TX Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for 9th DWI

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I just saw this story on Fox news on Megan Kelly's show and they were agreeing with the judges decision. Complete insanity!


T.X. -- The ninth conviction was the breaking point for one Texas judge who earlier this week sentenced a habitual drunken driver to life in prison.

Bobby Stovall, 54, was driving his truck in Round Rock, Texas, in early July when he weaved through several lanes of traffic and hit another vehicle, injuring the driver. It was later determined that Stovall had a blood alcohol concentration of .32, four times the legal limit in Texas.

And while that DWI was certainly enough to get Stovall in trouble with the law, when the judge found out the defendant had eight prior DWI convictions across several different counties in Texas, he ordered up a life sentence for Stovall.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-man-life-sentence-ninth-dwi/story?id=11395058#.UK07zeTokbA

[torchbearer]

shouldn't you have to infringe on another persons life, liberty, or property before having yours removed permanently?

[LibertyEagle]

shouldn't you have to infringe on another persons life, liberty, or property before having yours removed permanently?

Yes, I agree, but apparently he did do some of that. From what has been reported though, certainly not enough for life imprisonment. wow


Bobby Stovall, 54, was driving his truck in Round Rock, Texas, in early July when he weaved through several lanes of traffic and hit another vehicle, injuring the driver. It was later determined that Stovall had a blood alcohol concentration of .32, four times the legal limit in Texas.

[AFPVet]

Many states have such laws... they are called HTV or habitual traffic violator laws. Should he get a felony? Yes; life, no.

In my state, he would receive a class D felony and be banned from driving for life. If he drives again, he will receive a class C felony.

[jkr]

why is this dangerous substance "legal" then?

life sentence...but not for sandusky, corizone, or teh bernack...

[TheTexan]

Or just sell his car and give him a horse / bicycle.

Oh wait, it's probably illegal to ride horses nowadays

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Could this not have been resolved by barring him from having a drivers license?

[torchbearer]

Could this not have been resolved by barring him from having a drivers license?

reason has no place in the court of law.
the judge gas gotten laid in awhile, had a bad game of golf saturday... so take it.

[acptulsa]

There's still a little Old West in the West.

Mostly, you get to the southwest and not much is required of you. For example, if jaywalking is illegal in Round Rock, I'd be very surprised. But if you're a constant menace, and especially if you're a continuing deadly menace, you're just liable to get dealt with.

I ain't sayin' it's right. I'm just sayin'.

[devil21]

That's pretty harsh but he did hit someone and Id want to know the details of his prior DWI convictions. Does he have a history of damaging other's property and health? .32 is VERY drunk...like blackout drunk. Im not a fan of DWI laws overall but his situation is to the extreme.


Could this not have been resolved by barring him from having a drivers license?

Not sure if serious.

After that many convictions it's pretty safe to say he doesn't have a driver license.

[AFPVet]

That's pretty harsh but he did hit someone and Id want to know the details of his prior DWI convictions. Does he have a history of damaging other's property and health? .32 is VERY drunk...like blackout drunk. Im not a fan of DWI laws overall but his situation is to the extreme.



Not sure if serious.

After that many convictions it's pretty safe to say he doesn't have a driver license.

In my state, HTV is after three OWI judgments in a 10 year period. Once you receive HTV, you may be banned from driving. If you continue to drive, they keep stacking felonies. Now I suppose you could end up with life if you use a "revolving door"; however, you won't be handed a life sentence.

[thoughtomator]

This is the kind of thing that the penalty of exile would be ideal for.

[Agorism]

Did he have a driver's license to remove?

[tod evans]

Here's one got life for his 3rd DWI;

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1982067132001/texas-man-gets-life-sentence-after-third-dwi-conviction/?intcmp=obnetwork

[carclinic]

Good.

[tod evans]

Good.

Me thinks you have a misguided sense of "good".

[carclinic]

I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.

Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.

[asurfaholic]

Life in prison?

Seems harsh... How about commitment to a health facility, where he belongs. This is a medical problem as much as it is a behavior problem.

[tod evans]

I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.

Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.

Sick dude very sick!

[presence]

I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.

Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.

He injured somebody through neglegence. Vehicular battery 2-10. Call it done. Strip drivers liscence if need be for life. But life sentence? Hell, that cop that beat the fuck out of that innocent janitor - pummeled to bloody death - only got 4 years of Just-Us.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57551352-504083/spokane-police-officer-jailed-in-beating-death-of-disabled-janitor/


A Spokane police officer was sentenced to more than four years in prison for using excessive force against a mentally disabled janitor who died after being mistakenly suspected of stealing money from an ATM. Six years ago, Zehm was beaten and targeted with a stun gun by Thompson in a convenience store. He was hog-tied and sat on by other officers until he passed out. He died two days later without regaining consciousness.

[presence]

I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.





Premise: Belief in a Deity leads to the following good results.
Premise: Rejection of a Deity leads to the following bad results.
Therefore, you should believe in a deity.

Argumentum ad Consequentiam; Red Herring,



If it's raining then the streets are wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore, it's raining.

The Fallacy of the Consequent



The fact that we desire something to be true gives not the slightest reason to believe it, and the fact that we fear something being true is no reason to think it false

Argumentum ad Metum


www.fallacyfiles.org (http://www.fallacyfiles.org)

Also... quite fucking rude.

-rep

[paulbot24]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to presence again."

Damn.

[carclinic]

www.fallacyfiles.org (http://www.fallacyfiles.org)

Also... quite fucking rude.

-rep
Point is, the laws exist for a reason.

[tod evans]

Point is, the laws exist for a reason.

Laws are written and rewritten daily, they're perverted and twisted by prosecutors/judges and lawyers to fit agendas.

Public sentiment, such as you have expressed regarding drunk drivers, contributes drastically to their perversion.

Whether or not you realize it you are being played like a fiddle by the propaganda arm of government.

[torchbearer]

Point is, the laws exist for a reason. Don't advocate for pre-crimes. The very fact that you bought a gun means you could kill someone. With the DWI/DUI logic, you are already guilty because of the potential damage you could cause by buying a gun.

[carclinic]

IMHO, you do it 9 times you're a white trash degenerate. And, granted the legal limit should be set higher, but to do it 9 times and hurt people, he is not going to be "corrected" by a correctional facility. He should be locked away with the key thrown away. Preferably, the US prison system should be a series of gulags that produced cheap goods, where murderers and degenerates can be the opposite of a drain on society.

[FindLiberty]

Could this not have been resolved by barring him from having a drivers license?

No, not for sure, he might still drive w/o license while hammered...

Got to lock him up for a while (or take off his hands and legs ...and/or remove both eyes).
That seems about as excessive as just getting locked up for LIFE!

The loss of innocent life at the hands of this guy is even more horrible to imagine.

A few years to dry out while locked up seems more reasonable... He should stop drinking. Maybe it's unlikely he can ever quit. Maybe he's a dangerous driver even while sober. I'd give him a chance to ponder over that for a few years.

Upon release, he gets conditional parole: Any connection between booze and even going near a car with car keys gets him another few years. If that does not work, try a decade or two in prison. Repeat if necessary with three or four decades, etc.

The problem goes away eventually.

[paulbot24]

IMHO, you do it 9 times you're a white trash degenerate. And, granted the legal limit should be set higher, but to do it 9 times and hurt people, he is not going to be "corrected" by a correctional facility. He should be locked away with the key thrown away. Preferably, the US prison system should be a series of gulags that produced cheap goods, where murderers and degenerates can be the opposite of a drain on society.

Sounds like something China would endorse while they're digging a new graves trench. Jesus, take a Valium.

[carclinic]

I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Here's one got life for his 3rd DWI;

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1982067132001/texas-man-gets-life-sentence-after-third-dwi-conviction/?intcmp=obnetwork

Thats how it should be.

Revoke license after second. Life in prison after third.

[tod evans]

the US prison system should be a series of gulags that produced cheap goods, where murderers and degenerates can be the opposite of a drain on society.

Oh they still drain society....But you'll be glad to know that members of the "Just-Us" department profit handsomely from not just prisons but from the taxpayers they suck their salary from.All profits from prison labor pay stock options to the Just-Us dept shareholders, "society" doesn't see any return what-so-ever..

If you'd like to learn more about prison labor today in the USA do a google search for UNICOR..

[tod evans]

I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.

Back to;

Sick dude, very sick!

[Anti Federalist]

I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.

Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.

What the fuck?

So, if people point out that life in prison for a habitual drunk driver (that, as far as I know never killed anybody) is harsh and indicative of a police state, they should have death wished on their family?

[carclinic]

Hey, countries with that have less crime, which means less aggregate cruelty.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Bradley said that in addition to the multiple DWI convictions , Stovall also had a extensive rap sheet for other crimes, including burglary, credit card abuse and supplying alcohol to a minor.

Clearly shows the guy has no respect for other people. The judge did the right thing.

[carclinic]

What the fuck?

So, if people point out that life in prison for a habitual drunk driver (that, as far as I know never killed anybody) is harsh and indicative of a police state, they should have death wished on their family?
Not seriously, I don't want anyone to get hurt, which is why that guy should be in jail.

[carclinic]

Clearly shows the guy has no respect for other people. The judge did the right thing.
No, its his human losertarian right to take a shit on everyone everyday.

[paulbot24]

Are you a troll or do you just have a "talent"?

[tod evans]

Thats how it should be.

Revoke license after second. Life in prison after third.

And what other offences should carry life in prison as their sentence?

For most of our countries existence only murder and treason carried so harsh a penalty...

I fear you too may have fallen victim to the propaganda arm of our government..:o

[Anti Federalist]

I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.

Wow.

We have one of the harshest prison systems in the world.

More people are in prison in the US than any other place in the world.

We execute more people that any other place in the world.

We routinely execute and imprison innocent people.

And you want more of this???

[KingRobbStark]

People are idiots.

[tod evans]

Repless:o


Wow.

We have one of the harshest prison systems in the world.

More people are in prison in the US than any other place in the world.

We execute more people that any other place in the world.

We routinely execute and imprison innocent people.

And you want more of this???

[carclinic]

Are you a troll or do you just have a "talent"?
Talent at what? I think I have valid opinions.

[carclinic]

Wow.

We have one of the harshest prison systems in the world.

More people are in prison in the US than any other place in the world.

We execute more people that any other place in the world.

We routinely execute and imprison innocent people.

And you want more of this???
Not more imprisonment per se, the drunk aside, but crueler punishments that cost the tax payer less.

[amy31416]

Not more imprisonment per se, the drunk aside, but crueler punishments that cost the tax payer less.

Rape is cheap, and that already happens to a lot of men who end up in prison.

[Pericles]

Point is, the laws exist for a reason.

And that reason is nit always a good one. See Jim Crow laws for examples.

[carclinic]

Rape is cheap, and that already happens to a lot of men who end up in prison.
But then the rapists are having the times of their lives, getting laid left and right. Rape is actually cruel and unusual punishment. Flogging people instead of locking them up forever or putting people to work is on the surface crueler, but in reality much more humane than what we have.

[torchbearer]

But then the rapists are having the times of their lives, getting laid left and right. Rape is actually cruel and unusual punishment. Flogging people instead of locking them up forever or putting people to work is on the surface crueler, but in reality much more humane than what we have.


an anonymous tip to you local PD is in order.
I think you'll enjoy the ride, and there will be people just like you who get off on the violence that is force on you... whether you did anything to anyone or not.
the state allows psychos to enact their fantasies without feeling personally responsible. let's play.

[tod evans]

But then the rapists are having the times of their lives, getting laid left and right. Rape is actually cruel and unusual punishment. Flogging people instead of locking them up forever or putting people to work is on the surface crueler, but in reality much more humane than what we have.

You're starting to think.......that's good, you'll get there.. maybe?

Be advised though, your government does not like people who think..

Emotional reactions to perceived threats are what the propaganda arm banks on..

[carclinic]

an anonymous tip to you local PD is in order.
I think you'll enjoy the ride, and there will be people just like you who get off on the violence that is force on you... whether you did anything to anyone or not.
the state allows psychos to enact their fantasies without feeling personally responsible. let's play.

Huh?


You're starting to think.......that's good, you'll get there.. maybe?
So, it's time to bring back the flogging, right?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

We execute more people that any other place in the world.

We routinely execute and imprison innocent people.

First off, China executes more people than the rest of the world combined. Secondly, there has never once been a conclusively proven case of an innocent person being put to death since the modern dealth penalty era began in the 1970s, and you're saying "routinely"? I guess if one simply wants to believe that, then one can look for any slight sliver of doubt in any execution case and automatically declare it "another innocent person executed!" It's about as much evidence as conspiracy theory types use before making their absurd declarations.

