Former Chapter President Of MADD Arrested On DUI Charge

[low preference guy]

Note: MADD= Mothers Against Drunk Driving

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/bilde1.jpg


Well this is certainly embarrassing. And really, really sad. Debra Oberlin used to fight to keep drunk drivers off the road, but now she herself is facing a DUI charge.

Read the rest. (http://www.mediaite.com/online/this-exists-former-president-of-madd-arrested-on-dui-charge/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+mediaite/ClHj+(Mediaite))

[sailingaway]

Really really sad. Don't have to read the rest. Drunk driving is irresponsible, and people shouldn't do it.

Mind you, I'm not sure you have to be drunk with some of the limits.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

bwahahaHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[Pericles]

Here come Drunks Against Mothers Driving (DAMD)

[Jinks]

a little funny, but c'mon, FORMER President, not like she was the founder :)

[BuddyRey]

Wasn't MADD behind a lot of the police state infrastructure set up to catch drunk drivers, like those mobile testing units, checkpoints, and such?

[Austin]

She is a former president of a now-defunct chapter of MADD, not the entire organization...

Still hypocritical, but not as big of a deal. The title should reflect the truth, though.

[Anti Federalist]

Wasn't MADD behind a lot of the police state infrastructure set up to catch drunk drivers, like those mobile testing units, checkpoints, and such?

Yup and still are.

They are the nanny state on steroids.

I'll enjoy my Schadenfreude.

All drunk driving laws should be abolished.

I'll leave with a:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJxCdh1Ps48

[Danke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo

[pcosmar]

Wasn't MADD behind a lot of the police state infrastructure set up to catch drunk drivers, like those mobile testing units, checkpoints, and such?

Not to mention falsifying and hyping the statistics.

[Jinks]

She is a former president of a now-defunct chapter of MADD, not the entire organization...

Still hypocritical, but not as big of a deal. The title should reflect the truth, though.

that was VERY important context!

And not hypocritical if she either changed her mind or herself had a drinking problem before becoming an MADD supporter.

[specsaregood]

a little funny, but c'mon, FORMER President, not like she was the founder :)

Actually, the founder left MADD and is against them now because she said it was taken over by people who's true goal is complete abolition, not just drunk driving which was the reason she founded the organization.

[pcosmar]

that was VERY important context!

And not hypocritical if she either changed her mind or herself had a drinking problem before becoming an MADD supporter.

Not really,
It is a defunct chapter because there was NO SUPPORT for it.

Gainesville's MADD chapter existed for several years in the 1990s before closing in 1996 because of lack of financial support.
And you make the assumption that she has a " drinking problem " when it, 1. Could have been her first time drinking. 2. could be the result of a medical condition, and not drinking at all 3. could have been police misconduct.
Any or all of those will get you a positive blood alcohol result in the illegal range without having a "drinking problem".

[Philhelm]

Really really sad. Don't have to read the rest. Drunk driving is irresponsible, and people shouldn't do it.

Mind you, I'm not sure you have to be drunk with some of the limits.

This is the problem with current DUI laws. It's all arbitrary, especially with groups such as MADD pushing for harsher and harsher penalties. People talking on a cellphone are probably more dangerous than someone who is moderately impaired by alcohol.

[Philhelm]

Wasn't MADD behind a lot of the police state infrastructure set up to catch drunk drivers, like those mobile testing units, checkpoints, and such?

That's another issue too. The Fourth Amendment is in shreds, partially to such organizations.

[specsaregood]

This is the problem with current DUI laws. It's all arbitrary, especially with groups such as MADD pushing for harsher and harsher penalties. People talking on a cellphone are probably more dangerous than someone who is moderately impaired by alcohol.

It goes back to what I said above. The people now leading MADD want outright prohibition. That is their ultimate goal as stated by the founder who left the organization because she disagreed.

[Anti Federalist]

It goes back to what I said above. The people now leading MADD want outright prohibition. That is their ultimate goal as stated by the founder who left the organization because she disagreed.

Wait 'til they join forces with the tobacco prohibitionists.

Women...

[Jinks]

Not really,
It is a defunct chapter because there was NO SUPPORT for it.

And you make the assumption that she has a " drinking problem " when it, 1. Could have been her first time drinking. 2. could be the result of a medical condition, and not drinking at all 3. could have been police misconduct.
Any or all of those will get you a positive blood alcohol result in the illegal range without having a "drinking problem".

oh ok, so its been defunct for 14 years, making it hardly relevant to who she is today.

And no, I didnt just assume it, I said if those were possibilities, she's not a hypocrite.

[Jinks]

This is the problem with current DUI laws. It's all arbitrary, especially with groups such as MADD pushing for harsher and harsher penalties. People talking on a cellphone are probably more dangerous than someone who is moderately impaired by alcohol.

so if DUI was less arbitrary, it's more acceptable to you?

[pcosmar]

so if DUI was less arbitrary, it's more acceptable to you?

Is harming no one a crime?

[Ninja Homer]

Here come Drunks Against Mothers Driving (DAMD)

I prefer DAMM - Drinkers Against Mad Mothers

[Jinks]

Is harming no one a crime?

crime doesn't require directly physically harming a person, it includes putting yourself at the risk of causing it, or making yourself in a position which you are highly likely to do so.

So YES, "harming nobody directly" can still constitute a crime.

[amy31416]

Wait 'til they join forces with the tobacco prohibitionists.

Women...

How 'bout that fella in Georgia who wants to police women's uteruses (uteri?) Neat how I can criticize his actions without blaming it on his gender, eh?

[pcosmar]

crime doesn't require directly physically harming a person, it includes putting yourself at the risk of causing it, or making yourself in a position which you are highly likely to do so.

So YES, "harming nobody directly" can still constitute a crime.

How so? How is there a crime if there is NO victim ?

Anyone driving a car or any machinery is "at risk" of causing harm.
Sober drivers are responsible for the vast majority of auto fatalities.

And i have bee a victim of these laws twice.
I have been driving since I was 12 and will be 54 this year. I have never wrecked a car.

[Humanae Libertas]

I'm mad at MADD.:mad:

[angelatc]

a little funny, but c'mon, FORMER President, not like she was the founder :)

The founder has publicly disassociated herself from them, saying that they've gone too far.

