is this guy serious?Marinejuana wrote:
You think drinking and driving is that big of a deal? You are about as likely to fall to your death, accidentally poison yourself, or commit suicide than you are to be killed by a drunk driver. Should you be arrested on sight for your inherent liabilities? After 3 beers do you think your rights are forfeit and that you should be punished by society if you decide to carefully drive home? I certainly see myself as fully capable of this, and it really annoys me that some prick can pull me over and anally rape me because I decided to drive home from a party.lowing wrote:
THE RIGHT
This pizza delivery guy dispatched 2 would be robbers, one on foot, the other to hell. He had a permit to conceal carry, in another state however. No matter, chalk one up for the good guys, because there is at least one piece of shit that the taxpayers will not have to support and another that will probably never try to rob anyone else.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/200 … urder.kmov
THE WRONG
This guy was arrested for the 13th time for DUI and is still an asshole to the cops. We need to punish our criminals. How in the hell could this guy have 13 DUI arrests? This is 13 times the chances that this asshole could kill someone with his car. After the 13th time I think the pizza guy above has the right solution for ALL of Americas crime problems.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/200 … rrest.wews
PUNISH THE CRIMINALS
Its kind of pathetic that we will arrest and fine drunk drivers before there is any evidence that they have victimized anybody. Some people are better at driving drunk than other people are at peak performance. Why not arrest somebody for being black on the basis that they are statistically more likely to commit a crime? People are also statistically more likely to commit crimes when they are angry too, why not make it against the law to seem angry behind the wheel? Statistically, poor people commit the most crimes of all, why not make it illegal to be poor? Now some of you will argue that without drunk driving laws, people would just get tanked, out-of-control and drive around killing each other. I think if you review the costs/benefits for the driver you will realize that it was always in a person's best interest to stay in control, however possible, while driving. If hurtling out of control towards a brick wall is not motivation enough, then I don't think the threat of a police officer is going to convince such reckless people to drive a bit more sober.
I think a person should be held accountable for any harm they do while driving or driving drunk, and that accidents while drunk should be regarded as particularly negligent. Though, I think it is asinine and completely against the founding principles of our nation to profile a free person as a criminal just because they are behind the wheel with a BAC.
Me thinks pothead had a DUI or two.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
is this guy serious?Marinejuana wrote:
Some people are better at driving drunk than other people are at peak performance.
being in jail with a guy who was on his way to serve 10 years for his 6th DUI was enough for me to not ever want to drink and drive.
He should of learnt his lesson by the 3rd time.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
being in jail with a guy who was on his way to serve 10 years for his 6th DUI was enough for me to not ever want to drink and drive.
Don't get caught.
you are pretty much over and done with after your 2nd DUI
Or don't do it.jord wrote:
He should of learnt his lesson by the 3rd time.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
being in jail with a guy who was on his way to serve 10 years for his 6th DUI was enough for me to not ever want to drink and drive.
Don't get caught.
One DUI needs a three to five year suspension of license.
The second, 5 years in jail.
The third, an inability to drive permanently.
Well that would clear up the roads a fair bit.nukchebi0 wrote:
Or don't do it.jord wrote:
He should of learnt his lesson by the 3rd time.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
being in jail with a guy who was on his way to serve 10 years for his 6th DUI was enough for me to not ever want to drink and drive.
Don't get caught.
One DUI needs a three to five year suspension of license.
The second, 5 years in jail.
The third, an inability to drive permanently.
Not sure whether business will like it though.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
No.usmarine2005 wrote:
Me thinks pothead had a DUI or two.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
is this guy serious?Marinejuana wrote:
Some people are better at driving drunk than other people are at peak performance.
By principle, I do not believe in the prosecution of victimless crimes. Read my post if you don't get it.
The punishment is a deterrent for the very serious possibility of a DUI taking some innocent bystanders life. Driving under the influence is abhorrent and negligent in every way.Marinejuana wrote:
No.usmarine2005 wrote:
Me thinks pothead had a DUI or two.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
is this guy serious?