Yet again, we have another example of why Libertarians are not taken seriously. Was this penalty too harsh? Debatable. But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity. This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts. What happens when they kill someone? "Oh, that's just freedom at work"? What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?

Just once, I wish a major political party would nominate a true Libertarian to run nationally. That way when they flame out, there's no "Americans don't support third parties" excuse. Run on the 'legalize child porn and drunk driving' platform, please.

[tod evans]

So, it's time to bring back the flogging, right?

What in the sam-hell gave you the idea I agreed with you?

I'm trying to be diplomatic and give you credit for not repeating blather...

Keep trying it's obviously going to take you longer than the average bear to grasp some of the concepts discussed on this forum..

[Brian4Liberty]

Could this not have been resolved by barring him from having a drivers license?


That's pretty harsh but he did hit someone and Id want to know the details of his prior DWI convictions. Does he have a history of damaging other's property and health? .32 is VERY drunk...like blackout drunk. Im not a fan of DWI laws overall but his situation is to the extreme.

After that many convictions it's pretty safe to say he doesn't have a driver license.


Did he have a driver's license to remove?

Yeah, there's a couple of very relevant questions. Did he have a license, and did he get into any previous accidents while drunk?

[tod evans]

Was this penalty too harsh? Debatable. But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity. This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts. What happens when they kill someone? "Oh, that's just freedom at work"? What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?


Cops kill more people every year than drunks.

Try that with your twisted logic...

[carclinic]

First off, China executes more people than the rest of the world combined. Secondly, there has never once been a conclusively proven case of an innocent person being put to death since the modern dealth penalty era began in the 1970s, and you're saying "routinely"? I guess if one simply wants to believe that, then one can look for any slight sliver of doubt in any execution case and automatically declare it "another innocent person executed!" It's about as much evidence as conspiracy theory types use before making their absurd declarations.

Yet again, we have another example of why Libertarians are not taken seriously. Was this penalty too harsh? Debatable. But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity. This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts. What happens when they kill someone? "Oh, that's just freedom at work"? What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?

Just once, I wish a major political party would nominate a true Libertarian to run nationally. That way when they flame out, there's no "Americans don't support third parties" excuse. Run on the 'legalize child porn and drunk driving' platform, please.
That's the difference between libertarians and losertarians.

My extreme opinions aside, I'm not going to seriously pursue a change in the corrections system, I'm just having fun talking about it. But talk to some losertarians and we don't need driver's licenses, police, and laws regulating anything, but circumcision should be illegal. Strange and extreme on the issues.

[carclinic]

Cops kill more people every year than drunks.

Try that with your twisted logic...
We have about 40,000 road fatalities a year, I'd bet at least 25% are related to being intoxicated with something.

[tod evans]

We have about 40,000 road fatalities a year, I'd bet at least 25% are related to being intoxicated with something.

Use the same criteria to attribute death to cops....More than half of the "drug related" deaths could be directly attributed to cops, and for that matter a substantial portion of alcohol related deaths could be attributed to both categories cop/booze..Death in prison for such things as weed must also be attributed to cops, suicides due to arrest--cops....

[Anti Federalist]

First off, China executes more people than the rest of the world combined. Secondly, there has never once been a conclusively proven case of an innocent person being put to death since the modern dealth penalty era began in the 1970s, and you're saying "routinely"? I guess if one simply wants to believe that, then one can look for any slight sliver of doubt in any execution case and automatically declare it "another innocent person executed!" It's about as much evidence as conspiracy theory types use before making their absurd declarations.

China's numbers are not released, so we don't know.


1 China People's Republic of China Officially not released.[54][55] In the thousands, may be up to 4,000.[56]
2 Iran Iran 360+
3 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia 82+
4 Iraq Iraq 68+
5 United States United States 43

A fair criticism, I should have said maybe "In the Western World" or some such.

The fact remains that we have more people in prison than any other nation on earth.


Yet again, we have another example of why Libertarians are not taken seriously. Was this penalty too harsh? Debatable. But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity. This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts. What happens when they kill someone? "Oh, that's just freedom at work"? What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?

So, using that logic, what is to prevent government from installing cameras in everybody's home to monitor them for compliance with all laws?

Banning guns?

Or any other measure designed to prevent things happening "before they cause injury".


Just once, I wish a major political party would nominate a true Libertarian to run nationally. That way when they flame out, there's no "Americans don't support third parties" excuse. Run on the 'legalize child porn and drunk driving' platform, please.

You want to see freedom die off?

[Anti Federalist]

8 People Who Were Executed and Later Found Innocent

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/8-people-who-were-executed-and-later-found-innocent.html

[Anti Federalist]

We have about 40,000 road fatalities a year, I'd bet at least 25% are related to being intoxicated with something.

32,885 in 2010.

[Anti Federalist]

Recently, the case of Cameron Willingham (pictured) has been in the news. He was convicted of murdering his three children by arson in a 1991 house fire. He was executed in 2004. A new report from a national arson expert, prepared for the Texas Forensic Science Commission, has concluded that the original investigation of Willingham's case was seriously flawed and could not support a finding of arson

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

[Philhelm]

I'm glad that I live in a country in which I can murder people and molest children without getting a life sentence.

[Anti Federalist]

There have been hundreds of exonerated of death penalty cases, after the fact that these innocent people had gone through what is supposed to be the ne plus ultra of American Jurisprudence.

I just posted a story that chronicled 8 cases of innocent people that were executed.

Hundreds of false convictions...

Convincing evidence of innocent people being executed...

Thousands of stories yearly of corrupt cops, prosecutors and judges...

I'm sorry if it upsets some of you law and order types, but I stand by it:

The United States routinely executes and imprisons innocent people.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.

Prison only deters vices and other "non-violent crimes" to a (low) degree. We already have the highest prison population in the world for this very reason:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUt_fIB6A_Y

[phill4paul]

We have about 40,000 road fatalities a year, I'd bet at least 25% are related to being intoxicated with something.

Lies, damned lies and statistics....

http://www.getmadd.com/REALnumbers.htm

[Anti Federalist]

Not more imprisonment per se, the drunk aside, but crueler punishments that cost the tax payer less.

Amendment 8:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Of course, billion dollar fines, and million dollar bails happen all the time.

No surprise there, the rest of the Amendments are not paid any mind to, so why not?

Drawing and Quartering in the public square, right?

[Brian4Liberty]

Yet again, we have another example of why Libertarians are not taken seriously. Was this penalty too harsh? Debatable. But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity. This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts. What happens when they kill someone? "Oh, that's just freedom at work"? What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?


Legitimate drunk driving has always been illegal. But how is "drunk" determined? The presence of alcohol, or so impaired that driving is obviously effected?

Most of us want drivers to be safe, but this can go too far, and we are already going down the road you want to take us. How many texting while driving incidents before life in prison? How about putting on make-up while driving? Shaving? Or how about the true number one cause of accidents, driving while tired?

And while we are at it, let's make getting a license a true test of competency. No more bad drivers on the road. No more beginner drivers on the road. No more drivers that come to complete stops in the fast lane of the freeway so they can slowly cut across all lanes of traffic to make an exit that they are missing.

And when you start down this path there is only one outcome: more draconian laws, more law enforcement, bigger budgets, and more people in jail. And in the end, the worse drivers on the road will probably still be out there, because you can't outlaw stupid.

[Brian4Liberty]

We have about 40,000 road fatalities a year, I'd bet at least 25% are related to being intoxicated with something.

Thanks for reminding me. No driving while on prescription drugs either.

(And don't leave out driving while tired).

[amy31416]

But then the rapists are having the times of their lives, getting laid left and right. Rape is actually cruel and unusual punishment. Flogging people instead of locking them up forever or putting people to work is on the surface crueler, but in reality much more humane than what we have.

Would you like to have that flogging job or something?

Rape will still happen, whether you get to flog men's nether regions or not. So you'd sentence them to both.

And mind you, I'm not even on the side of letting a drunk driver like this fellow go free without effectively addressing the problem. I just don't think that your solution or the state's is a good one.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Not seriously, I don't want anyone to get hurt, which is why that guy should be in jail.


Hey, countries with that have less crime, which means less aggregate cruelty.

You're predicting consequences that have not happened. For all we know this guy could go to rehab and clean up his act the next day.

(Granted I agree with you this guy seems like a scumbag)

AF said it well "pre-cime", this man has not killed anyone.

As you put it, the "aggregate cruelty" is a utilitarian approach to morality. This collective moral concept rejects individual liberties and is a big reason this country has lost its freedom - most people in power think the same way you do.

[Brian4Liberty]

Lies, damned lies and statistics....

http://www.getmadd.com/REALnumbers.htm

Good info.

It helps to remember that MADD is a neo-Prohibitionist organization. Driving is not their primary concern. Banning alcohol is. The founder of the organization left for that reason.

Separating neo-prohibition from driving is helpful when debating and dissecting this topic.

[JK/SEA]

I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.

Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.

c'mon...really?.....how about this karmic possibility. You receive a 'no knock' visit from SWAT...oops...wrong house. Sorry for killing your dog and shooting your wife/husband.

Ain't law and order wunnerful....?

[tod evans]

c'mon...really?.....how about this karmic possibility. You receive a 'no knock' visit from SWAT...oops...wrong house. Sorry for killing your dog and shooting your wife/husband.

Ain't law and order wunnerful....?

Aw come on man.......He's one of those folks with nothing to hide...:rolleyes:

[PaulConventionWV]

shouldn't you have to infringe on another persons life, liberty, or property before having yours removed permanently?

Well, he did injure someone, and there's no telling how many other people he may have injured during his 8 prior DWIs, but you are correct in that it's not justifiable to put him in prison for life just because of that.

[MelissaWV]

...
Yet again, we have another example of why Libertarians are not taken seriously. Was this penalty too harsh? Debatable. But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity. This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts. What happens when they kill someone? "Oh, that's just freedom at work"? What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?

Just once, I wish a major political party would nominate a true Libertarian to run nationally. That way when they flame out, there's no "Americans don't support third parties" excuse. Run on the 'legalize child porn and drunk driving' platform, please.

I find this interesting. Very few people on the forums are in favor of "letting people drive impaired on the road." There are some, but not many. Your assumption is that DWI/DUI laws will prevent this from happening. Why not just change the "I" from "Intoxicated" to "Impaired" or "Distracted"? Those laws already exist in most places (if not all). It is not somehow worse to be driving two beers than to be driving with a cheeseburger in one hand, your phone in the other, and a 5-hour Energy in your system. If there is a car weaving or driving in a massively dangerous fashion, then by all means, stop them from doing so. The REASON they were doing that is a matter for them to raise at their defense. Maybe they were suffering a medical emergency. Or maybe they were just really sleepy.

You see, what I'm bothered by is police checkpoints that assume SOMEONE is going to be guilty of SOMETHING, so why not pull everyone over and test them? And if you are over some arbitrary "legal limit," even if you are driving just fine, you are in some deep shit. That's okay, right? Totally Constitutional! There is also the scenario where they pull you over and "smell alcohol in the car" or spot an "open container," even though you are driving no worse than your average sober driver, and were endangering no one. There is a focus on singling out alcohol as the end-all-be-all of substances that cause accidents. That's dangerous for *everyone* involved. If you willingly decide you are going to read a book while driving --- and I have seen that more times than I thought I ever would --- and you rearend someone, I fail to see how that is somehow more excusable than if you were drunk and did the same.

Incidentally, the blind do not drive, but the deaf do. The "they might kill someone" argument could be used for any number of things, including ANYONE getting behind the wheel of a car, since MOST of us will be in some kind of accident at some point, which only needs a few variables tweaked to become a fatal one. This is one of the rationales behind things like seatbelt laws, even though I get the uncanny feeling that the seatbelt slipping upwards and half-choking me is not going to be a good thing if I am ever in an accident.

[torchbearer]

if you kill/injure someone(or property) while driving impaired, you have committed a crime.
to drive in a state that increases your chance to commit such a crime is not a crime.

[PaulConventionWV]

I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.

Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.

The law wasn't made for order. Order doesn't arise from the government ordering people around. Laws are meant to provide justice, not to protect you from anything. What's more, laws CANNOT protect you. It didn't work with Prohibition, it didn't work with drugs, it doesn't work with speeding, it obviously doesn't work for DWIs either. Nobody is being protected just because there is "law and order". The only purpose of the law is punishment and due justice for injuries someone has caused.

Taking away someone's right to life just because they engaged in some dangerous behavior is insanity. Do you think that guy had any reason to believe that he would get life in prison for a stupid DWI? The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

On another note, aren't there laws that set a maximum sentence for a DWI? I thought there were a certain number of years you could be imprisoned, even for repeat offenders? I know there are in my state.

[carclinic]

You're predicting consequences that have not happened. For all we know this guy could go to rehab and clean up his act the next day.

