10th DWI=Life

[tod evans]

From Drudge;


Weatherford Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for 10th DWI

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Weatherford-Man-Sentenced-to-Life-in-Prison-for-10th-DWI-366068451.html

District Judge Craig Towson told Ivy Ray Eberhardt he was "a second away from hurting someone really badly" as he announced the sentence, according to a news release issued by Parker County district attorneys.

"Part of my job is to protect the citizens of Parker County," Towson told Eberhardt. "The only way that I can think of to do that from somebody that has 12 DWI arrests and 10 DWI convictions is to put you in a place that you can’t drive for as long as I possibly can."
On April 13, 2014, Weatherford police said they responded a call about a reckless driver on U.S. 180 and saw Eberhardt swerving and driving in the wrong lane. When police pulled Eberhardt over, they said he told the officer he had consumed most of a 750-ml bottle of whiskey that was found in his vehicle.

Assistant District Attorney Jeff Swain said Eberhardt's case is only now concluded because they had to wait for him to finish his sentence for a similar case in Colorado.
"Eberhardt cut off his electronic monitor, skipped bond and fled to Colorado where he was arrested for yet another DWI offense," Swain said.

Court records indicated that Eberhardt was convicted of four DWI offenses in Travis and Tarrant counties in the 1980s and 1990s. He also spent time in prison for DWI offenses in Parker, Tarrant and Runnels counties. He was also convicted of DWI offenses in Colorado in 2010 and 2015.
Swain said Eberhardt will be eligible for parole after 15 years of his sentence, but he can receive good conduct credit toward reaching that number.

In a statement released Thursday, Jason Derscheid, North Texas executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said:
"In 2014, more than 1,400 people were killed in drunk driving crashes in the state of Texas. It only takes drinking and driving one time to kill yourself, or kill someone else. Convicted drunk driving offenders must be held accountable after the first offense. One DUI conviction is absolutely unacceptable, ten convicted DUIs is egregious."

[Indy Vidual]

We cannot afford to feed this bum, air drop him into the middle of Alaska and let mother nature take over.

[erowe1]

"Part of my job is to protect the citizens of Parker County,"

I'd like to see where that is in his actual job description.

[Danke]

Wouldn't it be cheaper just to give him taxi vouchers?

[spudea]

it would cost less for the government to hire a 24/7 personal driver for him

[Suzanimal]

Has he ever harmed anyone or damaged anyone's property? I'm guessing not because they didn't mention it. Complete miscarriage of justice.

[William Tell]

Wow.

[Indy Vidual]

https://cdn.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/styles/article-inline-half/public/blogs/883/2014/02/143232-144579.jpg?itok=3Cv3Iia8

[Origanalist]

Has he ever harmed anyone or damaged anyone's property? I'm guessing not because they didn't mention it. Complete miscarriage of justice.

Yep, not one word on that.

[Bman]

Moral of the story: Don't drink and drive kids!

Self driving cars cannot come soon enough for some people.

[Origanalist]

Moral of the story: Don't drink and drive kids!

Self driving cars cannot come soon enough for some people.

Yes, it's a great lesson. Even if you never hurt anybody you can go to jail for life. Do NOT mess with the government keep me safe crowd.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Goons gonna goon drunks...

[nobody's_hero]

I'm thinking it was more than just the DWI's that led to the sentence.

The guy cut off his ankle bracelet and skipped bond. It's not like the justice system didn't try to give him as many alternatives as possible. The video even mentions rehab at one point.

Other than letting him go and sending a message that it's okay to get smashed and drive on the opposite side of the highway, what do you do with a guy like this?

[tod evans]

I'm thinking it was more than just the DWI's that led to the sentence.

The guy cut off his ankle bracelet and skipped bond. It's not like the justice system didn't try to give him as many alternatives as possible. The video even mentions rehab at one point.

Other than letting him go and sending a message that it's okay to get smashed and drive on the opposite side of the highway, what do you do with a guy like this?

The answer is the same for all cases of living "impaired" nothing.

Nothing needs to be done until there's actual damage done, then that specific crime must be addressed and possibly the sentence enhanced due to impairment.