By principle, I do not believe in the prosecution of victimless crimes. Read my post if you don't get it.
Ahhhh, so attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder should not be punishable?? Attempted robbery either I suppose.Marinejuana wrote:
No.usmarine2005 wrote:
Me thinks pothead had a DUI or two.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
is this guy serious?
By principle, I do not believe in the prosecution of victimless crimes. Read my post if you don't get it.
There is almost no argument against what you just said, it is so obviously illegal. It would be close to makeing murder legal if you legalized driving drunk.Marinejuana wrote:
You think drinking and driving is that big of a deal? You are about as likely to fall to your death, accidentally poison yourself, or commit suicide than you are to be killed by a drunk driver. Should you be arrested on sight for your inherent liabilities? After 3 beers do you think your rights are forfeit and that you should be punished by society if you decide to carefully drive home? I certainly see myself as fully capable of this, and it really annoys me that some prick can pull me over and anally rape me because I decided to drive home from a party.lowing wrote:
THE RIGHT
This pizza delivery guy dispatched 2 would be robbers, one on foot, the other to hell. He had a permit to conceal carry, in another state however. No matter, chalk one up for the good guys, because there is at least one piece of shit that the taxpayers will not have to support and another that will probably never try to rob anyone else.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/200 … urder.kmov
THE WRONG
This guy was arrested for the 13th time for DUI and is still an asshole to the cops. We need to punish our criminals. How in the hell could this guy have 13 DUI arrests? This is 13 times the chances that this asshole could kill someone with his car. After the 13th time I think the pizza guy above has the right solution for ALL of Americas crime problems.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/200 … rrest.wews
PUNISH THE CRIMINALS
Its kind of pathetic that we will arrest and fine drunk drivers before there is any evidence that they have victimized anybody. Some people are better at driving drunk than other people are at peak performance. Why not arrest somebody for being black on the basis that they are statistically more likely to commit a crime? People are also statistically more likely to commit crimes when they are angry too, why not make it against the law to seem angry behind the wheel? Statistically, poor people commit the most crimes of all, why not make it illegal to be poor? Now some of you will argue that without drunk driving laws, people would just get tanked, out-of-control and drive around killing each other. I think if you review the costs/benefits for the driver you will realize that it was always in a person's best interest to stay in control, however possible, while driving. If hurtling out of control towards a brick wall is not motivation enough, then I don't think the threat of a police officer is going to convince such reckless people to drive a bit more sober.
I think a person should be held accountable for any harm they do while driving or driving drunk, and that accidents while drunk should be regarded as particularly negligent. Though, I think it is asinine and completely against the founding principles of our nation to profile a free person as a criminal just because they are behind the wheel with a BAC.
The Right
The Wrong
The Wrong
You can't claim that anyone with a BAC of .1 is any more dangerous than a sober person over the age of 50. A sober teenage boy is more dangerous than a tipsy 30 year old man. Should we fine the teenagers? Once you get into profiling the status of a person and criminalizing them on the basis of their likelihood to commit a crime, you are depriving them of freedom and their presumption of innocence in our supposedly free society.CameronPoe wrote:
The punishment is a deterrent for the very serious possibility of a DUI taking some innocent bystanders life. Driving under the influence is abhorrent and negligent in every way.Marinejuana wrote:
No.usmarine2005 wrote:
Me thinks pothead had a DUI or two.
By principle, I do not believe in the prosecution of victimless crimes. Read my post if you don't get it.
Drunk drivers go for a LONG time, if not their entire lifetime, without seriously hurting anyone. Those people that actually drive so drunk that they can't control their vehicle adequately soon crash and as far as I'm concerned, that could legally end their driving career. But it does not take an army of police with the right to stop you at any moment and hand out DUIs to deny licenses to people that fail to drive safely. Practically EVERYBODY drives over the legal limit now and then and yet you guys think its for the best in society to give police the privilege of pulling over and arresting basically any of us on an unlucky, albeit probably safe, evening. It's not fair that the random sample of the people that actually get pulled over should take all the punishment for our society's dangerous road-dependent culture. For the avg. person driving home from a restaurant there is the clear realization that the greatest threat is that of being pulled over and arrested, not the threat of accidentally crashing. Because the drive home, especially on the empty streets at night, should be as simple after a couple glasses of wine as ever.