(Granted I agree with you this guy seems like a scumbag)

AF said it well "pre-cime", this man has not killed anyone.

As you put it, the "aggregate cruelty" is a utilitarian approach to morality. This collective moral concept rejects individual liberties and is a big reason this country has lost its freedom - most people in power think the same way you do.

Punishments are meant to be deterrents, period. That's the means in which we need to be evaluating our criminal justice system.

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.


Would you like to have that flogging job or something?

Rape will still happen, whether you get to flog men's nether regions or not. So you'd sentence them to both.


The reality isn't nice. For those who would advocate this, here's an example (Warning: graphic!):

http://m.worldstarhiphop.com/video.php?v=wshhIkl8iVo4mHVZZC8k

[PaulConventionWV]

Point is, the laws exist for a reason.

And that reason was never to protect you. It was also never to give unjust sentences to a non-malicious crime. Life for a non-malicious crime is not justice.

[Brian4Liberty]

You see, what I'm bothered by is police checkpoints that assume SOMEONE is going to be guilty of SOMETHING, so why not pull everyone over and test them? And if you are over some arbitrary "legal limit," even if you are driving just fine, you are in some deep shit. That's okay, right? Totally Constitutional!

Good point. We can't forget the creation of Checkpoints and elimination of the Bill of Rights as an (un?)intended consequence of this war on drugs (alcohol being the excuse in this case).

[carclinic]

Rulers are given to us to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. The ruler is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

[PaulConventionWV]

IMHO, you do it 9 times you're a white trash degenerate. And, granted the legal limit should be set higher, but to do it 9 times and hurt people, he is not going to be "corrected" by a correctional facility. He should be locked away with the key thrown away. Preferably, the US prison system should be a series of gulags that produced cheap goods, where murderers and degenerates can be the opposite of a drain on society.

Don't kid yourself. Gulags will still be a drain on society. Slaves don't work hard, and they certainly can't produce much of anything worth value. What are you going to do, force them to become teachers, doctors, mechanics for no pay? Banging rocks won't help society. Think of how much it costs to run this gulag system you want, then think of how much will be produced by a bunch of degenerates doing dirt cheap labor?

Nobody goes to jail to be "corrected." They go there to be served with justice, nothing more. When we put thousands upon thousands of people in jail, it's the law that's the problem because the law is what's causing our prison system to be overcrowded with petty criminals and people not guilty of any crime except the RISK of injury. It's not up to you to judge who's white trash and who's not. In someone else's eyes, you may be white trash. The point is, when you think the law should reflect your opinion of people, it only leads to more problems. The law was made to punish real criminals who commit aggressive crimes, not to prevent crimes.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks someone should serve life for any amount of DWIs is a white trash degenerate. And guess what, that doesn't mean I think you belong in jail. Know why? Because putting you in jail is a waste of taxpayer money, just like putting Bubba with 9 DWIs in jail for life is a waste of taxpayer money.

[tod evans]

Rulers are given to us to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. The ruler is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Is this blather in some way equating cops with God?

[carclinic]

Is this blather in some way equating cops with God?
It's Romans 13:4. Government exists and exercises force for a reason. We should not be advocating anarchy. The government has a role in punishing people who are a danger to society. Being that we have a democratic republic of sorts, its up to us to decide what the government should rightfully be regulating. But, letting drunks go hog wild is not a matter of human freedom, necessarily.

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.

No prison can deter crime. Why do you think ours hasn't? Because throwing people in cages doesn't make them want to be better people. That's why most people who go to prison will get out and continue to be criminals. You can't prevent it. It's just a part of life.

[tod evans]

It's Romans 13:4. Government exists and exercises force for a reason. We should not be advocating anarchy. The government has a role in punishing people who are a danger to society. Being that we have a democratic republic of sorts, its up to us to decide what the government should rightfully be regulating. But, letting drunks go hog wild is not a matter of human freedom, necessarily.

With our form of government it is up to us, the citizens, to reign in tyrannical behavior of our government and its agents.

Now answer my question please.

[edit]
Try reading all of Romans 13 in context instead of quoting one verse..

[PaulConventionWV]

Not more imprisonment per se, the drunk aside, but crueler punishments that cost the tax payer less.

If you're concerned about the taxpayer, then stop putting people in prison for non-aggressive and petty crimes.

[carclinic]

No prison can deter crime. Why do you think ours hasn't? Because throwing people in cages doesn't make them want to be better people. That's why most people who go to prison will get out and continue to be criminals. You can't prevent it. It's just a part of life.
By that logic, society would be best served be executing them then.

I refuse to believe then our options are mass executions or just letting everyone go to create havoc. We SHOULD be making a system that deters crime, somehow.

[itshappening]

Conrad Black (look him up) after his release from prison said that US prosecutors have a 97% conviction rate as they offer plea bargains that are very lenient compared to what you'd get if found guilty (i.e 15 months in prison as opposed to 15 years), not to mention the lawyers making you bankrupt should you be charged.

That's a higher conviction crate than the Soviet Union.

Most of Black's convictions were appealed to the Supreme Court and he only has one left outstanding that he is still contesting.

[carclinic]

If you're concerned about the taxpayer, then stop putting people in prison for non-aggressive and petty crimes.
Drunk driving is not petty, though.

[carclinic]

With our form of government it is up to us, the citizens, to reign in tyrannical behavior of our government and its agents.

Now answer my question please.

[edit]
Try reading all of Romans 13 in context instead of quoting one verse..
Yes, we shouldn't have the government punishing non-violent crimes and behaviors that are not dangerous, I agree.

Are cops God, no.

[amy31416]

Rulers are given to us to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. The ruler is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Yet another reason to not believe in the bible or elect anyone with a theocratic bend.

Hey--is this Rick Santorum's sock puppet account...c'mon, 'fess up!

[amy31416]

Rulers are given to us to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. The ruler is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Yet another reason to not believe in the bible or elect anyone with a theocratic bend.

Hey--is this Rick Santorum's sock puppet account...c'mon, 'fess up!

[PaulConventionWV]

But then the rapists are having the times of their lives, getting laid left and right. Rape is actually cruel and unusual punishment. Flogging people instead of locking them up forever or putting people to work is on the surface crueler, but in reality much more humane than what we have.

Are you fucking serious? You think rapists are "having the time of their lives"? What kind of stupid fuck are you?

Seriously, who is this dumb as shit turd? You think people in prison LIKE raping other men? You think an alcoholic LIKES his addiction? What the fuck is wrong with you?

[AGRP]

People like this dont deserve to be thrown in the same types of prisons as murderers complete with shackles and bad living conditions. They arent the same people. They need to be confined so they cant drive.

[PaulConventionWV]

First off, China executes more people than the rest of the world combined. Secondly, there has never once been a conclusively proven case of an innocent person being put to death since the modern dealth penalty era began in the 1970s, and you're saying "routinely"? I guess if one simply wants to believe that, then one can look for any slight sliver of doubt in any execution case and automatically declare it "another innocent person executed!" It's about as much evidence as conspiracy theory types use before making their absurd declarations.

Yet again, we have another example of why Libertarians are not taken seriously. Was this penalty too harsh? Debatable. But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity. This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts. What happens when they kill someone? "Oh, that's just freedom at work"? What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?

Just once, I wish a major political party would nominate a true Libertarian to run nationally. That way when they flame out, there's no "Americans don't support third parties" excuse. Run on the 'legalize child porn and drunk driving' platform, please.

What makes you think laws against driving blind are actually going to help anything? Blind people usually don't drive because, well, they're blind. If that's not enough of a deterrent, do you really think a law is going to help? Ruining someone's life isn't going to make them want to turn it around. Let people suffer their own consequences and only imprison people for truly aggressive crimes.

Laws are for justice, NOT for prevention. Like I said before, prevention hasn't worked with alcohol prohibition, it hasn't worked with drug prohibition, it hasn't worked with speedling laws or any other traffic laws, it hasn't worked with DWIs, and it hasn't worked with guns. Laws don't prevent shit.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Don't kid yourself. Gulags will still be a drain on society. Slaves don't work hard, and they certainly can't produce much of anything worth value. What are you going to do, force them to become teachers, doctors, mechanics for no pay? Banging rocks won't help society. Think of how much it costs to run this gulag system you want, then think of how much will be produced by a bunch of degenerates doing dirt cheap labor?

Nobody goes to jail to be "corrected." They go there to be served with justice, nothing more. When we put thousands upon thousands of people in jail, it's the law that's the problem because the law is what's causing our prison system to be overcrowded with petty criminals and people not guilty of any crime except the RISK of injury. It's not up to you to judge who's white trash and who's not. In someone else's eyes, you may be white trash. The point is, when you think the law should reflect your opinion of people, it only leads to more problems. The law was made to punish real criminals who commit aggressive crimes, not to prevent crimes.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks someone should serve life for any amount of DWIs is a white trash degenerate. And guess what, that doesn't mean I think you belong in jail. Know why? Because putting you in jail is a waste of taxpayer money, just like putting Bubba with 9 DWIs in jail for life is a waste of taxpayer money.

Thread winner?

[carclinic]

Are you fucking serious? You think rapists are "having the time of their lives"? What kind of stupid fuck are you?

Seriously, who is this dumb as shit turd? You think people in prison LIKE raping other men? You think an alcoholic LIKES his addiction? What the fuck is wrong with you?
It's okay not to like me, I'm not mad at you or anyone here. But, I want you to think of something. If you are that angry about anything, maybe you should be angry at the guy with 9 DWIs who put people's lives in danger. Think of that.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

It's okay not to like me, I'm not mad at you or anyone here. But, I want you to think of something. If you are that angry about anything, maybe you should be angry at the guy with 9 DWIs who put people's lives in danger. Think of that.

Your ideas help imprison innocent people who have not hurt anyone but themselves - think of that.

[Anti Federalist]

It's Romans 13:4. Government exists and exercises force for a reason. We should not be advocating anarchy. The government has a role in punishing people who are a danger to society. Being that we have a democratic republic of sorts, its up to us to decide what the government should rightfully be regulating. But, letting drunks go hog wild is not a matter of human freedom, necessarily.

Ah, Romans 13.

The biblical "fall back" position for tyrants and demagogues alike.



13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

[MelissaWV]

It's okay not to like me, I'm not mad at you or anyone here. But, I want you to think of something. If you are that angry about anything, maybe you should be angry at the guy with 9 DWIs who put people's lives in danger. Think of that.

Okay, I did think of it. My conclusion is that he wasn't "corrected" by his previous punishments, and somehow managed to get behind the wheel of another automobile while intoxicated enough to wreck his car. My conclusion is that sending him to jail for the rest of his life is probably not going to solve a thing for anyone involved, and definitely isn't going to teach anyone a lesson since it didn't happen until his 9th DWI which, to someone actually doing this regularly and watching the news, is simply going to tell them "Hey, if I stop at 8, I totally won't go to jail for life."

My conclusion is that I was so correct in my earlier assessment, that you haven't even bothered to address it lol

[torchbearer]

Ah, Romans 13.

The biblical "fall back" position for tyrants and demagogues alike.



God Emperor Constantine Approves.

[Anti Federalist]

Rethinking Romans 13

Published: 04/14/2001 at 1:00 AM

http://www.wnd.com/2001/04/8841/

In recent years, Christians have interpreted Romans 13 as a command for unlimited submission to government by God. Many proponents of this belief have sat passively by, in the soft pews of their place of worship, while evil has triumphed in most areas of family and church life. In our pacifistic smugness, many have allowed government to become god without even knowing.

Yet, when confronted with the true meaning of Romans 13, absurd accusations are shouted in religious rhetoric toward those who would dare to break an unjust law or even to question the almighty government. The opponents of unlimited submission to government are deemed as rebellious, anarchist and disobedient. However, there is no practical, historical or biblical consistency in the shallow agreements of these simpletons.

First, unlimited submission to government is not practical. For a philosophy to be a valid philosophy, it must be consistent. As a result, it does not make practical sense to blindly obey a tyrant like Adolph Hitler or deem a law such as abortion-on-demand a legitimate law just because one’s government says it is public policy. However, if Romans 13 teaches unlimited submission to government, then we must obey and acknowledge all laws, good and bad, as the will of God. If all governments are of God, then all laws are of God. This in not practical from any point of view.

Second, it is not historical. Our founding fathers recognized and understood tyranny and despotism. They perceived the ultimate end of the king’s actions. Thus, they besought George III to relent in his persecutions and implored him to uphold his covenant agreement.

In July of 1774, our forefathers met in Fairfax County, Va., and considered ways of forcing Great Britain to redress American grievances. George Washington and George Mason were the instrumental agents in drafting what has come to be known as the “Fairfax Resolves.”