[angelatc]

crime doesn't require directly physically harming a person, it includes putting yourself at the risk of causing it, or making yourself in a position which you are highly likely to do so.

So YES, "harming nobody directly" can still constitute a crime.

I believe that if nobody is hurt, no legitimate crime has been committed.

[Anti Federalist]

How 'bout that fella in Georgia who wants to police women's uteruses (uteri?) Neat how I can criticize his actions without blaming it on his gender, eh?

Well, I don't see any Fathers Against (insert victimless but irresponsible behavior here), and I'm sure they are out there, but not with such a high profile.

Recently, in Switzerland, a major gun banning referendum was held, (it failed, fortunately) and women were in favor of it by 20 points over men.

In almost every instance, when a law looking to ban, punish or restrict some type of behavior, women will favor it by a large majority, that's just a fact.

It was women that pushed for and eventually succeeded in prohibiting alcohol the first time around.

But pay me no mind, I'm trolling, fighting with Mrs. AF and feeling shitty and misogynistic tonight.

[HOLLYWOOD]

The founder has publicly disassociated herself from them, saying that they've gone too far.
The second that government got a sniff of turning this into a "Money Maker" we were all doomed. Well, it's 5PM somewhere...

http://images.zaazu.com/img/Cheers--cheers-champagne-wine-smiley-emoticon-000272-medium.gif

[amy31416]

Well, I don't see any Fathers Against (insert victimless but irresponsible behavior here), and I'm sure they are out there, but not with such a high profile.

Recently, in Switzerland, a major gun banning referendum was held, (it failed, fortunately) and women were in favor of it by 20 points over men.

In almost every instance, when a law looking to ban, punish or restrict some type of behavior, women will favor it by a large majority, that's just a fact.

It was women that pushed for and eventually succeeded in prohibiting alcohol the first time around.

But pay me no mind, I'm trolling, fighting with Mrs. AF and feeling shitty and misogynistic tonight.

Okey doke. I won't play tit-for-tat with ya then. But I could... :p

[ClayTrainor]

It was women that pushed for and eventually succeeded in prohibiting alcohol the first time around.

The show "Boardwalk Empire" does a great job of illustrating this point, actually. The women just got the right to vote, and immediately played right into the prohibition gangsta's hands.

edit: wrong clip.

[Danke]

crime doesn't require directly physically harming a person, it includes putting yourself at the risk of causing it, or making yourself in a position which you are highly likely to do so.

So YES, "harming nobody directly" can still constitute a crime.

AxisMundi?

[low preference guy]

AxisMundi?

good catch.

i would've +repped you if you didn't complain about it.

[amy31416]

The show "Boardwalk Empire" does a great job of illustrating this point, actually. The women just got the right to vote, and immediately played right into the prohibition gangsta's hands.

edit: wrong clip.

That's true. It's also true that women didn't have the right to vote when the Federal Reserve was instituted. So guess who all the blame falls on for that tiny, little fiasco?

Seriously. We could play this game all day long.

[Fox McCloud]

crime doesn't require directly physically harming a person, it includes putting yourself at the risk of causing it, or making yourself in a position which you are highly likely to do so.

So YES, "harming nobody directly" can still constitute a crime.

there's no logic behind this--why should I be put in jail for engaging in risky/stupid behavior? If you have a basis for doing this, you have a basis for criminalizing, to a certain degree, or at least regulating everything--hey, you sleep too much, that's bad for your health, maybe we should criminalize that. Oh? You like to drink a lot of coca-cola? All that sugar is bad for you; we're going to have to toss your butt in jail if you consume more than 2 cans in a day; you're putting yourself at risk.

As long as we bear the full cost of our actions, then what's the big deal; if you still want to throw people's butts in jail for doing something they take full responsibility, I'd suggest you're, to a certain degree, and advocate of slavery.

[anaconda]

a little funny, but c'mon, FORMER President, not like she was the founder :)

I heard somewhere that the founder of MADD later got two DUI's. Don't know if it's true...

[low preference guy]

That's true. It's also true that women didn't have the right to vote when the Federal Reserve was instituted. So guess who all the blame falls on for that tiny, little fiasco?

Seriously. We could play this game all day long.

Federal Reserve, Income Tax, 17th Amendment.

But I doubt votes from women would've prevented any of that. ;)

[ClayTrainor]

That's true. It's also true that women didn't have the right to vote when the Federal Reserve was instituted. So guess who all the blame falls on for that tiny, little fiasco?

Seriously. We could play this game all day long.

Of course...

However, There's no harm in pointing out how certain demographics have more easily manipulated towards certain issues than others, and it can help us understand which demographic pushes for which kind of statist policy, so we know who we need to appeal to on certain issues.

For whatever reason, the female demographic seems to largely support various forms of prohibition, but I would guess that they have a much more libertarian voting record on things like war, than men do.

Not trying to be sexist or anything like that, lol.

[Danke]

good catch.

i would've +repped you if you didn't complain about it.

:D

[mrsat_98]

We need to round up a bunch of court watchers to show up in court, on the front row when DWI's are led into the meat grinder ( court) and all get up an leave as soon as she is handled by the court. Similar to what the mad muthers do.

[kahless]

I prefer DAMM - Drinkers Against Mad Mothers

LOL, you beat me to it. Drunks Against Mad Mothers. DAMM

[Bruno]

I know one thing for sure from looking at her pic - that wasn't her first night drinking.

[Jinks]

there's no logic behind this--why should I be put in jail for engaging in risky/stupid behavior?


Aside from the fact the risky behavior could harm other people, nothing.



If you have a basis for doing this, you have a basis for criminalizing, to a certain degree, or at least regulating everything


Depends on the risk, and how likely it'll harm other people. I'm in favor of drunk driving in a town without people.

The below is absurd slipperly slope which I never said and have stated where the difference is.


--hey, you sleep too much, that's bad for your health, maybe we should criminalize that. Oh? You like to drink a lot of coca-cola? All that sugar is bad for you; we're going to have to toss your butt in jail if you consume more than 2 cans in a day; you're putting yourself at risk.

As long as we bear the full cost of our actions, then what's the big deal; if you still want to throw people's butts in jail for doing something they take full responsibility, I'd suggest you're, to a certain degree, and advocate of slavery.

