That’s what I figured…
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I say that as someone who does not believe DUI should be considered a crime[/quote]
whut??[/quote]
I do not think that driving under the influence of either alcohol or drugs should be considered a crime. Of course, I’m always willing to listen to arguments in favor of the criminalization of such action.[/quote]
This is definitely the most idiotic thing I’ve read all week.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I do not think that driving under the influence of either alcohol or drugs should be considered a crime. Of course, I’m always willing to listen to arguments in favor of the criminalization of such action.[/quote]
This is definitely the most idiotic thing I’ve read all week.
[/quote]
Your argument in favor of the criminalization of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is…
Wouldn’t he have been tested for gunshot residue?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I do not think that driving under the influence of either alcohol or drugs should be considered a crime. Of course, I’m always willing to listen to arguments in favor of the criminalization of such action.[/quote]
This is definitely the most idiotic thing I’ve read all week.
[/quote]
Your argument in favor of the criminalization of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is…[/quote]
…that alcohol/drugs impair a persons ability to operate a piece of machinery capable of causing substantial damage to both public and private property as well as endangering the safety of all persons nearby.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Wouldn’t he have been tested for gunshot residue?[/quote]
He was. It was negative.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I do not think that driving under the influence of either alcohol or drugs should be considered a crime. Of course, I’m always willing to listen to arguments in favor of the criminalization of such action.[/quote]
This is definitely the most idiotic thing I’ve read all week.
[/quote]
Your argument in favor of the criminalization of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is…[/quote]
obvious.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I do not think that driving under the influence of either alcohol or drugs should be considered a crime. Of course, I’m always willing to listen to arguments in favor of the criminalization of such action.[/quote]
This is definitely the most idiotic thing I’ve read all week.
[/quote]
Your argument in favor of the criminalization of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is…[/quote]
…that alcohol/drugs impair a persons ability to operate a piece of machinery capable of causing substantial damage to both public and private property as well as endangering the safety of all persons nearby. [/quote]
Make that a “deadly weapon”. That’s how the courts categorize motor vehicles in some cases.
Instead of why argue DUI should be considered a crime, Nick why don’t you argue that it SHOULD NOT be a crime. Since it flies in the face of common sense.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Your argument in favor of the criminalization of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is…[/quote]
…that alcohol/drugs impair a persons ability to operate a piece of machinery capable of causing substantial damage to both public and private property as well as endangering the safety of all persons nearby. [/quote]
I totally agree with you. What percentage of alcohol in his system does Jeff Gordon need to to reduce his driving ability to that of Memaw, the 95 year-old great-grandmother down the street that can barely see over her steering wheel? That really doesn’t matter, does it? They’re both allowed the same.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I say that as someone who does not believe DUI should be considered a crime[/quote]
whut??[/quote]
Gotta be a typo.
[/quote]
Understand what he’s saying if we’re looking at varying degrees of intoxication, but there’s esestablished legal limits for a reason.
I’ll bet the PC crowd would support the dad in killing the dude if the suspect was a white male who uttered a racial slur at his kids. Kill the fucker.
A drunk killing your kids in certain cases is never totally acceptable. Killing a racist is though.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Your argument in favor of the criminalization of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is…[/quote]
…that alcohol/drugs impair a persons ability to operate a piece of machinery capable of causing substantial damage to both public and private property as well as endangering the safety of all persons nearby. [/quote]
I totally agree with you. What percentage of alcohol in his system does Jeff Gordon need to to reduce his driving ability to that of Memaw, the 95 year-old great-grandmother down the street that can barely see over her steering wheel? That really doesn’t matter, does it? They’re both allowed the same.[/quote]
So your argument is DUI should not be criminalize because Jeff Gordon is a better drive than a great grand mother; therefore, he would be a better driver while under the influence?
They are both allowed the same what? Blood alcohol content. That could mean 4 beers for Gordon and a sip of Miller Lite for Granny.
Does alcohol influence Gordon’s driving, yes or no? If yes, does it make him a better or worse driver?
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Make that a “deadly weapon”. That’s how the courts categorize motor vehicles in some cases.
Instead of why argue DUI should be considered a crime, Nick why don’t you argue that it SHOULD NOT be a crime. Since it flies in the face of common sense.
[/quote]
Well, despite the fact that you are the one who made the argument that something should be criminalized, I will offer an argument against its criminalization without first hearing your reasons that it should be.
It should not be a crime, because it does not harm anyone or anything. If MAN A drives home with a .4 BAC, and does not damage anyone or anything, then where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. However, if MAN A is stopped by the police on his way home and consents to a battery of absurd tests(or probable cause of his intoxication is otherwise gathered after the stop.), he will be arrested and his punishment will be far harsher than the zero damage he did to others.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
Just curious what you folks would have said if there happened to be strong evidence that he committed the murder, but the jury let him go anyways.[/quote]
It’s tough. Had the father been carrying and shot him, I’d be okay with the jury letting him go. Going home to get the gun… Makes me a bit hesitant.
I’m not a big fan of someone getting the death penalty for driving drunk, but I’m okay with it if that person kills two young boys like he did.