Ponder for a moment Resolves five and six:

“Resolved that the claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament, of making all such Laws as they think fit, to govern the people of these colonies, contrary to the first Principles of the Constitution, and the original Compacts by which we are dependent upon the British Crown and Government; but is totally incompatible with the privileges of a free people, and the natural Rights of Mankind; will render our own Legislatures merely nominal and nugatory, and is calculated to reduce us from a state of freedom and happiness to slavery and misery.”

“Resolved that Taxation and Representation are in their nature inseparable; that the right of withholding, or of giving and granting their own money is the only effectual security to a free people, against the encroachments of Despotism and Tyranny; and that whenever they yield to one they fall prey to the other.”

All of the Resolves are loaded with bullets that explode against a tyrannical and despotic government. The “shot that was heard around the world on Lexington green was loaded in the “Fairfax Resolves.” How can one make that statement? After pleading with George III to uphold his covenant agreement and after seeking for a redress of grievances, the “coup de grace” is plainly stated in the 23rd Resolve:

“Resolved that it be recommended to the Deputies of the general Congress to draw up and transmit an humble and dutiful petition and remonstrance to his Majesty, asserting with decent firmness our just and constitutional Rights and Privileges, lamenting the fatal necessity of being compelled to enter into measures disgusting to his Majesty and his Parliament, or injurious to our fellow subjects in Great Britain; declaring the strongest terms of duty and affection to his Majesty’s person, family and government, and our desire to continue our dependence upon Great Britain; and must humbly beseeching his Majesty, not to reduce his faithful subjects of America to a state of desperation, and to reflect, that from our Sovereign there can be but one appeal.”

In simple terms, the Resolves offered George III two obvious choices. One was to fulfill his covenant obligations and be the king and ruler to the American Colonies that he had agreed to be or, second, to prepare for war. George III was asked to reflect upon the fact, that if he did not keep his end of the covenant, there could “be but one appeal.”

Last –and most important — it is not biblical. Daniel disobeyed Darius and went to the lions den. The three Hebrew children broke the law for not bowing. The parents hid baby Moses from Pharaoh. Rahab lied to protect the Hebrew spies. The Apostles went to prison for preaching Christ in the authority of Heaven. Paul and his followers in Acts 17 did contrary to all the decrees of Caesar in order to make Jesus the King. Even Jesus lived in direct opposition of the political religious leaders of his day and went to the cross for us.

Romans 13 is a treatise by Paul and the Apostles on the institution of model government. As we rightly divide the word of truth and take this passage in its total context, we will discover seven truths:

Good government is ordained by God.

Government officials are to be good ministers who represent God.

We the people must obey good and godly laws.

As we relate Romans 13 to America, our Constitution is the higher power — not the IRS tax code.

Good government is not to be feared.

In America, we are to pay honor and custom and constitutional taxes to whom it is due.

Government is to protect the righteous and punish the wicked.

As a result, we have a practical, historical and biblical mandate to fervently disobey any unconstitutional laws and all government officials who cease to be good ministers of Jesus Christ. God almighty is the only power that deserves unlimited obedience.

[carclinic]

Your ideas help imprison innocent people who have not hurt anyone but themselves - think of that.
Seriously, the man negligently put people's lives at risk.


Let me just understand your opinion. Being that it is legal to own guns (for now) and legal to shoot them, just not at people, humor me this:

Should it be legal to walk around with my gun in an open space and start firing near people, but never aim at them. I don't destroy anyone's private property when I do it, let's say.

How's that any different than drunk driving?

[PaulConventionWV]

Punishments are meant to be deterrents, period. That's the means in which we need to be evaluating our criminal justice system.

No, they're not. Punishments are meant to satisfy our sense of justice. That's it. They don't serve any other purpose.

[donnay]

I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.

You sound like a good little neocon.:rolleyes:

Law and order and life prison sentences is exactly what the doctor for the Prison Industrial Complex ordered. Especially in Texas where prisons are privately owned, profit-driven, (http://www.globalresearch.ca/profit-driven-prison-industrial-complex-the-economics-of-incarceration-in-the-usa/29109) to slave out better things than the Chinese slave labor does.

[tod evans]

Thanks AF!

[carclinic]

Okay, I did think of it. My conclusion is that he wasn't "corrected" by his previous punishments, and somehow managed to get behind the wheel of another automobile while intoxicated enough to wreck his car. My conclusion is that sending him to jail for the rest of his life is probably not going to solve a thing for anyone involved, and definitely isn't going to teach anyone a lesson since it didn't happen until his 9th DWI which, to someone actually doing this regularly and watching the news, is simply going to tell them "Hey, if I stop at 8, I totally won't go to jail for life."

My conclusion is that I was so correct in my earlier assessment, that you haven't even bothered to address it lol
I thought I did answer you question, but being that you don't believe this man really should be punished, just what should we do with him? Put him in a out=patient rehab. Oh oh, he did it a tenth time! Lock him up in a rehab? Oh no, he got out again and did it. Should we really just wait until someone dies?


Hence my earlier comment. Its easy to have these pie in the sky discussions, but if your brother let's say was killed by a drunk driver, you'd feel totally different.

[PaulConventionWV]

Rulers are given to us to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. The ruler is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

And so carclinic exposes his true self. He worships the state. He thinks government was sent by God to do good, regardless of how abysmally bad they are at it. Wake up, man. Cops were not sent by God. They are tyrants and they do no good that you or I couldn't do.

[carclinic]

You sound like a good little neocon.:rolleyes:

Law and order and life prison sentences is exactly what the doctor for the Prison Industrial Complex ordered. Especially in Texas where prisons are privately owned, profit-driven, (http://www.globalresearch.ca/profit-driven-prison-industrial-complex-the-economics-of-incarceration-in-the-usa/29109) to slave out better things than the Chinese slave labor does.
For what it is worth, I've voted Badnarik, Baldwin, and Goode the last three elections. I've vote for Paul since 2008. I just believe the government should have a criminal justice system that acts as a deterrent.

[tod evans]

Seriously, the man negligently put people's lives at risk.


Let me just understand your opinion. Being that it is legal to own guns (for now) and legal to shoot them, just not at people, humor me this:

Should it be legal to walk around with my gun in an open space and start firing near people, but never aim at them. I don't destroy anyone's private property when I do it, let's say.

How's that any different than drunk driving?

You are able to hunt wherever it's legal including "firing near people" but it's only when you actually hit someone with your bullet that you're subject to law.
Following your expressed logic about drunk driving, a hunter who takes a shot while another person is in the woods jeopardized his safety and should be subject to punishment..

[truelies]

shouldn't you have to infringe on another persons life, liberty, or property before having yours removed permanently?

WHICH THIS PILE OF SHIT CLEARLY DID!!!!!!

Truth be known he should have been separated from Society FOREVER at the first offense.

That said I would not if it were my pick use prison for such dregs. A reservation for malefactors where they are able to harm ONLY eachother and get killed on sight if they attempt to leave is I believe the most Liberty consistent solution for a Society such as ours.

[donnay]

For what it is worth, I've voted Badnarik, Baldwin, and Goode the last three elections. I've vote for Paul since 2008. I just believe the government should have a criminal justice system that acts as a deterrent.

Then I think we need to start with the REAL criminals in DC!

[MelissaWV]

I thought I did answer you question, but being that you don't believe this man really should be punished, just what should we do with him? Put him in a out=patient rehab. Oh oh, he did it a tenth time! Lock him up in a rehab? Oh no, he got out again and did it. Should we really just wait until someone dies?


Hence my earlier comment. Its easy to have these pie in the sky discussions, but if your brother let's say was killed by a drunk driver, you'd feel totally different.

You not only did not answer, but you misrepresented my position. I can't help but think it's malicious. I don't think he should be punished? Where did you get that from? I think he should be punished based on the fact that he drove wrecklessly and damaged property, REGARDLESS of what caused him to do it. Do you think someone who negligently drives a vehicle and strikes someone else's property should go to jail for life? No? Then why's the fact he did it drunk enough to punish him more severely than just about for any other crime?

[tod evans]

WHICH THIS PILE OF SHIT CLEARLY DID!!!!!!

Truth be known he should have been separated from Society FOREVER at the first offense.

That said I would not if it were my pick use prison for such dregs. A reservation for malefactors where they are able to harm ONLY eachother and get killed on sight if they attempt to leave is I believe the most Liberty consistent solution for a Society such as ours.

You realize you're talking about some guy who got caught drunk driving right?

[PaulConventionWV]

By that logic, society would be best served be executing them then.

I refuse to believe then our options are mass executions or just letting everyone go to create havoc. We SHOULD be making a system that deters crime, somehow.

No, by that logic, we should stop putting people in cages for petty crimes and pre-crimes. Nobody has to be executed. Death is a part of life. Accidents happen. Most people don't drive drunk because they know it's a bad idea and they know they can die or cause others to die. Stupid people will happen. If they do kill someone, by all means, serve some justice. But don't put people in prison for something they didn't do. Our options are to make the punishment fit the crime. There is no just punishment for someone who has hurt nobody. What makes you think that, just because we let some people go who haven't killed anybody, that that's going to "wreak havoc"? It will be no worse than executing thousands of people for petty crimes. The better option is to let them be. You can't save people by trying to guess who's going to kill someone before it happens. That only causes more deaths than it would if we just let nature run its course. We have laws for justice, we don't have laws to protect people.

[PaulConventionWV]

Drunk driving is not petty, though.

That's debatable. It is non-aggressive, though. Aggressive means hurting someone. Driving in a state that increases the likelihood of hurting someone is not hurting anyone. If and when they do hurt someone, they can be charged, but not until then. Any other policy is asking for more death and destruction, and a higher tax burden and overcrowded prison systems.

[carclinic]

You are able to hunt wherever it's legal including "firing near people" but it's only when you actually hit someone with your bullet that you're subject to law.
Following your expressed logic about drunk driving, a hunter who takes a shot while another person is in the woods jeopardized his safety and should be subject to punishment..
You just caught yourself.

You can go drive drunk in a parking lot, or in your driveway. Anywhere in private property. No one questions that. You cannot and should not in public.

That's the difference between firing weapons where it is designated to do so (private property, with a permit in the woods) and not walking around on main street.

[truelies]

You are able to hunt wherever it's legal including "firing near people" but it's only when you actually hit someone with your bullet that you're subject to law.
..............................

Simply not true. You can't hunt in town. You can't hunt from a public highway. You can't hunt on the Private Property of others without their permission. Guaranteed getting caught firing in a manner which crosses the boundaries of a town, Private Property or a public road will lead to a court date. Sooooo sure ya wanna be a fool & drive drunk on YOUR OWN back 40, got for it..........BUT keep your drunk ass from behind the wheel of a vehicle on a highway. Otherwise ya just may get to be someone's prison bitch and guess what- not may of us will care about your lost 'liberty'.

[carclinic]

You not only did not answer, but you misrepresented my position. I can't help but think it's malicious. I don't think he should be punished? Where did you get that from? I think he should be punished based on the fact that he drove wrecklessly and damaged property, REGARDLESS of what caused him to do it. Do you think someone who negligently drives a vehicle and strikes someone else's property should go to jail for life? No? Then why's the fact he did it drunk enough to punish him more severely than just about for any other crime?
Very good point. I think, when sentenced, it should be taken into account whether this is the first time the individual put people at danger. This man clearly was a threat to society.

[torchbearer]

Simply not true. You can't hunt in town. You can't hunt from a public highway. You can't hunt on the Private Property of others without their permission. Guaranteed getting caught firing in a manner which crosses the boundaries of a town, Private Property or a public road will lead to a court date. Sooooo sure ya wanna be a fool & drive drunk on YOUR OWN back 40, got for it..........BUT keep your drunk ass from behind the wheel of a vehicle on a highway. Otherwise ya just may get to be someone's prison bitch and guess what- not may of us will care about your lost 'liberty'.


another person who needs to have the an anonymous tip dropped to the local PD.
You'll enjoy it.

[carclinic]

Simply not true. You can't hunt in town. You can't hunt from a public highway. You can't hunt on the Private Property of others without their permission. Guaranteed getting caught firing in a manner which crosses the boundaries of a town, Private Property or a public road will lead to a court date. Sooooo sure ya wanna be a fool & drive drunk on YOUR OWN back 40, got for it..........BUT keep your drunk ass from behind the wheel of a vehicle on a highway. Otherwise ya just may get to be someone's prison bitch and guess what- not may of us will care about your lost 'liberty'.
MAKES...TOO...MUCH...SENSE...BRAIN...HURTS

[truelies]

You realize you're talking about some guy who got caught drunk driving right?

absolutely!!!!!!

What is the problem with some supposed 'liberty' lovers here????? Y'all sound like useless 20 somethings still living in mom's basement who never had a Dad to kick some personal responsibilty into your empty heads thru the medium of a work boot planted up your sorry asses

[torchbearer]

lovers of state violence must want it for themselves also.