[Jinks]

As long as we bear the full cost of our actions, then what's the big deal; if you still want to throw people's butts in jail for doing something they take full responsibility, I'd suggest you're, to a certain degree, and advocate of slavery.

What do you think is the fair way to "bear the full cost of the actions" of driving drunk in on a crowded street?

"if you still want to throw people's butts in jail for doing something they take full responsibility"
I don't. I only want to throw people in jail FOR NOT taking full responsibility, or, I believe that's how you take responsibility, by paying the penalty.

[Anti Federalist]

The below is absurd slipperly slope which I never said and have stated where the difference is.

That is not absurd in the least.

"Lifestyle choices" are already being criminalized, both here and abroad.

[Jinks]

How so? How is there a crime if there is NO victim ?


I didn't say there isn't a victim.

You did.



Anyone driving a car or any machinery is "at risk" of causing harm.


Some are worse than others, so why have a driver license, according to you?



Sober drivers are responsible for the vast majority of auto fatalities.

And being drunk makes it safer? Or not? Just asking.



And i have bee a victim of these laws twice.
I have been driving since I was 12 and will be 54 this year. I have never wrecked a car.

are you the norm or the exception? Should the law be suited to you?

[Jinks]

That is not absurd in the least.

"Lifestyle choices" are already being criminalized, both here and abroad.

I do not favor criminalizing lifestyle choices, unless it puts others at unnecessary risk.

[low preference guy]

I do not favor criminalizing lifestyle choices, unless it puts others at unnecessary risk.

how do you actually define "unnecessary risk"? what are some examples? do you have a test to determine whether something is unnecessary risk? can your criteria be abused to infringe upon the liberty of innocents?

[Anti Federalist]

I do not favor criminalizing lifestyle choices, unless it puts others at unnecessary risk.

That is what defines a slippery slope.

What others, what is unnecessary, and how much risk?

It's like trying to define a concept like a "a living wage" or "rich".

It's all relative, and when you codify into law, vague, relative terms, it ends becoming, through natural government mission creep, a net that ends up ensnaring everybody.

[LinusVanPelt]

I prefer DAMM - Drinkers Against Mad Mothers

Bah, you beat me to it. Been a card-carrying member for years.

[Jinks]

how do you actually define "unnecessary risk"?


Driving impaired when you could drive either sober or have somebody do it.
Setting firecrackers in your bedroom full of flammables when you could take it outdoors.
Drinking battery acid when you could be drinking water.
Jumping off a cliff without a parachute without the intention to kill yourself, when you could've had a bungee cord or parachute.

Things that are preventable, without the intention of the worst result.
If your intention of driving drunk is to cause harm, admit it.
If your intention of jumping off a cliff is to kill yourself, fine.
Then it's no longer taking the risk of such things happening, it's expecting it.



what are some examples? do you have a test to determine whether something is unnecessary risk? can your criteria be abused to infringe upon the liberty of innocents?

I don't have a fool proof test, no. Nor do I have all the information on nutrition, but that doesn't mean milk and battery acid are equally healthy to drink on an empty stomach. Can anything NOT be abused to infringe on innocent people?

[Jinks]

That is what defines a slippery slope.
What others, what is unnecessary, and how much risk?


What others? People on the streets you are driving.
Unnecessary, as it's preventable by your choice of driving or switching driver.
Risk? would 99% success rate of killing a person be enough? If not, nevermind.
How about 50% success rate? Where do YOU draw the line?
Are we going "all for grabs" just because YOU can't agree where I draw the line?



It's like trying to define a concept like a "a living wage" or "rich".


I agree, it's not easy. But there's a clear difference between paid $8 an hour and paid $8 a day. Regardless of what you can do with it.



It's all relative, and when you codify into law, vague, relative terms, it ends becoming, through natural government mission creep, a net that ends up ensnaring everybody.

Is your problem that it's too vague? So you'd be OK with specific laws?

[low preference guy]

I don't have a fool proof test, no. Nor do I have all the information on nutrition, but that doesn't mean milk and battery acid are equally healthy to drink on an empty stomach.

but when you propose criminalize something, you need to actually write legislation. the exact wording of the law is very important because it can determine how much it'll be abused. but you don't even have a vague notion of how to achieve what you are proposing. in essence, you're talking pretty much about nothing, except showing your desire to have some sort of legislation which will obviously infringe upon individual liberties.

[low preference guy]

Setting firecrackers in your bedroom full of flammables when you could take it outdoors.

you want to make setting firecrakers in one's bedroom illegal? geez, you're an authoritarian psycho.

[Jinks]

but when you propose criminalize something, you need to actually write legislation. the exact wording of the law is very important because it can determine how much it'll be abused. but you don't even have a vague notion of how to achieve what you are proposing. in essence, you're talking pretty much about nothing, except showing your desire to have some sort of legislation which will obviously infringe upon individual liberties.

Let me see what you're saying.
Are you saying there should be zero traffic laws? Or there should be some, you just don't like some of them?
You didn't ask me how I would legislate it, and if I was ever given such an opportunity I'd do a lot of research before writing it all out.
But in the meantime, I don't think the current laws are entirely bad, even if they're not perfect.

[Jinks]

you want to make setting firecrakers in one's bedroom illegal? geez, you're an authoritarian psycho.

when a child is in the room. sorry, forgot to add. or when your room is full of flammables and your neighbor's house could burn from it.

so you caught one bad example, are you suggesting the other ones I said are good ones?

[low preference guy]

I agree, it's not easy. But there's a clear difference between paid $8 an hour and paid $8 a day. Regardless of what you can do with it.

true, but it has nothing to do with his point. his point was that "unnecessary risk" is as vague as "rich".

[low preference guy]

when a child is in the room. sorry, forgot to add. or when your room is full of flammables and your neighbor's house could burn from it.

so you caught one bad example, are you suggesting the other ones I said are good ones?

pretty much all you write is bullshit, i'm not going to stop and criticize all of it.

[Jinks]

true, but it has nothing to do with his point. his point was that "unnecessary risk" is as vague as "rich".

so we can ditch the words unnecesssary risk and actually list things that ARE risky, or list the conditions which WOULD be agreed upon as rich.