Our roads would be much safer if we denied driving permits to people with repeat collisions (barring intense time-consuming remedial training) and simply ignored whether people have consumed alcohol before driving.
Driving, in general, is half as dangerous, statistically, as driving drunk (And this includes levels far beyond the .1 BAC that you could get a DUI for, driving with a BAC of .1 is probably not significantly different). Why is it logical to not punish someone at all for imposing 1/100 lifetime odds of fatalities on society as a normal driver, but reasonable to throw them in jail when they harm no one beyond increasing those odds to 2/100 lifetime odds of causing a fatality. Its completely ludicrous. If this was actually a principled policy then we would be throwing people in jail for prescribing medicine, selling fatty foods, or selling climbing equipment. I know you guys are hopelessly indoctrinated with your tyrannical laws, but please consider the double standards.
Thats vague. If attempted murder is assault then its quite punishable. If attempted murder is owning a weapon and saying some harsh words, then it should not be punishable. If attempted robbery is getting tackled in the parking lot, then its punishable, if the attempted robbery is actually loitering, then its not punishable.lowing wrote:
Ahhhh, so attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder should not be punishable?? Attempted robbery either I suppose.Marinejuana wrote:
No.usmarine2005 wrote:
Me thinks pothead had a DUI or two.
By principle, I do not believe in the prosecution of victimless crimes. Read my post if you don't get it.
Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-01-01 20:41:55)
If we have one danger, we should allow others? What kind of logic is that?
If it was illegal to drink and drive ONLY when a wreck happens, which you seem to be saying, the fatal car wrecks from DUIs would increase a thousand fold, with many drunks claiming that they drive fine and won't have any fear because it's not illegal.
If it was illegal to drink and drive ONLY when a wreck happens, which you seem to be saying, the fatal car wrecks from DUIs would increase a thousand fold, with many drunks claiming that they drive fine and won't have any fear because it's not illegal.
What? I'm just saying that our laws must be consistent. If we are going to lock somebody up for slightly increasing the odds of death on the road, then we also have to lock people up that commit similar probabilistic offenses elsewhere in life otherwise our justice system is literally not fair or just. But since it would be so ridiculous to try to calculate all the things that can increase your odds of dying, I propose that we reserve the legal system for cases when a criminal victimization actually occurred, rather than criminalizing a person for looking like a criminal and attempting an utterly flawed campaign to profile and define criminals before they actually commit a crime.RoosterCantrell wrote:
If we have one danger, we should allow others? What kind of logic is that?
The best deterrent to crashing a car, drunk or sober, is fear of death or injury to yourself and others. If you don't fear death, then a law isn't going to make a difference. People said pretty much exactly what you are proposing as prohibition ended--that society would clamber for alcohol when it became available and there would be drunken, violent chaos. It didn't happen. The reckless people stayed reckless and the normal people lived life as usual. People want to safely get from place to place and live their lives. If somebody isn't safe, ie. crashes cars, then society can take exception and deny their license. But it is a violation of our right to the presumption of innocence to invent and enforce laws based on profiling rather than actual substantive events.RoosterCantrell wrote:
If it was illegal to drink and drive ONLY when a wreck happens, which you seem to be saying, the fatal car wrecks from DUIs would increase a thousand fold with many drunks claiming that they drive fine and won't have any fear because it's not illegal.