[carclinic]

absolutely!!!!!!

What is the problem with some supposed 'liberty' lovers here????? Y'all sound like useless 20 somethings still living in mom's basement who never had a Dad to kick some personal responsibilty into your empty heads thru the medium of a work boot planted up your sorry asses
Work boot? Maybe their dad's never got their hands dirty.


Anyway, I gotta run guys, enjoy your thanksgiving.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yet another reason to not believe in the bible or elect anyone with a theocratic bend.

Hey--is this Rick Santorum's sock puppet account...c'mon, 'fess up!

That's a non sequitur. Believing the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is going to be a bad representative. Even if more people who are Christians do support that kind of thing, that doesn't mean the two necessarily go hand in hand. The Bible never encouraged this kind of insanity.

[truelies]

another person who needs to have the an anonymous tip dropped to the local PD.
You'll enjoy it.

Pathetic wants to drive DRUNK and makes threats of false testimony to harm those who call him on his public stupidity.

Whatever you are troll you sure aren't a friend of Liberty or even worthy of much in the way of personal freedom. Probably voted for Obama didn't ya. Make many crank calls on your obama phone?

[torchbearer]

That's a non sequitur. Believing the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is going to be a bad representative. Even if more people who are Christians do support that kind of thing, that doesn't mean the two necessarily go hand in hand. The Bible never encouraged this kind of insanity.

but it produced this kind of insanity.

[torchbearer]

Pathetic wants to drive DRUNK and makes threats of false testimony to harm those who call him on his public stupidity.

Whatever you are troll you sure aren't a friend of Liberty or even worthy of much in the way of personal freedom. Probably voted for Obama didn't ya. Make many crank calls on your obama phone?

would you mind if the local thugs in costume come fuck your shit up?
Based on your attitude, I think the likelihood of you possibly hurting someone is very high... and based on that alone, state violence should be used against you.
your other sock account thinks raping people is good medicine, perhaps you can get in on the action and fuck yourself.

[PaulConventionWV]

It's okay not to like me, I'm not mad at you or anyone here. But, I want you to think of something. If you are that angry about anything, maybe you should be angry at the guy with 9 DWIs who put people's lives in danger. Think of that.

No, the guy with 9 DWIs didn't do anything to me. The guy who thinks my freedom should only go as far as his opinion allows is insulting me by suggesting my freedom isn't a valid concern.

Believe it or not, I am incapable of being angry at someone who has done nothing to me. I am angry at the state because I know they cause this madness, not the guy with 9 DWIs. They make everyone's lives more difficult, not just the criminal's. I have no place to judge the criminal, but I damned well have a place to criticize the system that affects me and my family. Decisions made by the few on a large scale are always worse than decisions made by the many on a small scale.

By the way, you can quote me on that. Just give credit where credit's due. :D

[Brian4Liberty]

Rulers are given to us to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. The ruler is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Ah, isn't that cute? The little guitar player is old enough now to troll the internet...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeQUlr4Xc3s

[PaulConventionWV]

Seriously, the man negligently put people's lives at risk.


Let me just understand your opinion. Being that it is legal to own guns (for now) and legal to shoot them, just not at people, humor me this:

Should it be legal to walk around with my gun in an open space and start firing near people, but never aim at them. I don't destroy anyone's private property when I do it, let's say.

How's that any different than drunk driving?

If you don't hurt anyone, then no, it shouldn't be a crime. But I can't guarantee you that someone won't retaliate and kill you, in which case they would be the criminal, and you would be dead because you're very stupid.

[PaulConventionWV]

WHICH THIS PILE OF SHIT CLEARLY DID!!!!!!

Truth be known he should have been separated from Society FOREVER at the first offense.

That said I would not if it were my pick use prison for such dregs. A reservation for malefactors where they are able to harm ONLY eachother and get killed on sight if they attempt to leave is I believe the most Liberty consistent solution for a Society such as ours.

How ironic. Someone who capitalizes the word Society is concerned about "Liberty consistent solutions".

[AFPVet]

Like I said before, most states already have laws on the books which take care of HTVs without sentencing them to life. In fact, they can do it themselves by becoming a revolving door. Drive with an HTV, get a felony and prison term... do it again, guess what? You get another class D. If you hurt someone else while driving under banned HTV status, you get a class B and more prison time. Keep doing it, you could sentence yourself to life by recidivism without a judge having to do it. Life sentences should be reserved for only the most heinous crimes.

[PaulConventionWV]

You just caught yourself.

You can go drive drunk in a parking lot, or in your driveway. Anywhere in private property. No one questions that. You cannot and should not in public.

That's the difference between firing weapons where it is designated to do so (private property, with a permit in the woods) and not walking around on main street.

Oh, so now I have the freedom to shoot my gun on my own property, but I can't do it without a permit? What if I do it without a permit, does that mean I should be locked up?

[torchbearer]

Oh, so now I have the freedom to shoot my gun on my own property, but I can't do it without a permit? What if I do it without a permit, does that mean I should be locked up?

for life in a rape pin, and when you aren't getting ass raped, you will be making my electronic goods.

[PaulConventionWV]

but it produced this kind of insanity.

No, people did. Again, non sequitur.

That's like saying guns kill people.

[torchbearer]

No, people did. Again, non sequitur.

if these people didn't read the words, they wouldn't have the thoughts.
non sequitor that.
yes, it probably wasn't the intent... but it is the result.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Seriously, the man negligently put people's lives at risk.


Let me just understand your opinion. Being that it is legal to own guns (for now) and legal to shoot them, just not at people, humor me this:

Should it be legal to walk around with my gun in an open space and start firing near people, but never aim at them. I don't destroy anyone's private property when I do it, let's say.

How's that any different than drunk driving?

I'd rather have private road owners determine what is safe behavior for their roads and deal with it accordingly, not a centralized government.

In your example of firing a gun, it really depends if you are on government or private land. If we continue the line of thinking that it was on private land you are most likely violating the owners will or damaging his property (unless your firing in the air?).

Unless he allows you to fire a gun on his land, in which case you have entered a voluntary contract with the property owner and he justifies what you are doing, it's assumed all others on the property also justify your behavior.

If you are firing at someone, there could be a case made that you tried to kill them or they could sue for psychological distress.

[PaulConventionWV]

if these people didn't read the words, they wouldn't have the thoughts.
non sequitor that.
yes, it probably wasn't the intent... but it is the result.

That's like saying guns kill people.

Does reading words on a page make you do something? No. You made the decision to interpret in a way that requires violence, then you made the decision to carry it out. The written words didn't do anything.

[torchbearer]

That's like saying guns kill people.

the bible was quoted to justify their lust for violence via a third party agency we call government.
not the same because I didn't say the bible killed people, I said it influenced their thoughts. ideas are powerful, and reading things give people ideas.
unless you want to contest that point?

[PaulConventionWV]

the bible was quoted to justify their lust for violence via a third party agency we call government.
not the same because I didn't say the bible killed people, I said it influenced their thoughts. ideas are powerful, and reading things give people ideas.
unless you want to contest that point?

The Bible didn't make the decision to be interpreted in such a way that justifies that stuff. Tell me with a straight face that nobody would have had power lust and used it for evil without the Bible. You would be wrong. The Bible didn't cause people to do anything. It's the same kind of logic that says guns are responsible for murders.

People who kill and abuse power are going to do it with or without the Bible.

[paulbot24]

Oh Lord, here we go. Oops. Did I say Lord?

[torchbearer]

The Bible didn't make the decision to be interpreted in such a way that justifies that stuff. Tell me with a straight face that nobody would have had power lust and used it for evil without the Bible. You would be wrong. The Bible didn't cause people to do anything. It's the same kind of logic that says guns are responsible for murders.

ideas are not objects. the bible itself is an object in that is just a physical printed book(or online data on disk).
but the ideas expressed in some of the books of the bible can cause people to act in violent ways.
you aren't talking to some rube. stop trying to changed my argument of one of ideas to one of objects. it isn't going to work.

hitler didn't make people slaughter others, the ideas of socialist nationalism did.

[AGRP]

Ya'll being trolled.

[Origanalist]

Oh Lord, here we go. Oops. Did I say Lord?

http://speedendurance.speedenduranceco.netdna-cdn.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2-bulls-fighting.jpg

[torchbearer]

Ya'll being trolled.

with sock puppets, but its fun to pretend.

[tod evans]

absolutely!!!!!!

What is the problem with some supposed 'liberty' lovers here????? Y'all sound like useless 20 somethings still living in mom's basement who never had a Dad to kick some personal responsibilty into your empty heads thru the medium of a work boot planted up your sorry asses

BOY, and I use the term in the most snide and derogatory sense possible, you have some learning as well as growing up to do.

I'll stop there.....

[youngbuck]

If it hasn't been already, it should be noted that he may not necessarily serve a life sentence:


Stovall would be eligible for parole in five years, but depending on his conduct in prison and other factors, that could be as long as 10 to 15 years.

I do realize that many so-called life-sentences work this way.

[FindLiberty]

with sock puppets, but its fun to pretend.

Not fun, just a waste of time.

[MelissaWV]

Sock puppet accounts aside, you guys do realize a lot of folks feel the way these select few posters do, right?

The problem is that they see drunk driving as inevitably harmful. Didn't hit someone after you had a beer and drove? Well that was just pure blind luck! (or Jesus taking the wheel, if you're a country singer ;) )

The reality is that the result is what should be looked at. There are people arrested for "driving drunk" on their own property, so please let's not use THAT as a defining factor. There are people who simply get into a car, turn it on, and sit there to keep warm while waiting for a ride... and guess what? that is also a crime. There are people driving just fine who have the slight aroma of alcohol on them and become property of the police. Acknowledging all of this does not mean I want people to drive drunk. It means I want people who are driving horribly and dangerously to be caught and charged with being wreckless, rather than someone who's driving just fine but has been drinking to have the book thrown at them.

And no, this guy is not an angel. I would say that hitting someone's car and damaging property is not the act of an innocent. I would, though, think that the punishment should fit the crime. This does not. Not even close. Not even with the "he can get out in 5-10 years maybe" added on.

[paulbot24]

If I drive recklessly later today while chatting or texting and drive into a ditch I would be called reckless by my friends and family and probably get that "I should be more careful" look. If I drink a few beers and get pulled over this evening, people would start questioning my wife and my family would start asking some serious questions about my judgement, character, and morality. It is a ridiculous world.

[Anti Federalist]

absolutely!!!!!!

What is the problem with some supposed 'liberty' lovers here????? Y'all sound like useless 20 somethings still living in mom's basement who never had a Dad to kick some personal responsibilty into your empty heads thru the medium of a work boot planted up your sorry asses

Ugh...collectivist much?

I'm pushing 50, been working all my damn life, since 16.

Been supporting a family since I was 19.

Make, well, put it this way, in the top fifth quintile of incomes every year.

And I think this is heavy handed and Draconian.

I knew what all this hysteria was going to lead to: roadblocks, invasive blood tests on the side of the road, arrests and ridiculous prison terms.

I was called a nut and a "boy" then.

I, and millions of others, were called the same.

I thought this way when MADD first hit the scene in the early 80s.

We were right.

[Anti Federalist]

Sock puppet accounts aside, you guys do realize a lot of folks feel the way these select few posters do, right?

Yes, all too well aware of that.

The vast majority do.

Because people hate freedom, and always have.

What they enjoy is exercising petty power over their fellow man, they enjoy his misery, they enjoy his humiliation.

Thus the success of shows like "Cops". Or the "perp walk".

[Origanalist]

Yes, all too well aware of that.

The vast majority do.

Because people hate freedom, and always have.

What they enjoy is exercising petty power over their fellow man, they enjoy his misery, they enjoy his humiliation.

Thus the success of shows like "Cops". Or the "perp walk".

I hate that show with a passion, no way I can make it though 5 minutes.

[truelies]

Ugh...collectivist much?

....................

Not near as much as YOU are trying to excuse murderous personal behaviour just because it happens to be one of your personal vices. Liberty is NOT the same thing as License, Fool.

[truelies]

BOY, and I use the term in the most snide and derogatory sense possible, you have some learning as well as growing up to do.

I'll stop there.....

Great idea uncle, because y'all don't have jack to teach.........other than perhaps as a Bad Example and as an enemy of ordered Liberty.

[truelies]

...... in which case they would be the criminal, and you would be dead because you're very stupid.

Not in my State- the thuggie would be dead and the Citizen who planted him would be a hero.

[tod evans]

Great idea uncle, because y'all don't have jack to teach.........other than perhaps as a Bad Example and as an enemy of ordered Liberty.

Take your "ordered" idea of liberty and march it goose-step whence you came, I'll have no part of it.

