled the trigger and extinguished your life. After all, preventing them from pulling the trigger would be "pre-crime", wouldn't it?


no, because there are laws about assault with a deadly weapon that apply in this situation

regardless of the trigger being pulled, the threat of a firearm being discharged at you is still assault
edit on 17-12-2010 by kalisdad because: spelling



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad
I see exactly where the OP is coming from


...you see where he's coming from because you have something to gain by legalizing drunk driving... no logic there... just selfishness...



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by kalisdad
I see exactly where the OP is coming from


...you see where he's coming from because you have something to gain by legalizing drunk driving... no logic there... just selfishness...



Agreed. How would it benefit society if drunk driving was legalized? More people driving home who "just had a few beers" would be fined less? So they could go out and spend more money on the things they love? Less people in jail overnight for DUI's that didn't cause any harm? What would that help society? Would the anarchists be able to sleep a little better at night knowing that there was one less rule for them to feel obligated to obey?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MightyWizard
 


Man that's a great idea.

Hey. Since I have this gun. Why don't I shoot someone with it? Cause ya know. I do have it! So I might as well use it in a wreckless fashion!






top topics



 
64
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join