I think your view might change when someone you know dies in an alcohol releated crash. But the point is, that drinking and driving is incredibly negligent, and totally avoidable. I see your point, but I think the better method would to make the lacking punishments more stern, than loosening up the tighter laws.Marinejuana wrote:
What? I'm just saying that our laws must be consistent. If we are going to lock somebody up for slightly increasing the odds of death on the road, then we also have to lock people up that commit similar probabilistic offenses elsewhere in life otherwise our justice system is literally not fair or just. But since it would be so ridiculous to try to calculate all the things that can increase your odds of dying, I propose that we reserve the legal system for cases when a criminal victimization actually occurred, rather than criminalizing a person for looking like a criminal and attempting an utterly flawed campaign to profile and define criminals before they actually commit a crime.RoosterCantrell wrote:
If we have one danger, we should allow others? What kind of logic is that?The best deterrent to crashing a car, drunk or sober, is fear of death or injury to yourself and others. If you don't fear death, then a law isn't going to make a difference. People said pretty much exactly what you are proposing as prohibition ended--that society would clamber for alcohol when it became available and there would be drunken, violent chaos. It didn't happen. The reckless people stayed reckless and the normal people lived life as usual. People want to safely get from place to place and live their lives. If somebody isn't safe, ie. crashes cars, then society can take exception and deny their license. But it is a violation of our right to the presumption of innocence to invent and enforce laws based on profiling rather than actual substantive events.RoosterCantrell wrote:
If it was illegal to drink and drive ONLY when a wreck happens, which you seem to be saying, the fatal car wrecks from DUIs would increase a thousand fold with many drunks claiming that they drive fine and won't have any fear because it's not illegal.
There are many alcoholics out there that drive, and have no fear of death. But they do fear getting arrested. Emo cowards basically. They don't care if they live or die, but don't want the law making things worse. I know alot of peices of shit like that ithat live in my hometown. Coincidentally, one of them DID kill someone in a DUI wreck, and not give a shit, until the case against him finally formed.
Heard on the radio this AM that Japan has instituted a PDUI law. Passenger of someone DUI. $5k and up to 3 years in prison. DUI rates have fallen 50% since it was started.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
How about 'I have a bomb and am now in control of this aircraft'.Marinejuana wrote:
If attempted murder is owning a weapon and saying some harsh words, then it should not be punishable.
Do you arrest them before or after they hit the building? There is no victim until then is there?
DUI is like playing with matches in a gunpowder factory - don't do it.
Seriously, and I'm not trying to be insulting - for once - but smoking dope seems to remove the ability for logical thought.
BTW Theft of property is a victimless crime - everyone has insurance right? If not you're a dumbass. It hardly warrants instant death meted out by some Charles Bronson wannabe, and I say this as a firearm owner.
Does anyone read the OP these days?Gunslinger USMarine2005 Lowing wrote:
Link?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-01-01 23:28:12)
Fuck Israel
My god are you kidding me?Dilbert_X wrote:
BTW Theft of property is a victimless crime ?
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2008-01-01 23:28:56)
Material possessions are valueless and easily replaced, theft does not warrant instant death.usmarine2005 wrote:
My god are you kidding me?
Lets hear some counter argument instead of your usual insults and ridicule.
Violence to the person OTOH is different.
Fuck Israel
Material possessions are not valueless. What world do you live in?Dilbert_X wrote:
Material possessions are valueless and easily replaced, theft does not warrant instant death.usmarine2005 wrote:
My god are you kidding me?
Lets hear some counter argument instead of your usual insults and ridicule.
Violence to the person OTOH is different.
Expand your mind you should - young Skywalker.uscapitalist2005 wrote:
Material possessions are not valueless. What world do you live in?
But where do you draw the line?
Some dumbass steals pizza money and its worth a bullet?
A ten year old kid takes an apple off your tree so you blow their head off with a 12 gauge?
The guy nex to you is breathing your air so you ventilate him with a full clip from your AK, taking out a couple of bystanders - hey, its a war out there - these goddam air thieves have to be dealt with ?
OK, my Bhuddist ex-girlfriend has a lot to answer for.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-01-02 00:27:44)
Fuck Israel
Well our current crime deterrent has not worked at all. Maybe if people though they could get blasted when they try and commit a crime....maybe they would think twice.Dilbert_X wrote:
Expand your mind you should - young Skywalker.uscapitalist2005 wrote:
Material possessions are not valueless. What world do you live in?