[Origanalist]

Take your "ordered" idea of liberty and march it goose-step whence you came, I'll have no part of it.

Reported.

[AGRP]

How about some creative, liberty inspired, solutions besides locking him away and pointless cat fights?

[torchbearer]

Not in my State- the thuggie would be dead and the Citizen who planted him would be a hero.

this statement says more about this poster than I ever could.

[truelies]

.......Based on your attitude, I think the likelihood of you possibly hurting someone is very high...

hmmmm, not unless their obvious irresponsibility harms me or mine.

But, hey you do agree that if your drunk/drugged driving kills one of my kids/grandkids/cousins THEN I get to settle your hash any way I choose, right?

[Anti Federalist]

Not near as much as YOU are trying to excuse murderous personal behaviour just because it happens to be one of your personal vices. Liberty is NOT the same thing as License, Fool.

Umm, I don't drink.

How could it be my "personal vice"?

But, you make my point, unless you really are trolling.

A "vice" is not a crime, fool.

[truelies]

this statement says more about this poster than I ever could.

Thats just the way life is in more States than not. Go around behaving in an obvious dangerous manner and folks WILL assert their right to self-protection. Ya don't wanna get hurt, don't behave in a dangerous threatening manner.

[Anti Federalist]

hmmmm, not unless their obvious irresponsibility harms me or mine.

But, hey you do agree that if your drunk/drugged driving kills one of my kids/grandkids/cousins THEN I get to settle your hash any way I choose, right?

So, you hate the bill of rights, then, correct?

[Anti Federalist]

Thats just the way life is in more States than not. Go around behaving in an obvious dangerous manner and folks WILL assert their right to self-protection. Ya don't wanna get hurt, don't behave in a dangerous threatening manner.

So an 80 year old grandmother who is driving erratically, gets to be summarily executed by the mob on the side of the road if she hits somebody with her car?

[AGRP]

hmmmm, not unless their obvious irresponsibility harms me or mine.

But, hey you do agree that if your drunk/drugged driving kills one of my kids/grandkids/cousins THEN I get to settle your hash any way I choose, right?

Depends. There was a case around here when a farmer caught a farm hand raping his daughter and the farm hand died from head trauma. Cops were called and he was only charged with assault and battery I believe. The man is considered a hero.

[truelies]

Umm, I don't drink.

How could it be my "personal vice"?

But, you make my point, unless you really are trolling.

A "vice" is not a crime, fool.

never said drinking by itself was a crime. I did say that driving while drunk is an attack on the rest of the community which merits permanent removal from Society. YOU did seem to imply that you drove drunk as a youth & thought it no big deal. Sooooo about the only point I made is that you seem to be of the sort who thinks license is the main constituent of Liberty. If so you are a dangerous Fool.

[torchbearer]

Thats just the way life is in more States than not. Go around behaving in an obvious dangerous manner and folks WILL assert their right to self-protection. Ya don't wanna get hurt, don't behave in a dangerous threatening manner.

you love violence and you live out that lust through government.

[Anti Federalist]

never said drinking by itself was a crime. I did say that driving while drunk is an attack on the rest of the community which merits permanent removal from Society. YOU did seem to imply that you drove drunk as a youth & thought it no big deal. Sooooo about the only point I made is that you seem to be of the sort who thinks license is the main constituent of Liberty. If so you are a dangerous Fool.

How can there be an "attack" if there was no victim?

Yes, I did.

So did lots of other people.

We did lots of other things as well.

I would trade that world for today's surveillance state, instantly.

[truelies]

So an 80 year old grandmother who is driving erratically, gets to be summarily executed by the mob on the side of the road if she hits somebody with her car?

Nope, but she gets to spend her remaining days on the miscreant res and her Property gets confiscated to 100% of the amount required to make her vics whole.......and YES if one dies so should she.


Why do you have such trouble with personal responsibilty, sport?

[tod evans]

hmmmm, not unless their obvious irresponsibility harms me or mine.

But, hey you do agree that if your drunk/drugged driving kills one of my kids/grandkids/cousins THEN I get to settle your hash any way I choose, right?

If you actually do have grandchildren you are of my vintage, and I must say I'm ashamed of the attitudes and beliefs you profess.

You should be old enough to know better, especially if you've ever seen a "work-boot"...

Even more important, you, at your age, should be well aware of how "our government" is the antithesis of freedom and liberty.

[tod evans]

I did say that driving while drunk is an attack on the rest of the community which merits permanent removal from Society.

From earlier in this thread just for you..


Laws are written and rewritten daily, they're perverted and twisted by prosecutors/judges and lawyers to fit agendas.

Public sentiment, such as you have expressed regarding drunk drivers, contributes drastically to their perversion.

Whether or not you realize it you are being played like a fiddle by the propaganda arm of government.

[truelies]

How can there be an "attack" if there was no victim?

...........

Shot at me and miss- its still an attack.

Driving while impaired is such trouble brewing for those around you that it does in fact constitute an attack. AS TO NO VIC- yeah right you drive up the sidewalk utterly impaired & miss my kid by inches ONLY because I jerked him/her & me to safety. No vic????? Only in the mind of an irresponsible bullshitter who feels his 'right' to drink & drive trumps other folks life & limb.

[Anti Federalist]

Nope, but she gets to spend her remaining days on the miscreant res and her Property gets confiscated to 100% of the amount required to make her vics whole.......and YES if one dies so should she.


Why do you have such trouble with personal responsibilty, sport?

Because your version of "responsibility" is indicative of harsh, warped and twisted sense of justice, that would have street mobs executing poorly driving grandmothers.

Have a drink and a drive, and relax, "sport".


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

[Anti Federalist]

Shot at me and miss- its still an attack.

Driving while impaired is such trouble brewing for those around you that it does in fact constitute an attack. AS TO NO VIC- yeah right you drive up the sidewalk utterly impaired & miss my kid by inches ONLY because I jerked him/her & me to safety. No vic????? Only in the mind of an irresponsible bullshitter who feels his 'right' to drink & drive trumps other folks life & limb.

It may be an "attempted" attack or murder.

Many of my rights could pose risk to your life and limb.

Many of yours could do the same to me.

Liberty is Risky.

Violently oppressive authoritarianism is "safe".

[truelies]

................I must say I'm ashamed of the attitudes and beliefs you profess.

............................

Yeah, I am not to broken up by your disapproval, uncle.


When/if you ever figure out the difference between Liberty and the license displayed by a self-absorbed cretin let me know, k.

[Anti Federalist]

If you actually do have grandchildren you are of my vintage, and I must say I'm ashamed of the attitudes and beliefs you profess.

You should be old enough to know better, especially if you've ever seen a "work-boot"...

Even more important, you, at your age, should be well aware of how "our government" is the antithesis of freedom and liberty.

I think we're being trolled, but I could be wrong.

[Tod]

The question seems to me to boil down to this: how do you safeguard others from someone who is hellbent on killing someone with a car and who holds no regard for either the law or other people's lives? He has evidently made AT LEAST one attempt, probably more. Should he be excused because he isn't as competent as some drunk drivers at ruining other people's lives?

[Dr.3D]

Really, it shouldn't be illegal to drink and drive. It should be illegal to cause damage using a vehicle while being drunk.

[tod evans]

Yeah, I am not to broken up by your disapproval, uncle.


When/if you ever figure out the difference between Liberty and the license displayed by a self-absorbed cretin let me know, k.

Be delighted, you live anywhere near the Ozarks?

I'd like nothing more than to help you understand..

[Anti Federalist]

Oh, and in honor of this thread, I'll now be sure to knock back a few vodka martinis at dinner and drive home.

[Anti Federalist]

Really, it shouldn't be illegal to drink and drive. It should be illegal to cause damage using a vehicle while being drunk.

It already is.

[Dr.3D]

It already is.
So there is no need to go after people who have been drinking and are driving.

[hrdman2luv]

Or just sell his car and give him a horse / bicycle.

Oh wait, it's probably illegal to ride horses nowadays
I knew of a guy who got a DWI in east Texas while riding his horse.. Also, one that got a DWI while driving his tractor.

[Dr.3D]

I knew of a guy who got a DWI in east Texas while riding his horse.. Also, one that got a DWI while driving his tractor.
Why? Was the horse drunk?

[truelies]

...................Many of my rights could pose risk to your life and limb.

.............

Where did you ever come up with the idea that YOU have a 'right' to put other people's lives at risk?

Either you are a Fed here trolling perhaps to lure some fools into acts against the State or you are a Fool too simple to understand that Rights carry Responsibility.

[Anti Federalist]

So there is no need to go after people who have been drinking and are driving.

Nope.

"Obviously impaired" and "driving to endanger" is already illegal.

So is causing damage or injury or death with a motor vehicle.

[Anti Federalist]

Where did you ever come up with the idea that YOU have a 'right' to put other people's lives at risk?

Either you are a Fed here trolling perhaps to lure some fools into acts against the State or you are a Fool too simple to understand that Rights carry Responsibility.

I have a right to own guns.

I exercise that right.

Even with due diligence, my guns could possibly be stolen and used to kill innocent people.

Even with due diligence, I could mistakenly kill somebody myself.

People have a right to a fair trial and due process, even though that means, properly applied, guilty people would sometimes go free.

You want to abolish that as well?

[truelies]

Oh, and in honor of this thread, I'll now be sure to knock back a few vodka martinis at dinner and drive home.

Here's hoping a barney busts your stupid ass. At least while he is running you in and filling out the paperwork innocent dogs will be safe.

[anaconda]

Could this not have been resolved by barring him from having a drivers license?


A lot of the "habitual" offenders don't care about a license. They just get in and drive. On the other hand, isn't Texas the state where you get lethal injection for stealing an Almond Joy from the convenience store? Just as at the federal level, the state legislatures seem to run amok with laws that enslave their people and contribute to the coffers. But, if we could return the emphasis to the states, these kinds of stories would begin to have a "competitive" effect throughout the land. People would take these kinds of things into consideration when deciding where to live.

[Tod]

Nope, but she gets to spend her remaining days on the miscreant res and her Property gets confiscated to 100% of the amount required to make her vics whole.......and YES if one dies so should she.


Why do you have such trouble with personal responsibilty, sport?


Without individual responsibility and morality, there can be no individual liberty.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ~ John Adams

[Tod]

I have a right to own guns.

I exercise that right.

Even with due diligence, my guns could possibly be stolen and used to kill innocent people.

Even with due diligence, I could mistakenly kill somebody myself.

The second amendment does not allow you to go about randomly shooting at innocent people; the equivalent of driving drunk.

edit: It would be absurd to think that it is okay to take a gun down to my local shopping mall and randomly shoot into the crowds of shoppers, so long as I don't hit anyone.

[AGRP]

Or just sell his car and give him a horse / bicycle.

Oh wait, it's probably illegal to ride horses nowadays

+ rep

Or this. Problem will most likely be solved the next time he gets in a wreck.

http://www.morrowauto.ca/Quickstart/ImageLib/Golf_Cart_Enclosures_001.JPG

[truelies]

..............Even with due diligence, ..............


No, more like lazy irresponsibility. Your right to own a weapon does not extent to a 'right' to directly put others a risk. Drinking & then driving is simply NOT 'due diligence' in exercising a right to consume adult subtrances. Ya could for example take a taxi home, fool.

[truelies]

this statement says more about this poster than I ever could.


Yeah mostly that he is a better man than you will ever be.

[truelies]

Be delighted, you live anywhere near the Ozarks?

I'd like nothing more than to help you understand..

best you stay where you are at, uncle. Folks of your sort find my community a decidely unhealthy place to visit.

[Anti Federalist]

Here's hoping a barney busts your stupid ass. At least while he is running you in and filling out the paperwork innocent dogs will be safe.

It's people like you "law and order" types that have given cops the idea that they have free reign to terrorize us and shoot our dogs whenever they feel that their "safety" is threatened in the slightest way.

Nice work.

[Anti Federalist]

The second amendment does not allow you to go about randomly shooting at innocent people; the equivalent of driving drunk.

edit: It would be absurd to think that it is okay to take a gun down to my local shopping mall and randomly shoot into the crowds of shoppers, so long as I don't hit anyone.

There are plenty of people, quite of few of them in the same MADD crowd that we are dealing with here, that do not agree.

That weapon, just sitting there, is de facto a source of death.

[Anti Federalist]

Driving that will get you arrested too.


+ rep

Or this. Problem will most likely be solved the next time he gets in a wreck.

http://www.morrowauto.ca/Quickstart/ImageLib/Golf_Cart_Enclosures_001.JPG

[tod evans]

best you stay where you are at, uncle. Folks of your sort find my community a decidely unhealthy place to visit.

I'd be honored to stop by,I've never had a problem in the lower class neighborhoods I've visited.