[low preference guy]

Let me see what you're saying.
Are you saying there should be zero traffic laws? Or there should be some, you just don't like some of them?
You didn't ask me how I would legislate it, and if I was ever given such an opportunity I'd do a lot of research before writing it all out.
But in the meantime, I don't think the current laws are entirely bad, even if they're not perfect.

when you have an actual proposal, it'll make sense to answer your question. right now you're talking about nothing.

i can tell you for example a legislation regarding freedom of speech i would favor: Congress shall write no law restricting freedom of speech.

if you don't have something similar, at least some sort of test to determine what is unnecessary risk objectively, instead of by the feelings of the judges, you're not really proposing anything.

[Jinks]

pretty much all you write is bullshit, i'm not going to stop and criticize all of it.

I see how this goes, when I say the laws are fine or could be better, or aren't entirely bad, I have to explain to you in all detail to your satisfaction, but when you say what I say is bullshit, you can just say "I'm not going to tell you why".

[Jinks]

when you have an actual proposal, it'll make sense to answer your question. right now you're talking about nothing.
i can tell you for example a legislation regarding freedom of speech i would favor: Congress shall write no law restricting freedom of speech.
if you don't have something similar, at least some sort of test to determine what is unnecessary risk objectively, instead of by the feelings of the judges, you're not really proposing anything.

I don't think the current laws are that unjust.
Or I can't think of a better way to reduce dangerous driving which doesnt involve some arbitrary and subjective measure in BAC.

Let me ask you, do you approve of the current drunk driving laws? If not, what parts do you disagree and how do you propose to fix it?

[low preference guy]

so we can ditch the words unnecesssary risk and actually list things that ARE risky, or list the conditions which WOULD be agreed upon as rich.

laws are written in principles, not lists. you can't write a list because there are potentially infinite number of cases.

[low preference guy]

I don't think the current laws are that unjust.
Or I can't think of a better way to reduce dangerous driving which doesnt involve some arbitrary and subjective measure in BAC.

Let me ask you, do you approve of the current drunk driving laws? If not, what parts do you disagree and how do you propose to fix it?

no, i don't. i favor penalizing people when they do actual harm to others, not for the composition of their blood.

[Jinks]

laws are written in principles, not lists. you can't write a list because there are potentially infinite number of cases.

ok then.

so you'd have to leave some room for interpretation and error, as principles can be abused, or misused, and don't always fit every case.

[Jinks]

no, i don't. i favor penalizing people when they do actual harm to others, not for the composition of their blood.

so nothing other than actual physical harm is criminalizeable?

I never said I wanted to punish people for drinking, but I'd punish people for drinking AND driving if there's a statistic basis for BAC to impairment.

[Anti Federalist]

Is your problem that it's too vague? So you'd be OK with specific laws?

Sure, since a specific law, by my definition, would have to include demonstrable harm to someone.

"Be it enacted, that the punishment of life improvement, will be the penalty if it is determined that an accident which caused property damage or bodily harm to another person or their property, was caused, in whole or in part by the defendant's alcohol impairment."

Maybe life in prison is too stiff, that's what the legislature is for, you get my point.

One sentence takes care of the problem, and eliminates, road blocks, DUI sweeps, aggressive cops and all the rest and let's those of us who are not drinking and driving get on about their business without having to worry about getting caught up in a DUI dragnet.

[Anti Federalist]

so nothing other than actual physical harm is criminalizeable?

Unless you've hurt somebody, how can you have a crime?

Now, you may have violated a code, regulation or statute, but you have not committed a crime.

[low preference guy]

so nothing other than actual physical harm is criminalizeable?

I never said I wanted to punish people for drinking, but I'd punish people for drinking AND driving if there's a statistic basis for BAC to impairment.

that's where we differ. i don't want to punish innocents. people whose behavior puts them in some arbitrary statistical category committed no real crime.

[Jinks]

Sure, since a specific law, by my definition, would have to include demonstrable harm to someone.


Let's play the game of "define it or it's slippery slope".

What's "demonstrable harm"?



"Be it enacted, that the punishment of life imprisonment, will be the penalty if it is determined that an accident which caused property damage or bodily harm to another person or their property, was caused, in whole or in part by the defendant's alcohol impairment."

and how many cases would it take to make prevention justifiable?



Maybe life in prison is too stiff, that's what the legislature is for, you get my point.

No, it's not too stiff if the harm fits.



One sentence takes care of the problem, and eliminates, road blocks, DUI sweeps, aggressive cops and all the rest and let's those of us who are not drinking and driving get on about their business without having to worry about getting caught up in a DUI dragnet.

so you mean that the reason people do road blocks, DUI sweeps is because we're NOT punishing harshly enough, so that people aren't scared enough to let them end up empty handed every night?

[Jinks]

Unless you've hurt somebody, how can you have a crime?


Verbal threat? Credible threat?
That's not criminal or punishable in your world?




Now, you may have violated a code, regulation or statute, but you have not committed a crime.

I am sorry that I don't know semantics. You're admitting then its punishable or could reasonably be made illegal.

[Jinks]

that's where we differ. i don't want to punish innocents. people whose behavior puts them in some arbitrary statistical category committed no real crime.

so even if it was a 99% success rate, you'd be against criminalizing it because 1% still has their freedom?

[low preference guy]

so even if it was a 99% success rate, you'd be against criminalizing it because 1% still has their freedom?

i'm fine with it if it's a direct attack against a person. for example, randomly shooting to someone targeting the bullets 2 inches above his head. drunk driving doesn't meet that criteria to me.

[Mini-Me]

so even if it was a 99% success rate, you'd be against criminalizing it because 1% still has their freedom?

That, and because the mere government authority to create such a law implies the authority to create tons of much worse laws...and any society interested in maintaining liberty simply cannot allow that general authority to go unchallenged...and you cannot challenge it without a willingness to throw out all the laws created under such authority, even the arguably helpful ones.

We'll never live in a perfect world, and the repeated attempts to get closer with "just one more law" have created an ecosystem with thousands and thousands of decent, poor, and awful laws, all piled on top of each other in a nonsensical jumble. I'd just as soon cut my losses, base all law off of demonstrable harm and possibly the addition of deliberate attempts at harm (both ultimately determined by juries, under the assumption anyone can bring a case to court), and live with a few corner cases, since we'll never eliminate all of them anyway. Anything in the "gray area," such as reckless behavior, I'd throw into the "file a lawsuit and see if a jury agrees" category instead of trying to craft one-size-fits-all legislation to address it.