"Impairment"can be any number of things that would effect concentration from being lovelorn to high or drunk, even operating a vehicle with an infant in the car could rightly be considered an impairment.

This idea that consuming booze or dope is a greater evil than consuming pharmaceutical drugs or living with a crazy person is absolute insanity that's being taught from grade school on...

[mrsat_98]

I agree the gentleman is probably a waste of good air, but that doesn't mean he should waste it on our nickel.

[presence]

Nothing needs to be done until there's actual damage done, then that specific crime must be addressed and possibly the sentence enhanced due to impairment.



NO HARM NO FOUL

[spudea]

The answer is the same for all cases of living "impaired" nothing.

I wish to be protected from this man and anyone like him as a direct threat to my life and liberty. It is possible to prevent death and injuries due to their actions. We used to be able to ship guys like this to Australia....

An alternative to taking away this mans life via prison, I'm thinking implanting a device that closes the esophagus when it detects alcohol.

[presence]

I wish to be protected from this man and anyone like him as a direct threat to my life and liberty. It is possible to prevent death and injuries due to their actions.

Then you do not understand what LIBERTY is.


We used to be able to ship guys like this to Australia....

When "we" were SUBJECTS to a king.


An alternative to taking away this mans life via prison, I'm thinking implanting a device that closes the esophagus when it detects alcohol.

The alternative is TOLERANCE and COMPASSION, be a public SERVANT and offer the man with mental issues a ride home. ...or go on with your day because if there is NO THEFT and NO VIOLENCE then its NON OF YOUR BUSINESS.

[Ronin Truth]

10 chances seem like an awful lot. Is he the judge's or police chief's brother in law? Keep him off the streets before he kills some innocent folks.

[spudea]

The alternative is TOLERANCE and COMPASSION, be a public SERVANT and offer the man with mental issues a ride home. ...or go on with your day because if there is NO THEFT and NO VIOLENCE then its NON OF YOUR BUSINESS.

That sounds like a nice utopia. A problem being no-one else is ever held accountable when people get killed by drunk drivers.

I understand the principles of liberty my friend. I have the right to protect myself and ask others to help protect me. I believe driving impaired is an act of aggression against people. The question is how to apply sufficient justifiable defense. I've already indicated I disagree with taking this mans life and liberty via prison. However your alternative is its own fallacy.

[presence]

That sounds like a nice utopia. A problem being no-one else is ever held accountable when people get killed by drunk drivers.

When there is someone dead there is a crime. When there is a crime there should be justice.


I believe driving impaired is an act of aggression against people.

Giving someone the middle finger and telling them to, 'fuck off' is an act of aggression. That doesn't make it a crime.

I believe you drive past drunks on a daily basis and nothing ever happens... then every once in while 1 out of 100 drunk drivers gets pulled over and made an example of by the nanny state.

[presence]

Keep him off the streets before he kills some innocent folks.

https://realizethelies.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/precrime1.jpg

[Origanalist]

There is a whole bunch of people calling for the nanny state to protect them going on here for a liberty forum.

[phill4paul]

No wrecks? Guy sounds like a professional to me and should be teaching courses. Of course with the push for .05 BAC many will be racking up multiples soon. Watched a distracted (texting) driver almost rear end someone last week. She had to whip off the road and destroyed a mailbox. I suppose her phone records and GPS should be looked into and if there were more than 10 violations of texting while driving she should be given a life sentence.

[specsaregood]

There is a whole bunch of people calling for the nanny state to protect them going on here for a liberty forum.

and at the same time, as usual the liberty folk pretend to be obtuse when its actually a difficult situation with no right answer. they argue that we should wait until he kills someone before doing anything about him driving impaired and that just doesn't jive with reality. I dont' think life in prison is the answer, but doing nothing cuz he hasn't killed anybody yet isn't the right answer either.

[Origanalist]

No wrecks? Guy sounds like a professional to me and should be teaching courses. Of course with the push for .05 BAC many will be racking up multiples soon. Watched a distracted (texting) driver almost rear end someone last week. She had to whip off the road and destroyed a mailbox. I suppose her phone records and GPS should be looked into and if there were more than 10 violations of texting while driving she should be given a life sentence.