[AFPVet]

I just have to get this out there... no victim, no crime. I don't believe in pre-crime... I didn't think it worked when I was a cop, and I don't think it works now. All it does is clogs up the system and/or makes money for the state. If you hurt someone, then you pay the price.

[AGRP]

Driving that will get you arrested too.

Theyre legal in some areas as long as they have proper lights and signals.

[truelies]

There are plenty of people, quite of few of them in the same MADD crowd that we are dealing with here, that do not agree.

That weapon, just sitting there, is de facto a source of death.

Well so you say- BUT.............the flack you and your sort are getting seems to be 100% due to your insane attempts to justify driving/shooting impaired in a manners which guarandamntees lots of broken dead innocents. Act like an adult with guns & vehicles rather than like a stupid 20 something living in mom's basement and no one will bother you.

[AGRP]

I just have to get this out there... no victim, no crime. I don't believe in pre-crime... I didn't think it worked when I was a cop, and I don't think it works now. All it does is clogs up the system and/or makes money for the state. If you hurt someone, then you pay the price.

He injured at least one person. In a voluntary society, i would like to believe his community would come together to trade his vehicle for something like a golf cart, horse, bike, etc.

[truelies]

.......... no victim, no crime. ......................

When the vic is dead or broken its a bit LATE to question the dangerous stupidity of drunk driving. Wanna drink? FINE!!!!!! Take a cab home. Everyone wins , except YOUR pathetic self-absorbed immature ego.

[MelissaWV]

How about some creative, liberty inspired, solutions besides locking him away and pointless cat fights?

Already discussed punishing the actual acts that cause harm or danger, but several people are so blinded by their outrage at WHY the person caused the harm or danger, that they really don't care about that silly technicality.

[MelissaWV]

When the vic is dead or broken its a bit LATE to question the dangerous stupidity of drunk driving. Wanna drink? FINE!!!!!! Take a cab home. Everyone wins , except YOUR pathetic self-absorbed immature ego.

...or driving while eating, or tired, or being distracted by whining children, or on the phone, or listening to the GPS, or sex acts, or not knowing how to turn on your lights/wipers, or fiddling with the radio, or smoking, or being attacked by insects/other animals in your vehicle, or having to pee too badly, or under the influence of perfectly legal drugs, or having had some NyQuil, or...

I am sure you are just as rabid about laws against all of these things.

Or how about punishing people who are driving dangerously regardless of the potential chemical root of it? No. That's not even an option in this thread.

[truelies]

........................Nice work.


Nah, its your sort of self-absorbed danger to the community who make the Stasi appear to have a rationale for existence.

BTW, just WHAT do you feel should be the fate of one who kills/mains while driving impaired? 100hours community service? A stern talking too? Nothing, if the perp is yer buddy?

Personally I will go with Death to be inflicted by the hand of the vics next of kin and total forfeiture of all assets.

[MelissaWV]

Nah, its your sort of self-absorbed danger to the community who make the Stasi appear to have a rationale for existence.

BTW, just WHAT do you feel should be the fate of one who kills/mains while driving impaired? 100hours community service? A stern talking too? Nothing, if the perp is yer buddy?

Personally I will go with Death to be inflicted by the hand of the vics next of kin and total forfeiture of all assets.

BTW, do you feel the fate of one who kills/maims while driving (impaired or not) should be equal to the fate of someone who damages only property while driving (impaired or not)?

[tod evans]

Nah, its your sort of self-absorbed danger to the community who make the Stasi appear to have a rationale for existence.

BTW, just WHAT do you feel should be the fate of one who kills/mains while driving impaired? 100hours community service? A stern talking too? Nothing, if the perp is yer buddy?

Personally I will go with Death to be inflicted by the hand of the vics next of kin and total forfeiture of all assets.

Remove the "impaired" clause and you'd have better luck selling your fish...

Trying to argue mens rea is a loosing argument, especially in the case of those who are impaired.

[Danan]

(Disclaimer: I've only read all posts up to the quoted one. Sorry if I repeat something that was already said.)


Legitimate drunk driving has always been illegal. But how is "drunk" determined? The presence of alcohol, or so impaired that driving is obviously effected?

Most of us want drivers to be safe, but this can go too far, and we are already going down the road you want to take us. How many texting while driving incidents before life in prison? How about putting on make-up while driving? Shaving? Or how about the true number one cause of accidents, driving while tired?

And while we are at it, let's make getting a license a true test of competency. No more bad drivers on the road. No more beginner drivers on the road. No more drivers that come to complete stops in the fast lane of the freeway so they can slowly cut across all lanes of traffic to make an exit that they are missing.

And when you start down this path there is only one outcome: more draconian laws, more law enforcement, bigger budgets, and more people in jail. And in the end, the worse drivers on the road will probably still be out there, because you can't outlaw stupid.

The really interesting thing about those problems is, that the crucial point is not so much that the laws regarding driving are so bad, but rather the fact that the government shouldn't even be in the position to make these kinds of laws. It's first and foremost a property rights issue.

If roads were privately owned, as every good and service should be, the owner would have to decide whether there should be a driver's license required or not. Whether there should be a limit on the blood alcohol level and how high this should be. The same is true for speed limits, etc. And also, of course, for the fines for breaking these rules as well as there execution.

The entrepreneur would have to balance the additional revenue from drunk, speeding drivers against the lost revenue from all the people who seek alternatives to that road, because it would have an abyssmal death rate with a total laissez-faire policy. And I'm almost certain, that roads would be a lot safer in this system than today's roads, because that would have a much more beneficial impact on profits.

I also think that this is a good opportunity to criticize some libertarians who believe it's against the NAP for the government to enforce driver's licenses (which would, in some way, almost certainly exist in a private road system), etc. The government is the owner of the street. The owner choses the rules. There is nothing intrinsicly bad about that. The reason it's a mess is because the government owns the road (obviously bought with stolen money) and therefore no competition over the best set of rules for the marginal costumor of "driving" exists, because nobody is able to compete with a government that offers a service you have to pay for whether you use it or not.

The same principle is true for public education, health care, etc. As long as these things are publically owned, governments are going to make the rules. They are mostly going to be very bad rules, but democracy is a really bad way of determining what should be done instead. The way to sort these problems out is via free markets and competition.

[PaulConventionWV]

ideas are not objects. the bible itself is an object in that is just a physical printed book(or online data on disk).
but the ideas expressed in some of the books of the bible can cause people to act in violent ways.
you aren't talking to some rube. stop trying to changed my argument of one of ideas to one of objects. it isn't going to work.

hitler didn't make people slaughter others, the ideas of socialist nationalism did.

Anything can have meaning to a person, it doesn't have to be words. Words don't speak for themselves. People can give them their own meaning, and it's not the Bible's fault that some people choose to interpret them in a way that suggests they should be violent. Like I said, people are going to kill and lust for power whether or not it has anything to do with the Bible. People have used all sorts of ideologies to commit heinous acts.

The ideas of socialist nationalism only worked as an excuse to carry out violent acts. The plans and processes of carrying out these acts didn't just spring from pages, they took places in the hearts and minds of men who perverted them for an agenda. The only reason Germans killed was because they thought it served their best interest to support that agenda.

Regardless, however, the Bible never condoned violence. Read in its context, nothing violent can be derived as being a command by God unless men pervert it in such a way that it does. They were violent with or without the Bible, but criminals will sometimes use things that have cultural meaning in order to gain support like Hitler did. That doesn't mean the ideologies themselves were responsible. Every single German had the choice to obey or not.

All you're doing is replacing guns with ideas, and all of a sudden people don't have control over themselves. That's bullshit. You're only saying that because you have your own agenda of opposing Christianity. You do that by telling us the most popular Christian literature is responsible for things people almost universally think are bad. The idea of anti-Christianity didn't force you to do it, though. You conceived of that in your own mind and acted on your own behest. No words control you. You are not a slave to ideas and text. People who commit violent acts on behalf of their beliefs are only acting out the evil in their own hearts.

In other words, the ideas came from men, not the other way around. You can't blame this on a certain ideology, especially when that ideology never condoned violence. The fact that people use it for evil only shows that people will interpret anything in a way that fits their own conceptions about the world. So stop blaming Christianity and hold people accountable for their own individual actions. To expand it to the idea is to stereotype that person's beliefs on a much wider spectrum.

[Tod]

If roads were privately owned, as every good and service should be, the owner would have to decide whether there should be a driver's license required or not. Whether there should be a limit on the blood alcohol level and how high this should be. The same is true for speed limits, etc. And also, of course, for the fines for breaking these rules as well as there execution.

Things such as roads that are publicly owned are de facto owned by the public and the duly elected representatives of the public are the ones making the laws, much as employees of a private road-owning company would do. As our representatives, lawmakers have decided that there should be a limit on blood alcohol and how high it should be. The same is true for speed limits, etc. And also, of course, for the fines for breaking these rules as well as their enforcement.

Wait...is there an echo in here? :p

[PaulConventionWV]

//

[PaulConventionWV]

How can there be an "attack" if there was no victim?

Yes, I did.

So did lots of other people.

We did lots of other things as well.

I would trade that world for today's surveillance state, instantly.

I believe you mean you would trade today's surveillance state for that world...

[PaulConventionWV]

Nope, but she gets to spend her remaining days on the miscreant res and her Property gets confiscated to 100% of the amount required to make her vics whole.......and YES if one dies so should she.


Why do you have such trouble with personal responsibilty, sport?

It's not personal responsibility when arbitrary sentences are being handed down. I can't be expected to bend to your rules, and likewise for you. I was arguing with a liberal not long ago who used that same line of reasoning to say it's okay for the government to steal and tax endlessly. If you don't comply and you get arrested: personal responsibility, they said. As if I should be responsible for some jackwad who tries to take money from me and then suffer the arbitrary consequences of the thief when I choose not to give it up.

[PaulConventionWV]

Really, it shouldn't be illegal to drink and drive. It should be illegal to cause damage using a vehicle while being drunk.

Why does the "while being drunk" part matter? It's the same as if somebody completely sober did some damage, either way, they are to be held responsible for the damage.

[Danan]

Things such as roads that are publicly owned are de facto owned by the public and the duly elected representatives of the public are the ones making the laws, much as employees of a private road-owning company would do. As our representatives, lawmakers have decided that there should be a limit on blood alcohol and how high it should be. The same is true for speed limits, etc. And also, of course, for the fines for breaking these rules as well as their enforcement.

Wait...is there an echo in here? :p

?
I also said that the fact that they provide this service without fees or tolls for it's usage, but finance everything by taxing the general public (which is theft), is effectively keeping out competition and thus the conditions and specific rules to not resemble what the market would give you, which is the optimal set of rules to maximize profits. Which ultimately comes down to the simple truth that without coerced funding, the customers would inderictly chose the rules on the roads (and that's a way superior decision making process than letting politicians and bureaucrat elected via a flawed democratic system decide).

Or did I misunderstand your question? =/

[Dr.3D]

Why does the "while being drunk" part matter? It's the same as if somebody completely sober did some damage, either way, they are to be held responsible for the damage.
True, but sober it is more likely the damage was done by accident. Everybody knows being drunk does make is easier for people to have an "accident."

[PaulConventionWV]

When the vic is dead or broken its a bit LATE to question the dangerous stupidity of drunk driving. Wanna drink? FINE!!!!!! Take a cab home. Everyone wins , except YOUR pathetic self-absorbed immature ego.

You can't prevent people from dying with laws. That's just the way it works. You keep wanting to say that, if this is illegal, the crime will be stopped before it happens. It just doesn't work, as is clearly the case with drinking and driving laws, speeding laws, drug laws, gun laws. Laws don't prevent anything. They are only there to serve justice for crimes already committed. You can't engage in the idea that you can stop crime by making precursors illegal, as if all precursors led to crimes being committed. Some people who drive drunk make it home just fine, and if you arrest them, you haven't fixed anything. People are innocent until proven guilty for a reason, and that's because it's better for a hundred guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be falsely convicted. If you make precursors illegal, why stop there? Why not make bars illegal so that drinking stops altogether. Oh wait, didn't they try that in the 1920s?

[AGRP]

It is intellectually inconsistent for anyone to state that drinking and driving should be illegal while stating other activities and non-activities before driving should not be illegal. For example, someone who works or stays awake for at least two 12 hour work shifts (which is very common) before driving home is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than having a few drinks before driving. Oh, but working 60-80 hour work weeks is lauded in our society isn't it?

[AFPVet]

He injured at least one person. In a voluntary society, i would like to believe his community would come together to trade his vehicle for something like a golf cart, horse, bike, etc.

In his situation, yes, he injured someone. I was simply referring to the generality.

[Danan]

Why does the "while being drunk" part matter? It's the same as if somebody completely sober did some damage, either way, they are to be held responsible for the damage.