[Jinks]

i'm fine with it if it's a direct attack against a person. for example, randomly shooting to someone targeting the bullets 2 inches above

What kind of a principle of legislation would include that?

According to your previous standard, NOBODY WAS HARMED.

[Jinks]

That, and because the mere government authority to create such a law implies the authority to create tons of much worse laws...and any society interested in maintaining liberty simply cannot allow that general authority to go unchallenged...and you cannot challenge it without a willingness to throw out all the laws created under such authority, even the arguably helpful ones.

We'll never live in a perfect world, and the repeated attempts to get closer with "just one more law" have created an ecosystem with thousands and thousands of decent, poor, and awful laws, all piled on top of each other in a nonsensical jumble. I'd just as soon cut my losses, base all law off of demonstrable harm (ultimately determined by juries, under the assumption anyone can bring a case to court), and live with a few corner cases, since we'll never eliminate all of them anyway.

you seem to think all laws are equally bad, so you consider a new law "just one more law".
And just because we don't live in a perfect world, doesnt mean we can't make it better or must make it worse.

So you admitted even at 99% success rate (I was referring to the chances of killing a person when driving drunk having a 99% success rate), you'd not legislate it. So would you be for legislating to criminalize "for example, randomly shooting to someone targeting the bullets 2 inches above"?

[low preference guy]

What kind of a principle of legislation would include that?

According to your previous standard, NOBODY WAS HARMED.

actual attempt at harming is punishable from my point of view. drunk driving isn't even closely comparable to that.

when i mentioned real harm occurring, we were talking about driving.

[Mini-Me]

you seem to think all laws are equally bad, so you consider a new law "just one more law".
And just because we don't live in a perfect world, doesnt mean we can't make it better or must make it worse.

So you admitted even at 99% success rate (I was referring to the chances of killing a person when driving drunk having a 99% success rate), you'd not legislate it. So would you be for legislating to criminalize "for example, randomly shooting to someone targeting the bullets 2 inches above"?

Sorry, I was continuing to edit my post. As it currently stands, I'd throw that in the "file a lawsuit and see if a jury agrees" category, though I wouldn't be opposed to making deliberate attempts at harm criminal offenses (where deliberateness, severity, and penalty are also determined by juries, on a case-by-case basis...juries are damn useful, and they're actually able to evaluate the matter at hand in its own context, unlike treacherous attempts at catch-all legislation).

Also note that if drunk drivers killed 99% of the time, they'd be taken to trial for manslaughter 99% of the time they drove drunk anyway, so an additional a priori law forbidding drunk driving would be a bit..redundant, don't you think? Exactly what would it accomplish, and at what cost (considering again, the broad legislative authority that creating such a law implies)?

[Anti Federalist]

Let's play the game of "define it or it's slippery slope".

What's "demonstrable harm"

Just that. Harm that can be demonstrated. I hurt you, injured you, killed you, traumatized you.


so you mean that the reason people do road blocks, DUI sweeps is because we're NOT punishing harshly enough, so that people aren't scared enough to let them end up empty handed every night?

Road blocks and such have very little to do with DUI, as there effectiveness rates have shown.

The purpose is to acclimate and bring about a background level of official terrorism. You could be stone cold sober, and, unless you are just a blissfully unaware person, you will still have a period of apprehension, dread and will adopt a subservient attitude when confronted with one of these things on dark road late at night.

Compliance, acclimation and revenue are the reasons for DUI laws and checkpoints.

[Anti Federalist]

Verbal threat? Credible threat?
That's not criminal or punishable in your world?

If it's enough to traumatize then yes.


I am sorry that I don't know semantics. You're admitting then its punishable or could reasonably be made illegal.

No, I am saying that the vast majority of things that land people in jail these days are not "crimes" but violations of codes, rules or statutes.

It may sound like I'm trying to play a semantical trick, but I'm not, there is a huge, if subtle, difference between the two, basically it boils down to what we talking about here, it's really only a crime if you are proved to hurt someone.

[Jinks]

actual attempt at harming is punishable from my point of view.


How do you know it's actual attempt?

Can you read a person's mind?



drunk driving isn't even closely comparable to that.

when i mentioned real harm occurring, we were talking about driving.

So you mean to say that in other places, it's OK to punish without first harming, just not in driving?

[low preference guy]

Also note that if drunk drivers killed 99% of the time, they'd be taken to trial for manslaughter 99% of the time they drove drunk anyway, so an additional a priori law forbidding drunk driving would be a bit..redundant, don't you think? Exactly what would it accomplish, and at what cost (considering again, the broad legislative authority that creating such a law implies)?

wow, good point. i didn't think about it this way before.

[Jinks]

If it's enough to traumatize then yes.


Who gets to decide that?
If I say I'm traumatized by the fact you're tall, is that punishable?


No, I am saying that the vast majority of things that land people in jail these days are not "crimes" but violations of codes, rules or statutes.


Ok.



It may sound like I'm trying to play a semantical trick, but I'm not, there is a huge, if subtle, difference between the two, basically it boils down to what we talking about here, it's really only a crime if you are proved to hurt someone.

But regardless of whether its' a crime, you believe it can be punishable and imprisonable? If so, I don't care what you call it. Call it a good deed if you want, as long as you punish the people I want punished.

[Bman]

Verbal threat? Credible threat?
That's not criminal or punishable in your world?

Maybe this will help you understand some common ideas around here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

[Mini-Me]

How do you know it's actual attempt?

Can you read a person's mind?
No, but if you bring it to trial (in a world where everyone has the ability to press charges - at their own financial risk, or that of their legal insurance), a jury can determine whether it was a deliberate attempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Jinks]

Just that. Harm that can be demonstrated. I hurt you, injured you, killed you, traumatized you.


How do you demonstrate traumatizing? Is a verbal threat demonstrable harm?




Road blocks and such have very little to do with DUI, as there effectiveness rates have shown.


Then how would your legislation get rid of it?



The purpose is to acclimate and bring about a background level of official terrorism. You could be stone cold sober, and, unless you are just a blissfully unaware person, you will still have a period of apprehension, dread and will adopt a subservient attitude when confronted with one of these things on dark road late at night.