I see them every single day. One minute they are driving normal and the next they are all over the place. Put em all in prison for life, I deserve to be kept safe!

[presence]

they argue that we should wait until he kills someone before doing anything about him driving impaired and that just doesn't jive with reality.

If you feel that way you should go to your local bar and preach next Friday... else you're just being a baby in a crib crying for nanny.

State enforcement of morality is NOT THE ANSWER.

Sticking this guy in a cage for the non crime of a dui is no different than ISIS cutting off your head for kissing a girl in public. Depending on your worldview, and the weathervane of political power, both are equally "immoral acts of aggression".



libertarians recognize that there’s no way to allow government to control morality while keeping it constrained on other matters. Hunter lamented libertarians’ deprioritization of “individual responsibility (and) limited government,” but conservatives who argue that government should be empowered to stop people from making immoral decisions must reconcile that position with their belief that government should be strictly limited. Exactly how government is to be, on the one hand, powerful enough to halt a wide swath of immoral activity and, on the other, limited enough to not intrude on other freedoms is unclear. It is easy to see how quickly this idea unravels any design at limiting government to any meaningful degree.

The State is Immoral

Beyond this, state involvement in morality poses another problem, because the state tends to corrupt rather than propel morality. What politicizing moral issues ultimately accomplishes is the state’s acquisition of the power to define what is and isn’t moral. Even worse, it allows the state to use its violent and coercive powers to enforce these definitions.

This might seem appealing at first blush, but it can only remain so as long as the state’s definition of morality is on your side. What happens, however, if the people in power change their mind about what is moral, or if people with different conceptions of morality ascend to power? Suddenly all that political power to define and enforce morality is turned against you.


http://www.thegreatfiction.com/2015/10/25/government-without-the-state-morality-in-a-libertarian-society/

[spudea]

The Principles of Liberty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc_VW-BBIpY)


The initiation of force to take life is murder

Impairment meaning loss of control of ones actions. To do this voluntarily and get behind the wheel is initiation of force? I say yes.

If you seek impairment and loss of control, you have the option of staying home and not bothering anyone.

Additionally for someone who seeks impairment and loss of control of ones actions, can they be said to retain self-ownership? I say no.

What do we do with people that subvert these principles?

Specs is right. This has probably been debated ad nauseam multiple times without agreement. Sigh...

[presence]

The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality.
-Barry Goldwater

[presence]

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
-Robert A. Heinlein

[phill4paul]

This has probably been debated ad nauseam multiple times without agreement. Sigh...

Don't you worry none. In another 20 yrs. autonomous cars will be mandated to subvert the "privilege" of travel. Then everyone will be safe. Of course you will still have to blow in a breathalyzer to start the damn thing...because children.

[tod evans]

Impairment meaning loss of control of ones actions. To do this voluntarily and get behind the wheel is initiation of force? I say yes.

If you seek impairment and loss of control, you have the option of staying home and not bothering anyone.

Additionally for someone who seeks impairment and loss of control of ones actions, can they be said to retain self-ownership? I say no.

What do we do with people that subvert these principles?

Specs is right. This has probably been debated ad nauseam multiple times without agreement. Sigh...

Will you argue as vehemently for those impaired by other issues?

Drowsiness actually causes more traffic injuries than alcohol.

I'm calling you out on being a member of the politically correct morality police, shame on you. :mad:

[presence]

Drowsiness actually causes more traffic injuries than alcohol.

Don't worry that can be fixed. We can mandate electronic sleep monitors for those seeking the driving privilege. The technology is already there. We can make it so you get 100 miles per 30 minutes of electronically documented REM. That will solve it.

[pcosmar]

That sounds like a nice utopia. A problem being no-one else is ever held accountable when people get killed by drunk drivers.



NO one said that. you made it up out of your own cowardly fear.

the rest of your post is just more fecal matter from the same orifice.

You do not understand the first thing about liberty ,, if you will take a mans life based solely on your fears.

like a fucking cop that shoots and naked and unarmed man because he is scared.

[Suzanimal]

Will you argue as vehemently for those impaired by other issues?

Drowsiness actually causes more traffic injuries than alcohol.