Sometimes street justice is in fact justice. And I can’t say I wouldn’t be tempted to toss a couple at someone that ran over one of my kids driving drunk. [/quote]
I dunno. I guess I still look at driving drunk and killing someone as just a really careless decision (that most of the time the consequences are not considered), no different than a negligent workplace accident, or a negligent firearm accident. While I can sympathize with the dad and think that the guy should have gotten a very long sentence, if the dad killed him, he murdered him. [/quote]
No doubt he murdered him.
However I guess the issue with me is was it justified. Lets say I get awoken by a strange sound in the middle of the night, grab my maverick and head towards the noise coming from my daughters room. As I get closer I can tell it is muffled screams and grunting. I kick in the door and some meth head is trying to rape her.
Say I get a clean shot and take it. I’ve murdered him. Do I deserve to go to jail? Or is it justified?
I lean justified.
So that is why I’d be more okay with this DD’er getting shot if the father had the gun on him at the time. Once the father had to leave to go get his revolver it sort of diminishes the situation because he’s had time to let his front brain take back over. When in the moment, his cognition has likely shutdown at the horror of watching his young children be slaughtered.
It is, all the time. The Castle Doctrine is basically this, except you don’t have the ability to stop the driver…
[/quote]
Difference between your scenario (which involves the Castle Doctrine) and this situation, is your hypothetical and the Castle Doctrine are based off of proactive measures to prevent harm, this was a reactive situation after the harm had occurred. [/quote]
I mena, fair enough, but you best believe I’m getting the shot off if he had just finished raping my daughter. [/quote]
Definitely. The last part about the playing with fire and his response with castle doctrine was the main part I was addressing. Didn’t take the time to think all the way through the hypothetical.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Make that a “deadly weapon”. That’s how the courts categorize motor vehicles in some cases.
Instead of why argue DUI should be considered a crime, Nick why don’t you argue that it SHOULD NOT be a crime. Since it flies in the face of common sense.
[/quote]
Well, despite the fact that you are the one who made the argument that something should be criminalized, I will offer an argument against its criminalization without first hearing your reasons that it should be.
It should not be a crime, because it does not harm anyone or anything. If MAN A drives home with a .4 BAC, and does not damage anyone or anything, then where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. However, if MAN A is stopped by the police on his way home and consents to a battery of absurd tests(or probable cause of his intoxication is otherwise gathered after the stop.), he will be arrested and his punishment will be far harsher than the zero damage he did to others.[/quote]
Really? What about the near accidents MAN A narrowly missed? What about him blowing through a red light, and he got lucky because there was no traffic. Just b/c he did not hit anyone does not mean he wasn’t a danger.
Just lucky.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I totally agree with you. What percentage of alcohol in his system does Jeff Gordon need to to reduce his driving ability to that of Memaw, the 95 year-old great-grandmother down the street that can barely see over her steering wheel? That really doesn’t matter, does it? They’re both allowed the same.[/quote]
So your argument is DUI should not be criminalize because Jeff Gordon is a better drive than a great grand mother; therefore, he would be a better driver while under the influence?
They are both allowed the same what? Blood alcohol content. That could mean 4 beers for Gordon and a sip of Miller Lite for Granny.
Does alcohol influence Gordon’s driving, yes or no? If yes, does it make him a better or worse driver?
[/quote]
No, what I was saying is that Jeff Gordon’s BAC would likely have to be FAR above the legal limit to reduce his driving ability to that of sober Memaw, so Gordon could be charged with DUI while being far safer than Memaw, who would be allowed to travel unmolested.
If I get three hours of sleep over the course of two days, I’m probably a worse driver than I would be if I had eight hours a night, so how should I be punished?
An evidence of impairment should be addressed. How about Reckless Endangerment? If there is a victim/potential victim.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Make that a “deadly weapon”. That’s how the courts categorize motor vehicles in some cases.
Instead of why argue DUI should be considered a crime, Nick why don’t you argue that it SHOULD NOT be a crime. Since it flies in the face of common sense.
[/quote]
Well, despite the fact that you are the one who made the argument that something should be criminalized, I will offer an argument against its criminalization without first hearing your reasons that it should be.
It should not be a crime, because it does not harm anyone or anything. If MAN A drives home with a .4 BAC, and does not damage anyone or anything, then where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. However, if MAN A is stopped by the police on his way home and consents to a battery of absurd tests(or probable cause of his intoxication is otherwise gathered after the stop.), he will be arrested and his punishment will be far harsher than the zero damage he did to others.[/quote]
Really? What about the near accidents MAN A narrowly missed? What about him blowing through a red light, and he got lucky because there was no traffic. Just b/c he did not hit anyone does not mean he wasn’t a danger.
Just lucky. [/quote]
What if there were no near-accidents? What if he didn’t blow through a red light(on a side note: Is the concept of a red light with no traffic not a bit absurd?)? Everyone in a motor vehicle is a potential danger(a motor vehicle is pretty much a massive, relatively slow-moving bullet).
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
An evidence of impairment should be addressed. How about Reckless Endangerment? If there is a victim/potential victim. [/quote]
That’s fine, IF everyone whose actions create the same situations is punished in the same way, regardless of the content of their blood.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. [/quote]
If I light a stick of dynamite in a crowd room and the fuse happens to go out prior to detonation was there ever any danger?