True. But it should also be understandable that drivers would want to demand from the owner of the road, that he prevents people who are obviously endangering others (like drunks, extremely poor drivers, extremely tired people, etc.) from using the same road as everybody else. Every entrepreur would understand that demand and try to come up with a way to sort these people out (it's his road after all).

The problem originates from the fact that the government owns the road.

[MelissaWV]

It is intellectually inconsistent for anyone to state that drinking and driving should be illegal while stating other activities and non-activities before driving should not be illegal. For example, someone who works or stays awake for at least two 12 hour work shifts (which is very common) before driving home is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than having a few drinks before driving. Oh, but working 60-80 hour work weeks is lauded in our society isn't it?

Ah you added the last part just as I quoted you, which was going to be my point.

It is worse because, while there is a stigma associated with drinking and driving, and programs for you to be able to call a free ride under certain circumstances, people who are driving while exhausted often have little alternative, and are being good little worker bees.

And the person they kill is just as dead as one a drunk driver kills.

[PaulConventionWV]

True, but sober it is more likely the damage was done by accident. Everybody knows being drunk does make is easier for people to have an "accident."

Well, if you wanna go down THAT road...

The point is, people can do things maliciously or accidentally regardless of what state they're in. Punishing the crime is the only surefire way to go.

[AFPVet]

True. But it should also be understandable that drivers would want to demand from the owner of the road, that he prevents people who are obviously endangering others (like drunks, extremely poor drivers, extremely tired people, etc.) from using the same road as everybody else. Every entrepreneur would understand that demand and try to come up with a way to sort these people out (it's his road after all).

The problem originates from the fact that the government owns the road.

This is another valid point for privatizing roads.

[PaulConventionWV]

It is intellectually inconsistent for anyone to state that drinking and driving should be illegal while stating other activities and non-activities before driving should not be illegal. For example, someone who works or stays awake for at least two 12 hour work shifts (which is very common) before driving home is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than having a few drinks before driving. Oh, but working 60-80 hour work weeks is lauded in our society isn't it?

Not to mention working those kinds of shifts WHILE driving. Driving is part of my job, and I just put in a 12 hour shift last night, most of it spent driving.

[Danan]

It is intellectually inconsistent for anyone to state that drinking and driving should be illegal while stating other activities and non-activities before driving should not be illegal. For example, someone who works or stays awake for at least two 12 hour work shifts (which is very common) before driving home is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than having a few drinks before driving. Oh, but working 60-80 hour work weeks is lauded in our society isn't it?

Ideally, in a perfect system, none of those things should be "illegal", but rather prohibited by the owner. And of course he has no right other than to force you to leave his property, or whatever you agreed to contractually by driving on his road (which, theoretically, could include prison sentences for drunk driving - if you still sign up for it...).

While the government does own the road, however, I personally would want it to lower the risk of dying while driving on it (but without destroying people's lifes for being risky).

[PaulConventionWV]

Ideally, in a perfect system, none of those things should be "illegal", but rather prohibited by the owner. And of course he has no right other than to force you to leave his property, or whatever you agreed to contractually by driving on his road (which, theoretically, could include prison sentences for drunk driving - if you still sign up for it...).

While the government does own the road, however, I personally would want it to lower the risk of dying while driving on it (but without destroying people's lifes for being risky).

The idea of public property isn't that "the government" owns it, but that nobody owns it.

I personally am not too attracted to the idea that I can drive around and have a different set of arbitrary rules enforced on me depending on whose property I'm on. There should be places where people are free to travel without being subject to somebody's arbitrary rules.

[AGRP]

So, how many video game junkies will be playing that new COD game for days on end before possibly getting on the road and killing someone? What about the black friday deal grabbers who will be shopping all day and driving possibly kill someone? They get to the stores by at least 5am. Both groups are impaired.

[Tpoints]

why is this dangerous substance "legal" then?

life sentence...but not for sandusky, corizone, or teh bernack...

Sandusky got 30+ years, that's effectively life for a 68 year old.

[Tpoints]

BTW, do you feel the fate of one who kills/maims while driving (impaired or not) should be equal to the fate of someone who damages only property while driving (impaired or not)?

Take out the word driving and the answer is obvious.

[Danan]

The idea of public property isn't that "the government" owns it, but that nobody owns it.

I personally am not too attracted to the idea that I can drive around and have a different set of arbitrary rules enforced on me depending on whose property I'm on. There should be places where people are free to travel without being subject to somebody's arbitrary rules.

But most other people are not too attracted to the idea of getting killed by some drunk driver who can legally and freely drive around unless he finally kills someone. And because that won't change ever, you're not going to get rid of those kind of laws through politics, imho.

Btw, if nobody owns them, can I claim ownership and fence in a road?

[PaulConventionWV]

But most other people are not too attracted to the idea of getting killed by some drunk driver who can legally and freely drive around unless he finally kills someone. And because that won't change ever, you're not going to get rid of those kind of laws through politics, imho.

Btw, if nobody owns them, can I claim ownership and fence in a road?

Look at the privatization of roads guy telling me how impractical my idea is.........

Getting rid of the police state will probably never happen, but most people here still want to. Same for the fed.

And no, you can't fence in a road because that would make it impossible to drive on. Seriously, though, if nobody owns them and you claim it, your claim will not be recognized and you need not seek compensation when your fence is destroyed.

[Tpoints]

But most other people are not too attracted to the idea of getting killed by some drunk driver who can legally and freely drive around unless he finally kills someone. And because that won't change ever, you're not going to get rid of those kind of laws through politics, imho.

Btw, if nobody owns them, can I claim ownership and fence in a road?

it's not just that nobody owns it, it's NOBODY CAN, otherwise it wouldn't be left unclaimed.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

True. But it should also be understandable that drivers would want to demand from the owner of the road, that he prevents people who are obviously endangering others (like drunks, extremely poor drivers, extremely tired people, etc.) from using the same road as everybody else. Every entrepreur would understand that demand and try to come up with a way to sort these people out (it's his road after all).

The problem originates from the fact that the government owns the road.

Excellent post,

I would like to add one little thing: There would be no need for police officers to patrol for traffic violations if roads were privatized, there would be transportation workers dedicated to keeping the roads safe and not trying to enforce bullshit laws like seat-belt violations.

Perhaps then police would have more time to do what they are supposed to do, catch real criminals like murderers and rapists.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

The idea of public property isn't that "the government" owns it, but that nobody owns it.

I personally am not too attracted to the idea that I can drive around and have a different set of arbitrary rules enforced on me depending on whose property I'm on. There should be places where people are free to travel without being subject to somebody's arbitrary rules.

You seriously don't think there would be some form (or multiple competing forms) of standardization to provide a consistent experience to motorists?

Eventually the best system would survive.

I would also argue that laws are more arbitrary (55 mph speed limit) than the market's self regulation.

[PaulConventionWV]

Excellent post,

I would like to add one little thing: There would be no need for police officers to patrol for traffic violations if roads were privatized, there would be transportation workers dedicated to keeping the roads safe and not trying to enforce bullshit laws like seat-belt violations.

Perhaps then police would have more time to do what they are supposed to do, catch real criminals like murderers and rapists.

There would be no need for them even with public roads if we didn't have the police state. All we need to do is get rid of the police state.

[PaulConventionWV]

You seriously don't think there would be some form (or multiple competing forms) of standardization to provide a consistent experience to motorists?

Eventually the best system would survive.

Of course there would be, but that doesn't mean road-owners won't discriminate against people according to their own will. It's not like people can just boycott the roads so they risk going out of "business".

[VoluntaryAmerican]

There would be no need for them even with public roads if we didn't have the police state. All we need to do is get rid of the police state.

The Department of Transportation has a 71 Billion dollar budget for 2013, this is a drain on all of us and unnecessary and part of the large Federal government that is all around us. It's the same principle problem - wasteful centralized government planning - as the police state. However, I agree the police state is a major priority.


Of course there would be, but that doesn't mean road-owners won't discriminate against people according to their own will. It's not like people can just boycott the roads so they risk going out of "business".

Sure motorists could boycott a road. They could carpool, take a bus, or strike a highway - use a competing one. There are already organizations that look out for Motorists and their interests.

See: http://www.motorists.org/

The only reason this seems like chaos is because the government already occupies that space. If the government never got in to the road business it would already be a part of our everyday life and our general economy would be much better off for it.

[Anti Federalist]

Well so you say- BUT.............the flack you and your sort are getting seems to be 100% due to your insane attempts to justify driving/shooting impaired in a manners which guarandamntees lots of broken dead innocents. Act like an adult with guns & vehicles rather than like a stupid 20 something living in mom's basement and no one will bother you.

Driving to endanger and vehicular homicide is, and was, already against the law.

[Anti Federalist]

I believe you mean you would trade today's surveillance state for that world...

Yes, that is what I meant.

Maybe I was drunk.

[phill4paul]

Some things to consider....

For those using the "What if a person shot at you in public?" defense. Including the judge...


"The point is to prevent crimes," said Bradley, who added that the county boasts one of the lowest crime rates compared to other Texas counties of similar size.

"If this guy was using a shotgun to shoot lights randomly around his neighborhood I doubt we'd be [getting criticized] for the sentencing," he said. "In this case he's simply using his truck as his weapon."

Texas:

§ 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.


§ 12.34. THIRD DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT.
(a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for any term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years.
(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.


So, as you can see, the punishment for drunk driving in this case exceeds the stipulated charges for pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger. Let THAT sink in for a moment.

Now let's look at the charges if this individual had actually killed another while D.U.I.

Definition of Intoxication Manslaughter - Texas Penal Code Section 49.08

§ 49.08. Intoxication Manslaughter.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) operates a motor vehicle in a public place, operates an aircraft, a watercraft, or an amusement ride, or assembles a mobile amusement ride; and
(2) is intoxicated and by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Second Degree Felony Range of Punishment - Texas Penal Code

§ 12.33. SECOND DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT.
(a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years.
(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

So even if this individual had actually KILLED another his imprisonment would not have been for more than 20 years. Let THAT sink in for a moment.

This individual was sentenced to LIFE for nothing more than what the judge deemed a pre-crime. He was given this sentence by the judge in an attempt to stop a future event by giving him a penalty that would exceed the punishment for said future event.

[devil21]

Good catch phill. What does the TX DWI code say? Is life actually codified as a punishment for a 9th DWI? It is worth mentioning, though, that the penalty you pointed out is for actually killing someone, which would be a separate offense from the DWI charge. Some charges are "enhanced" if there's aggravating factors such as prior offenses. Your point is well taken.

I didnt catch up on the thread so pardon if this is already posted.

[tod evans]

This individual was sentenced to LIFE for nothing more than what the judge deemed a pre-crime. He was given this sentence by the judge in an attempt to stop a future event by giving him a penalty that would exceed the punishment for said future event.

Social programming, propaganda, doesn't matter what term is used.

It's scary, it's effective, it's really happening every day all across the country..

Just read some of the tripe in this thread.......filter it through "The-Newz" or any form of public media and it should become apparent that you and I are being subjected to opinions that are irrational..

[phill4paul]

Good catch phill. What does the TX DWI code say? Is life actually codified as a punishment for a 9th DWI? It is worth mentioning, though, that the penalty you pointed out is for actually killing someone, which would be a separate offense from the DWI charge. Some charges are "enhanced" if there's aggravating factors such as prior offenses. Your point is well taken.

I didnt catch up on the thread so pardon if this is already posted.


Texas law does not provide for any increased punishment after DWI, third offense. If a person presents a DWI, fourth offense or beyond, the typical punishment is confinement in the penitentiary from two (2) to ten (10) years without probation being granted.

http://www.1800dialdui.com/CM/DUIDWILaws/DUIDWILaws-Texas-DWI-Laws.asp

Of interesting note,


A third conviction for DWI indicates a significant problem with alcohol to the Court or jury assessing punishment. Some type of rehabilitative treatment is therefore mandated in punishment if confinement in the penitentiary is to be avoided. In some cases an in-patient, incarceration program (Substance Abuse Felony Probation SAFP) is ordered. This program requires confinement in a State Facility for alcohol rehabilitation. After successful completion of the SAFP program, the person is then released and placed on probation for a term not to exceed ten (10) years. Another popular condition for habitual DWI offenders is a prescription for a drug named "Antabuse". This drug will make a person violently ill if any alcohol is consumed. The alcohol can be contained in mouthwash or marinated food and will still have the same effect on the user. If a person has any type of liver problems, this drug can cause liver failure and death.

[tod evans]

Another popular condition for habitual DWI offenders is a prescription for a drug named "Antabuse". This drug will make a person violently ill if any alcohol is consumed.

There were many sailors during my stint in the Navy hospital who were ordered to consume Antabuse....I don't remember any serving time in the brig and certainly not life sentences..

Only thing I can see different from over 30 years ago is public perception..