I'm calling you out on being a member of the politically correct morality police, shame on you. :mad:

Age, physical disability (my father in law was crippled and drove like a fucking maniac), prescription drugs, kids (a screaming baby's an impairment)....

[presence]

Impairment meaning loss of control of ones actions. To do this voluntarily and get behind the wheel is initiation of force? I say yes.

Likewise getting drunk in the company of the opposite sex is the initiation of rape, no doubt.

[Origanalist]

Age, physical disability (my father in law was crippled and drove like a fucking maniac), prescription drugs, kids (a screaming baby's an impairment)....

People are crazy, driving should be banned.

[pcosmar]

Don't you worry none. In another 20 yrs. autonomous cars will be mandated to subvert the "privilege" of travel.

I'll be 78,, if we make it till then.

I got a few years to build some old iron then.

[Dr.3D]

Until there are damages, no crime has been committed.

[spudea]

Whats going on here? Just a bunch of sarcastic posts. I'll see myself out thanks. I wish you all well.


if you will take a mans life based solely on your fears.

wtf that same post of mine says don't take the mans life. Bite me.

[presence]

I'll see myself out thanks.
[]
Bite me.

Before you leave... please explain:

Why is getting drunk then getting behind a car wheel de facto initiation of a violent vehicular assault,
but getting drunk then flirting with the opposite sex not de facto initiation of a violent sexual assault?



Yesterday the Muslim group MuslimStern brazenly called for Germany to ban alcohol, claiming it "leads to rapes".
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/637276/Johannisbad-baths-Rainer-Kallweit-Zwickau-Saxony-Germany

[sam1952]

I personally think here the issue is not that he's drunk but that he's violating traffic laws. There are different levels of violations (parking ticket vs driving on the wrong side of the road).

I hope we can all agree that traffic rules need to be in place for the mutual benefit of all. Obeying stop lights, signs, crosswalks and driving on the correct side of the road.

From the article driving on the wrong side of the road is a violation that comes with a penalty. So does being impaired impact the penalty? Does ten violations impact the penalty? I believe it does but don't have the answer to what that should be. Life imprisonment seems a bit much ;)

[Suzanimal]

People are crazy, driving should be banned.

Ban people. Problem solved.

[presence]

I hope we can all agree that traffic rules need to be in place for the mutual benefit of all. Obeying stop lights, signs, crosswalks and driving on the correct side of the road.

NO VEHEMENTLY NOT


The plan is called "Share Space" and exists in towns in England and Holland as well. The idea is that everyone on the road including pedestrians and cyclists have equal rights — no sidewalks even! Local police say that without rules, people — wait for it — think for themselves (!) and communicate more and assume the responsibility of powering a huge pile of metal. Though locals say it took a bit to get used to the freedom and responsibility, it's increased safety and renewed a village-y atmosphere.
http://www.popsugar.com/love/Removing-All-Traffic-Laws-Makes-Town-Safer-Make-Sense-1739759

There is no place for non criminal statutory offences in a free society.



Why is it after every hurricane in Florida, when there is debris strewn everywhere in the streets... all the stops signs are blown over... and all the traffic lights have no power... every body seems to be able to navigate the roads without issue?

[TheTexan]

How was he even driving? His license was revoked!

[Dr.3D]

How was he even driving? His license was revoked!
Yeah, by the same standards used to incarcerate this guy for life, that should be a death penalty violation.

[Origanalist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPbUpdmAfck


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbGKJSzvqJY

[pcosmar]

Whats going on here?


wtf that same post of mine says don't take the mans life. Bite me.


The post was shit I disregarded the rest,
but a cage for life for nothing but your own fear?

you are a sick individual. sadistic it seems.

bite you? OK

[otherone]

police said they responded a call about a reckless driver on U.S. 180 and saw Eberhardt swerving and driving in the wrong lane. When police pulled Eberhardt over, they said he told the officer he had consumed most of a 750-ml bottle of whiskey that was found in his vehicle.

lightweight.


How was he even driving? His license was revoked!

It's baffling, right?
I predict one will have to insert their license in a chip-reader on their vehicle to start it, someday.