Compliance, acclimation and revenue are the reasons for DUI laws and checkpoints.

how can you guarantee your law wouldn't be abused for the same?

[Jinks]

No, but if you bring it to trial (in a world where everyone has the ability to press charges - at their own financial risk, or that of their legal insurance), a jury can determine whether it was a deliberate attempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Aha! So based on this, if a policemen wanted to , without any law, say that he 'BELIEVES' by nothing but his own opinion that you have signs of drowsiness, reckless, or otherwise impaired ability to drive, he can videotape you, ask you to show him you're safe to drive, and if you fail to comply, he'll press charges and let the jury decide whether you "deliberately attempt" or are "unncessary risk".

Bringing the issue to the jury doesn't exactly make something more just or less arbitrary :)

[Mini-Me]

Aha! So based on this, if a policemen wanted to , without any law, say that he 'BELIEVES' by nothing but his own opinion that you have signs of drowsiness, reckless, or otherwise impaired ability to drive, he can videotape you, ask you to show him you're safe to drive, and if you fail to comply, he'll press charges and let the jury decide whether you "deliberately attempt" or are "unncessary risk".
Yes, at the police officer's OWN PERSONAL FINANCIAL RISK, he could. Of course, if his claims were deemed frivolous by the jury, that would cost him a bundle, so he'd better believe in what he's doing with his heart and soul. ;) If it's really worth it to him, then he can have at it. ;) Also, if he turned out to be perjuring himself, that's another can of worms.


Bringing the issue to the jury doesn't exactly make something more just or less arbitrary :)
A jury can evaluate each incident in its proper context, unlike idiotic, narcissistic politicians trying to craft general criteria in legalese, in response to emotional demands from special interests, so...yes, I would say that on average, juries are much more likely to be more just and less arbitrary. Furthermore, if the people pressing charges actually had something to lose if they were abusing the system, that would also reduce the likelihood of injustice.

[Jinks]

Sorry, I was continuing to edit my post. As it currently stands, I'd throw that in the "file a lawsuit and see if a jury agrees" category, though I wouldn't be opposed to making deliberate attempts at harm criminal offenses (where deliberateness, severity, and penalty are also determined by juries, on a case-by-case basis...juries are damn useful, and they're actually able to evaluate the matter at hand in its own context, unlike treacherous attempts at catch-all legislation).


i can live with that. but at what point would you be willing to say "too obvious to wait on jury, lets save time with legislation"?




Also note that if drunk drivers killed 99% of the time, they'd be taken to trial for manslaughter 99% of the time they drove drunk anyway, so an additional a priori law forbidding drunk driving would be a bit..redundant, don't you think? Exactly what would it accomplish, and at what cost (considering again, the broad legislative authority that creating such a law implies)?

if they were caught, so why would prevention not be justifiable?

[pcosmar]

I didn't say there isn't a victim.

You did.



Some are worse than others, so why have a driver license, according to you?


And being drunk makes it safer? Or not? Just asking.



are you the norm or the exception? Should the law be suited to you?

Can someone do a IP check. I have seen this circular "reasoning" before.
As well as the ignoring of points posted. It seems all too familiar.

I'm done arguing with a troll. And though suspected before this thread confirms it.

[Mini-Me]

i can live with that. but at what point would you be willing to say "too obvious to wait on jury, lets save time with legislation"?
You don't. EVERYONE is entitled to a jury trial before being deprived of life, liberty, or even property. If it's obvious, the trial should be short, shouldn't it? ;) Anything less than jury trials is just playing with fire. I'm not responding to a hypothetical or imaginary threat either: In today's world, we have jury trials being squeezed out at both the high end and low end: If the charges are too great (accusations of terrorist intent), you don't deserve a jury trial, and you'll just be detained indefinitely without any trial at all. If the charges are too small (moving violations, etc.), you don't need a jury trial, so we're just going to extort money out of you, and the racket will go on indefinitely. :rolleyes: We also have crap like this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?281336-Feds-attempt-to-seize-350-private-acres-with-NO-charges-against-owner

As far as frivolous lawsuits or changes go, you let the incentives of a properly constructed legal system deal with this issue themselves. Those incentives include, among other things, making plaintiffs (or their insurance) pay all fees involved with frivolous lawsuits and charges (including lost wages, etc.), civil or criminal.



if they were caught, so why would prevention not be justifiable?
Your preventative law is not going to reprogram the mind of someone willing to drive drunk knowing they have a 99% likelihood of killing someone. :rolleyes: If you're talking about cops stopping them, how about this: A cop - or non-cop - can try to stop them, take them home, arrest them, or whatever...but they should have no institutional immunity. Anyone can press charges against them too, so if it turns out they abused their authority (or their non-authority ;)), they're at the mercy of a jury as well.

Basically, when you have to put your own ass on the line every time you take a coercive/aggressive action against someone, you're a lot less likely to choose to do so frivolously or abusively than a sociopathic cop with carte blanche and legislation he can use as a pretext. In a general sense, the incentives inherent to a system ultimately determine the direction of that system.

[Jinks]

Your preventative law is not going to reprogram the mind of someone willing to drive drunk knowing they have a 99% likelihood of killing someone.
.
so murder should be legal as well based on your premise, that it wont change anybody's mind.

[low preference guy]

so murder should be legal as well based on your premise, that it wont change anybody's mind.

suggestion: read that short text you're quoting, and then compare it to your response. you are very likely to see how idiotic your reply is.

sorry to be this blunt. i don't have the seemingly infinite patience of mini-me.

[Mini-Me]

so murder should be legal as well based on your premise, that it wont change anybody's mind.

The purpose of law is not to change people's minds, silly. The [proper] purpose of law is to provide a framework for redress if and when someone harms another person or their property. The bastardized purpose of law is to control.

[low preference guy]

The purpose of law is not to change people's minds, silly. The [proper] purpose of law is to provide a framework for redress if and when someone harms another person or their property. The bastardized purpose of law is to control.

Plus, what you're arguing is this:

If person A drunk drives knowing that it is likely that he will kill somebody, and that he can be prosecuted, yet he drunk drives anyway, then that person is likely to ignore the penalty for just drunk driving.

AlexisMundi now is pretending that the statement above implies this:

If person A exists, then he is likely to ignore a murder law.

Note how person "A" is very different in the two examples, yet the idiotic AlexisMundi is pretending to not see the difference.