But where do you draw the line?
Some dumbass steals pizza money and its worth a bullet?
A ten year old kid takes an apple off your tree so you blow their head off with a 12 gauge?
The guy nex to you is breathing your air so you ventilate him with a full clip from your AK, taking out a couple of bystanders - hey, its a war out there - these goddam air thieves have to be dealt with ?
OK, my Bhuddist ex-girlfriend has a lot to answer for.
So we shouldn't act to prevent something that should not happen? A drunk driver has twice the odds of getting in an accident, and while they may not have done anything wrong when they get pulled over the first time, there is no proof that something won't happen the next. If we slap a DUI convict on the wrist for their first offense, what is going to prevent them from thinking there is nothing wrong with what they are doing (like you)? Nothing, obviously. So they will do it again, continually increasing the chances they hit someone. When they finally do, someone's life will be ruined, because nothing would have been done to dissuade the driver from driving drunk. Punishing a DUI convict harshly the first time will disrupt their life to the point they could not fathom driving drunk again and consequently, the roads will be safer.Marinejuana wrote:
You can't claim that anyone with a BAC of .1 is any more dangerous than a sober person over the age of 50. A sober teenage boy is more dangerous than a tipsy 30 year old man. Should we fine the teenagers? Once you get into profiling the status of a person and criminalizing them on the basis of their likelihood to commit a crime, you are depriving them of freedom and their presumption of innocence in our supposedly free society.CameronPoe wrote:
The punishment is a deterrent for the very serious possibility of a DUI taking some innocent bystanders life. Driving under the influence is abhorrent and negligent in every way.Marinejuana wrote:
No.
By principle, I do not believe in the prosecution of victimless crimes. Read my post if you don't get it.
Drunk drivers go for a LONG time, if not their entire lifetime, without seriously hurting anyone. Those people that actually drive so drunk that they can't control their vehicle adequately soon crash and as far as I'm concerned, that could legally end their driving career. But it does not take an army of police with the right to stop you at any moment and hand out DUIs to deny licenses to people that fail to drive safely. Practically EVERYBODY drives over the legal limit now and then and yet you guys think its for the best in society to give police the privilege of pulling over and arresting basically any of us on an unlucky, albeit probably safe, evening. It's not fair that the random sample of the people that actually get pulled over should take all the punishment for our society's dangerous road-dependent culture. For the avg. person driving home from a restaurant there is the clear realization that the greatest threat is that of being pulled over and arrested, not the threat of accidentally crashing. Because the drive home, especially on the empty streets at night, should be as simple after a couple glasses of wine as ever.
Our roads would be much safer if we denied driving permits to people with repeat collisions (barring intense time-consuming remedial training) and simply ignored whether people have consumed alcohol before driving.
Driving, in general, is half as dangerous, statistically, as driving drunk (And this includes levels far beyond the .1 BAC that you could get a DUI for, driving with a BAC of .1 is probably not significantly different). Why is it logical to not punish someone at all for imposing 1/100 lifetime odds of fatalities on society as a normal driver, but reasonable to throw them in jail when they harm no one beyond increasing those odds to 2/100 lifetime odds of causing a fatality. Its completely ludicrous. If this was actually a principled policy then we would be throwing people in jail for prescribing medicine, selling fatty foods, or selling climbing equipment. I know you guys are hopelessly indoctrinated with your tyrannical laws, but please consider the double standards.
Your three examples in the last paragraph all fail, because the only person being "hurt" by these is the consumer, who knows what they are getting. Innocent people are not being threatened by selfish jerks as with drunken driving. There is no double standard here. I kno you are hopelessly indoctrinated with your belief being above the law, but please consider the feelings of other people for once.
As I understand it being blasted has been the deterrent to crime for the last 100 years in the US, same with the death penalty.Well our current crime deterrent has not worked at all. Maybe if people though they could get blasted when they try and commit a crime....maybe they would think twice.
As it has clearly failed I'm not sure what your point is. Shoot people deader to deter others even more?
Fuck Israel