[sam1952]

NO VEHEMENTLY NOT


http://www.popsugar.com/love/Removing-All-Traffic-Laws-Makes-Town-Safer-Make-Sense-1739759

There is no place for non criminal statutory offences in a free society.

I disagree. Certain levels of common goals for mutual benefit are needed. by your definition driving on the opposite side of the road as the current flow of traffic is acceptable. Let the drivers in that space at that time figure it out?

[sam1952]

lightweight.



It's baffling, right?
I predict one will have to insert their license in a chip-reader on their vehicle to start it, someday.


Lightweight, Haha


Good prediction :(

[presence]

I disagree. Certain levels of common goals for mutual benefit are needed. by your definition driving on the opposite side of the road as the current flow of traffic is acceptable. Let the drivers in that space at that time figure it out?


Almost a decade later, there are numerous examples of small (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/international/europe/22monderman.html) European (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/sharing-space-german-town-scraps-road-signs-to-increase-safety-a-505246.html) towns (http://www.pps.org/blog/shared-space/) that did away with signal lights and traffic signs and, voila, traffic began to flow better, transit times decreased, and roadways became less dangerous for pedestrians and vehicle passengers alike.



The absence of conventional rules (https://theumlaut.com/2013/06/05/does-the-absence-of-rules-mean-chaos/) improved outcomes.



The concept of a “shared space”—an area without traditional traffic signs, signals, or regulations that’s intended to be used by both cars and pedestrians—underpins many such traffic reforms. Humans don’t normally need formal rules to figure out how to navigate a crowded sidewalk, the logic goes, and isn’t everyone driving a car really just a pedestrian wrapped in a 3,000-pound potentially-lethal steel box? Backers of the Poynton intersection project (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/09/in-praise-of-poynton-intersection) near Manchester, England, note (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vzDDMzq7d0) that “pedestrians in the shared-space scenario, when there are no lights to dictate behavior,




are seen as fellow road-users rather than obstacles in the way of the next light.”

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/controlled-chaos-european-cities-do-away-with-traffic-signs-a-448747.html


"The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate.

We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior,"

[]





"The greater the number of prescriptions,
the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles."



When you remove all of the guidance, it makes people (and that includes the bikers and pedestrians as well) much more cautious and careful --

so they tend to make fewer dangerous moves.


On top of that, it actually makes the traffic flow much more smoothly, allowing people to get where they're going much faster, even if they drive slower. Because they have fewer full stops and long waits to deal with, it's actually much more efficient.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061110/011804.shtml

[ghengis86]

Like all drug addictions, this is a medical problem and should be treated as such. I would be in favor of life in prison IF you kill someone with your car while intoxicated (booze, weed, coke, prescription drugs, etc.). Or other punishments commensurate with the actual crime (destruction of property), etc.

And it WOULD be way cheaper to subsidize cabs rides than imprison people. But then the prison industrial complex doesn't get rich and we can't have that now can we?

[phill4paul]

It snowed here in the south. I drove over to my parents to shovel their driveway. I couldn't believe it. People were actually skidding into oncoming lanes. MUH lane! These insane drivers that think they have a right to be on muh road while driving recklessly should be put away for life!

[Anti Federalist]

Moral of the story: Don't drink and drive kids!

Self driving cars cannot come soon enough for some people.

You do realize that the penalties for not standing by in a state of (sober) cat like readiness to monitor the machine will be even more harsh?

[phill4paul]

Like all drug addictions, this is a medical problem and should be treated as such. I would be in favor of life in prison IF you kill someone with your car while intoxicated (booze, weed, coke, prescription drugs, etc.). Or other punishments commensurate with the actual crime (destruction of property), etc.

And it WOULD be way cheaper to subsidize cabs rides than imprison people. But then the prison industrial complex doesn't get rich and we can't have that now can we?

That's why, in law, there are aggravating and mitigating factors. If someone totally sober blew through a red light and got T-boned by someone with a .08 BAC then I ,honestly, don't give a damn that the individual was drunk at the time of the accident. It was the other driver's fault. Period. "Drunk" driving should really never be more than an aggravating charge and then only if the "drunk" driver caused the accident.