If Hitler were alive, I would suspect he was the one who just posted AlexisMundi's nonsense.

[Jinks]

The purpose of law is not to change people's minds, silly.


I am aware of that. So I asked.



The [proper] purpose of law is to provide a framework for redress if and when someone harms another person or their property. The bastardized purpose of law is to control.

So what's wrong with prevention of unnecessary risks and its consequences in the case of drunk driving? Even putting aside whether it'll change a person's mind (which you brought up yourself), I see it fits fine with your purpose here.

[Jinks]

Plus, what you're arguing is this:

If person A drunk drives knowing that it is likely that he will kill somebody, and that he can be prosecuted, yet he drunk drives anyway, then that person is likely to ignore the penalty for just drunk driving.


So far we agree, so what do you suggest we do to a person who doesn't seem to care about being prosecuted?



AlexisMundi now is pretending that the statement above implies this:

If person A exists, then he is likely to ignore a murder law.
Note how person "A" is very different in the two examples, yet the idiotic AlexisMundi is pretending to not see the difference.
If Hitler were alive, I would suspect he was the one who just posted AlexisMundi's nonsense.
I'm not pretending, I actually don't see the difference.

In both cases, a person doesn't care about prosecution, so why should the law even exist?
Who/what is alexismundi?

[low preference guy]

I'm not pretending, I actually don't see the difference.

hahahaha! you don't get it even with the help i gave you by putting some parts in bold? good one!

this is the point where i really give up and let others take over this discussion.

good night.

[Anti Federalist]

Call it a good deed if you want, as long as you punish the people I want punished.

Ah - HAH, there it is..."punish the people I want punished"!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VnENe4dfUDI/Szv_3zJfkqI/AAAAAAAAB90/z91uY7y1rdE/s400/PunCP%5B1%5D.jpg

[Jinks]

hahahaha! you don't get it even with the help i gave you by putting some parts in bold? good one!

this is the point where i really give up and let others take over this discussion.

good night.

this part was in bold
drunk drives knowing that it is likely that he will kill somebody, and that he can be prosecuted, yet he drunk drives anyway,
compare to a person "kills another person knowing he'll cause the person pain, suffering and irreversible death, and that he can be prosecuted, yet he does so anyway"

Difference please?

[dannno]

So what's wrong with prevention of unnecessary risks and its consequences in the case of drunk driving? Even putting aside whether it'll change a person's mind (which you brought up yourself), I see it fits fine with your purpose here.

A higher percentage of meth users steal than non meth users. Should anybody who uses meth go to jail because they are at a higher risk of stealing from somebody? That is one of the arguments prohibitionists use to keep drugs illegal.

[low preference guy]

this part was in bold
drunk drives knowing that it is likely that he will kill somebody, and that he can be prosecuted, yet he drunk drives anyway,
compare to a person "kills another person knowing he'll cause the person pain, suffering and irreversible death, and that he can be prosecuted, yet he does so anyway"

Difference please?

take it as a homework assignment. you'll get it.

[Anti Federalist]

Can someone do a IP check. I have seen this circular "reasoning" before.
As well as the ignoring of points posted. It seems all too familiar.
I'm done arguing with a troll. And though suspected before this thread confirms it.

I think most of us came to the conclusion that we're arguing with AxisMundi V.2.0.

LOL

[Mini-Me]

I am aware of that. So I asked.



So what's wrong with prevention of unnecessary risks and its consequences in the case of drunk driving? Even putting aside whether it'll change a person's mind (which you brought up yourself), I see it fits fine with your purpose here.

In your 99% case, a small problem with it is that it will accomplish little to nothing, all while giving unaccountable agents of the state (cops) a pretext for road blocks, checkpoints, harassment, and subjugation. As the threat of homicide decreases from 99%, so does the presumed "necessity" of the law as well. We went for most of the history of the automobile without drunk driving laws, and since their inception, the results have been relatively dubious. ("Alcohol-related" deaths have gone down significantly since the 1980's relative to non-alcohol-related deaths, but deaths involving legally drunk drivers have not, and general decreases in the death rate can easily be attributed to cars with better safety features, etc.)

A larger problem is that the general, broad legislative authority required to craft such a law implies the power to create any number of stupid, horrendous laws, such as most of the ones you'll find on the books today. Preventing government from enacting the latter requires stripping them of the authority to enact the former as well.

[Jinks]

A higher percentage of meth users steal than non meth users. Should anybody who uses meth go to jail because they are at a higher risk of stealing from somebody? That is one of the arguments prohibitionists use to keep drugs illegal.

No, but they should be pointed out so people can watch for them. Also, stealing isn't the same physical harm as a car accident.

Do meth users have a tendency to steal? Or only so they can sustain their fix? (if meth were legal and cheap, would they still steal?)

[Jinks]

In your 99% case, a small problem with it is that it will accomplish little to nothing,

I think I get your game now.

Either a law is too harmful to too many innocent people, or it's useless, or it's going to accomplish too little.

There seems to be no such thing as a reasonable law to you, or is there?

[Mini-Me]

I think I get your game now.

Either a law is too harmful to too many innocent people, or it's useless, or it's going to accomplish too little.

There seems to be no such thing as a reasonable law to you, or is there?

Yes, there is: It's called the non-aggression principle, carefully worded and applied thoughtfully by juries considering the context of contested actions.

Although I'd prefer it to stop there and let the principle stand on its own, there are still plenty of "reasonable" laws. Basically, any law forbidding someone from initiating violence/coercion against someone is a reasonable law, not because it works to make criminals reconsider, but because it gives victims a framework of redress. For instance, laws against murder, rape, assault, arson, thieft, vandalism, etc. are perfectly kosher.

Now, if you're asking me if there are any reasonable statutes...well, no, actually there are not.

[Jinks]

Yes, there is: It's called the non-aggression principle, carefully worded and applied thoughtfully by juries considering the context of contested actions.

are you saying that all laws today, anti-theft, anti-fraud, anti-robbery, anti-purgery, should be eliminated, and just leave it to the jury?

[Mini-Me]

are you saying that all laws today, anti-theft, anti-fraud, anti-robbery, anti-purgery, should be eliminated, and just leave it to the jury?