[Anti Federalist]

and at the same time, as usual the liberty folk pretend to be obtuse when its actually a difficult situation with no right answer. they argue that we should wait until he kills someone before doing anything about him driving impaired and that just doesn't jive with reality. I dont' think life in prison is the answer, but doing nothing cuz he hasn't killed anybody yet isn't the right answer either.

So, if there's no "right answer", let's make sure that the default position is not "lock 'em up".

Because in Prison AmeriKa that is what it is right now, and why we have millions of people in prison.

[phill4paul]

So, if there's no "right answer", let's make sure that the default position is not "lock 'em up".

Because in Prison AmeriKa that is what it is right now, and why we have millions of people in prison.

Correct answer.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

[Anti Federalist]

It snowed here in the south. I drove over to my parents to shovel their driveway. I couldn't believe it. People were actually skidding into oncoming lanes. MUH lane! These insane drivers that think they have a right to be on muh road while driving recklessly should be put away for life!

Let some more Half Backs move in.

Then they'll elect an enlightened governor like Cuomo.

Who will lock you all down in your homes the next time it snows.

That's where all this safety shit heads, always.


NYC under travel ban from deadly East Coast snowstorm

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/01/23/blizzard-continues-slam-east-coast/79217258/

Under the travel ban, only emergency vehicles will be allowed on the streets, and drivers who ignore the order could face heavy fines and license points, Cuomo said.

[phill4paul]

Let some more Half Backs move in.

Then they'll elect an enlightened governor like Cuomo.

Who will lock you all down in your homes the next time it snows.

That's where all this safety shit heads, always.


NYC under travel ban from deadly East Coast snowstorm

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/01/23/blizzard-continues-slam-east-coast/79217258/

Under the travel ban, only emergency vehicl es will be allowed on the streets, and drivers who ignore the order could face heavy fines and license points, Cuomo said.

Cuomo doesn't sound too bad. At least he's not advocating life in prison or roadside summary executions. /snark

[Danke]

Life in prison, well at least he can make a lot of license plates during his time there.

[specsaregood]

So, if there's no "right answer", let's make sure that the default position is not "lock 'em up".


Agreed. But the position some people take here is akin to saying its fine to walk around pointing load guns at people and threatening to shoot as long as you don't actually shoot them; even missing them by inches is fine and dandy.

[Anti Federalist]

Agreed. But the position some people take here is akin to saying its fine to walk around pointing load guns at people and threatening to shoot as long as you don't actually shoot them; even missing them by inches is fine and dandy.

Yeah, fine line to be sure, I'm always willing to default to "let 'em go".

[Dr.3D]

Life in prison, well at least he can make a lot of license plates during his time there.
They need somebody to do that job. Perhaps that's part of the reason they've made it so easy to put people in prison.

[acesfull]

Don't you worry none. In another 20 yrs. autonomous cars will be mandated to subvert the "privilege" of travel. Then everyone will be safe. Of course you will still have to blow in a breathalyzer to start the damn thing...because children.

Do you mean subvert the Right" to travel? Traveling is a right, not a privilege.

Acesfull

[phill4paul]

Do you mean subvert the Right" to travel? Traveling is a right, not a privilege.

Acesfull

Do you exercise your "right" to travel? Do you have a driver's licence, proof of insurance, a tag and are you up to date on property taxes? If you do exercise your "right"to travel, if you do not submit to any of the following conditions, then...you've got a , personal, point.
Otherwise, I stand by my statement.

[Dr.3D]

Do you mean subvert the Right" to travel? Traveling is a right, not a privilege.

Acesfull
Walk all you want. You don't have a right to drive.

[acesfull]

Do you exercise your "right" to travel? Do you have a driver's licence, proof of insurance, a tag and are you up to date on property taxes? If you do exercise your "right"to travel, if you do not submit to any of the following conditions, then...you've got a , personal, point.
Otherwise, I stand by my statement.

Correct, I do not have any of those permit papers from the G, I also do not have a SS#...

Regards
Acesfull

[acesfull]

Walk all you want. You don't have a right to drive.

Correct, you do not have a right to drive, you have a right to travel... I travel in my automobile, I do not drive for commercial purposes. I travel for leisure in my pay for automobile...