Actually, read my edit (I elaborated before I saw your post). I'm saying that would probably be best, but I'd consider all of those above laws to be reasonable, for the precise reason I gave in my edit (a reason which clearly applies to those laws but not to arbitrary statutes).

The main reason why I lean so heavily towards jury evaluation is because legislators often try to write general criteria into their laws which everyone becomes bound by, but which do not always apply. For instance, what constitutes assault? If you push someone out of the path of an oncoming bus, is that assault (it shouldn't be)? Frankly, I think juries are much better at deciding those matters in their specific context than even the best legislators would be at trying to predict every possible scenario in advance (and let's face it, most legislators did not rise to power because of their wisdom and benevolence anyway, but because of their snakelike charm and lust for power).

[Jinks]

Although I'd prefer it to stop there and let the principle stand on its own, there are still plenty of "reasonable" laws. Basically, any law forbidding someone from initiating violence/coercion against someone is a reasonable law, not because it works to make criminals reconsider, but because it gives victims a framework of redress. For instance, laws against murder, rape, assault, arson, thieft, vandalism, etc. are perfectly kosher.

Now, if you're asking me if there are any reasonable statutes...well, no, actually there are not.

So I don't understand how a law that makes drunk driving illegal, as a way to add punishment to a person who caused a fatal car accident, based on the fact he could've greatly reduced the risk of such an accident if he chose not to drive while impaired (it's a preventable harm with a choice he could've made) doesn't fall into "framework for redress, even if it doesn't change a person's mind"

[Mini-Me]

So I don't understand how a law that makes drunk driving illegal, as a way to add punishment to a person who caused a fatal car accident, based on the fact he could've greatly reduced the risk of such an accident if he chose not to drive while impaired (it's a preventable harm with a choice he could've made) doesn't fall into "framework for redress, even if it doesn't change a person's mind"

The framework for redress exists because of laws against manslaughter. Pre-crime laws are redundant and unnecessary for the purpose of enabling redress for actual damages, though there are other reasons NOT to legislate them (or to even grant government the authority to do so whatsoever), as I previously argued.

Anyway, "add punishment?" Why on earth would you consider it a good idea for legislators to decide punishments? Haven't you realized the way that mandatory minimums tend to bind the hands of juries [and in today's world, judges] in unusual (or even ordinary) cases that legislators could not have anticipated? Taking latitude away from the very people who have access to context, and putting the power in the hands of idiotic legislators, is not exactly a sound principle. For the love of God, just let juries decide the appropriate penalty for the criminal and/or compensation for the victim (or victim's family). In rare cases where juries act out of line, that's what appeals are for.

[Jinks]

The framework for redress exists because of laws against manslaughter.


Do you not acknowledge there's differences between :
Intent to murder
Intent to harm, but killed as a result
No intent to do either, but killed as a result
Knowingly avoiding steps to prevent harm, where choices were available, but killed as a result.
Why shouldn't each case be punished differently?



Pre-crime laws are redundant and unnecessary for the purpose of enabling redress for actual damages, though there are other reasons NOT to legislate them, as I previously argued.


Says you, I'll let the jury decide that.



Anyway, "add punishment?" Why on earth would you consider it a good idea for legislators to decide punishments?


I didn't exactly say legislators are perfect for the job, but I was just saying somebody can/should do it.



Haven't you realized the way that mandatory minimums tend to bind the hands of judges and juries in unusual cases that legislators could not have anticipated?


I've heard of that. I'm not convinced they do more harm than good though.



For the love of God, Just let juries decide the appropriate penalty for the criminal and/or compensation for the victim (or victim's family). In rare cases where juries act out of line, that's what appeals are for.

And if all the above decided a person who drove drunk should get extra punishment than a person who did similar damages driving, but didn't drink, you'd accept it, I assume. I hope you don't come up with another complaint after that. I've listened to your best proposal and it's not bad, I just hope you're serious and not just stalling for another excuse.

[Mini-Me]

Do you not acknowledge there's differences between :
Intent to murder
Intent to harm, but killed as a result
No intent to do either, but killed as a result
Knowingly avoiding steps to prevent harm, where choices were available, but killed as a result.
Why shouldn't each case be punished differently?
They should, and permitting that does not in any way necessitate that decision being made at the legislative level. BTW, your obsession with punishment reminds me of Caretaker Filch from Harry Potter. "I WANT TO SEE SOME PUNISHMENT!" :rolleyes: How about focusing the judicial system more towards attempted compensation for victims if possible, with punishment being a secondary concern?



Says you, I'll let the jury decide that.
Yes.


I didn't exactly say legislators are perfect for the job, but I was just saying somebody can/should do it.
Yes, juries. ;)


I've heard of that. I'm not convinced they do more harm than good though.
If you're tried for some bullshit victimless crime with a mandatory minimum someday, maybe then you'll understand. ;)


And if all the above decided a person who drove drunk should get extra punishment than a person who did similar damages driving, but didn't drink, you'd accept it, I assume. I hope you don't come up with another complaint after that. I've listened to your best proposal and it's not bad, I just hope you're serious and not just stalling for another excuse.
Correct, and to make things perfectly clear: Not only would I "accept" such a jury decision, but if I were on a jury myself, I would personally argue that extra "punishment" is often warranted, because recklessness implies more culpability than freak accidents do. I FULLY believe in differing levels of culpability based on intent, motive, state of mind, etc.

Anyway, why would you think I've been stalling for an excuse? I haven't been hiding anything, stalling, or using "excuses" for anything. This isn't some word game to me. I've been giving a pretty consistent position this whole time, even if I've had to clarify at times. I'm not a sophist here. I'm not trying to argue a ridiculously false or misleading proposition in the hope you won't be able to pinpoint a logical inconsistency that I'm trying to paper over. Rather, I'm simply arguing against the current system, where we have mountains of arbitrary (and often dangerous or unjust) one-size-fits-all legislation, and I'm proposing a simpler, more transparent, and more robust system that is far less prone to abuse by powerful people, which has far less legacy cruft (programming term), and which does not grant government the authority to go hog-wild. I firmly believe that if legislators spent every day playing baseball instead of creating new laws, the world would be a better place.


Anyway, it seems like we've come to a sort of understanding, even if we don't necessarily agree. It's time for me to go to bed, and it looks like you probably already did the same, sooo... ;)