I have won all my driving without a license complaints.

Regards
Acesfull

[phill4paul]

Agreed. But the position some people take here is akin to saying its fine to walk around pointing load guns at people and threatening to shoot as long as you don't actually shoot them; even missing them by inches is fine and dandy.

No. There is a certain amount of mens rea to that interaction you describe.

Your example would be akin to saying that someone that has been drinking will always purposely aim their car at someone, and swerves aside at the last minute. Essentially playing a game of "chicken." There's not a whole lot of that going on out there.

[Dr.3D]

Correct, you do not have a right to drive, you have a right to travel... I travel in my automobile, I do not drive for commercial purposes. I travel for leisure in my pay for automobile...

I have won all my driving without a license complaints.

Regards
Acesfull
LOL, okay... when you grow up, they will require that you have a drivers license and all the other state required paperwork before they will let you use an automobile.

That or you live out in the sticks where they aren't going to catch you doing otherwize.

[phill4paul]

Correct, I do not have any of those permit papers from the G, I also do not have a SS#...

Regards
Acesfull

Then, personally, you have a point. Not one I disagree with. For 99.9% of the population driving is a privilege. Which is why I put the word in quotes. The next step will be to confine the "privilege" of travel to autonomous vehicles only.

[acesfull]

Life in prison for 10 DUI convictions, seems like a clear violation of the 8th amendment to me..

If no person or property was injured or damaged, then the state is bringing the complaint.. In some states DUI is not a criminal act, but a civil act..

The punishment should suit the crime.. In this case, after the first two DUI, a mandatory year in prison for each additional DUI would seem reasonable..

My .02
Regards
Acesfull

[Ronin Truth]

9 DWIs and you'd be free.

Take the hint Dude, and get yourself some help.

You really won't get much to get drunk on in prison, for the rest of your life. :(

[presence]

9 DWIs and you'd be free.

Take the hint Dude, and get yourself some help.

You really won't get much to get drunk on in prison, for the rest of your life. :(

You'd be surprised, they homebrew ketchup packets in there ;)

[phill4paul]

You'd be surprised, they homebrew ketchup packets in there ;)

No shit. The one place where authoritarian control is the order of the day and lawlessness abounds.

[Ronin Truth]

You'd be surprised, they homebrew ketchup packets in there ;)

Drink up. He won't be gambling with the lives of other folks out on the streets.

One in ten drivers coming your way are driving while legally drunk.

[presence]

One in ten drivers coming your way are driving while legally drunk.


99 of 100 of the drunks never get caught, nothing ever happens, and no one is the wiser.

[acesfull]

Then, personally, you have a point. Not one I disagree with. For 99.9% of the population driving is a privilege. Which is why I put the word in quotes. The next step will be to confine the "privilege" of travel to autonomous vehicles only.

Yes, 99% of the people ignorantly give up their right for the privilege, they are fooled by the de facto government agency's into giving up their right for a so called privilege. They blindly enter into a contract with the state and DMV therefore they fall under the jurisdiction of the de facto agency's and the kangaroo traffic courts.. The state, the judges, the attorney's the insurance companies all make a fine living off of the ignorance of the 99%..

Think of it like this, if the 99% decided to forego the license and the insurance etc then the issue would be over.. Their house of cards would crumble. The same with taxes, if everyone decided that the IRS is simply the mafia with badges, extorting the fruits of our labors and decided to forgo paying any tax, the agency would seize to exist... They could not arrest everyone, their unconstitutional regulations and statutes would be null and void. The problem is that a few dissenters would be called " terrorist" or anti- American however if there were many dissenters then those many would be called " Patriots"

We need to ask ourselves are we "sheep' or are we simply Americans wanting to be left alone with our own lives aka "Patriots"?

Regards
Acesfull

[TheTexan]

I'm really glad they took this dangerous driver who has a history of never hurting anyone off the streets.

I feel much safer.

[Ronin Truth]

99 of 100 of the drunks never get caught, nothing ever happens, and no one is the wiser.

How many drunk driver involved accident deaths and serious injuries are there each year in the US?

With privately owned roads, insurance companies would be making the use rules and regulations.

[acesfull]

I'm really glad they took this dangerous driver who has a history of never hurting anyone off the streets.

I feel much safer.

Also the local bar owners are losing lots of cash with this guy in the joint...

[Origanalist]

Drink up. He won't be gambling with the lives of other folks out on the streets.

One in ten drivers coming your way are driving while legally drunk.

It must suck to be so afraid.

[Origanalist]

How many druck driver involved accident deaths and serious injuries are there each year in the US?

With privately owned roads, insurance companies would be making the use rules and regulations.

I just googled druck driver involved accident deaths and there aren't any.

[pcosmar]

Agreed. But the position some people take here is akin to saying its fine to walk around pointing load guns at people and threatening to shoot as long as you don't actually shoot them; even missing them by inches is fine and dandy.

NO,, That is a straw man argument repeatedly brought up in every DUI thread.

That straw horse needs no more beating.

[pcosmar]

How many druck driver involved accident deaths and serious injuries are there each year in the US?

Very few actually,, in comparison to other causes.

Alcohol induced fatalities are a small fraction.

Though "alcohol related" are considerably more statistically. mostly in those alcohol had nothing to do with the incident,, but was a side issue.

Question

If a sober driver crashes into a bar full of drunks , how mane alcohol related incidents is that?

[Ronin Truth]

Very few actually,, in comparison to other causes.

Alcohol induced fatalities are a small fraction.

Though "alcohol related" are considerably more statistically. mostly in those alcohol had nothing to do with the incident,, but was a side issue.

Question

If a sober driver crashes into a bar full of drunks , how mane alcohol related incidents is that?

None.

Now answer mine, please.

[Ronin Truth]

I just googled druck driver involved accident deaths and there aren't any.

OK, thanks.

[jonhowe]

https://realizethelies.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/precrime1.jpg

To be fair, this isn't pre "crime" if we define crime according to the laws as they stand today.

Driving drunk is like firing a gun into a crowded room; it is inherently dangerous and puts those around you at risk. I'm fine with it being a crime. But the punishment should be treatment for alcohol addiction and abuse, not jail (unless someone is physically harmed).


Not sure about the situation in the OP. Would need more details.

[William Tell]

I just googled druck driver involved accident deaths and there aren't any.


OK, thanks.

Well, that's resolved.

:D

[pcosmar]

You'd be surprised, they homebrew ketchup packets in there ;)

Peach and Tomato..was a popular one..

Never tried it,, couldn't get past the smell.

[Origanalist]

Well, that's resolved.

:D

That doesn't happen very often here.

[pcosmar]

To be fair, this isn't pre "crime" if we define crime according to the laws as they stand today.



The only way I describe Law as it stands today is corrupted. Completely beyond repair.

Crime is the harm done. Actual Harm or loss..

In this case there is none (as far as known) He did not so much as scratch paint.

Now,, had he done so,, he would be responsible for the crime of scratching paint. (or what ever damage was done)
Why and how he scratched the paint is irrelevant.. The damage is the "Crime".

drowsiness , drunkenness,, or mechanical failure,, they are all irrelevant..
scratched paint is the crime.. Who is responsible for the scratched paint,, and what Restoration is required are what the law should cover.

[tod evans]

To be fair, this isn't pre "crime" if we define crime according to the laws as they stand today.

Driving drunk is like firing a gun into a crowded room; it is inherently dangerous and puts those around you at risk. I'm fine with it being a crime. But the punishment should be treatment for alcohol addiction and abuse, not jail (unless someone is physically harmed).


Not sure about the situation in the OP. Would need more details.

WTF?

How is drunk driving any different than any other form of distracted driving?

Following your illogical analogy the new mother driving her sick child to the pediatrician's office should also be guilty of a crime and sentenced to some remedial program..

Try to disregard the publix-skool learnin' and see if maybe you can do better...

[phill4paul]

WTF?

How is drunk driving any different than any other form of distracted driving?

Following your illogical analogy the new mother driving her sick child to the pediatrician's office should also be guilty of a crime and sentenced to some remedial program..

Try to disregard the publix-skool learnin' and see if maybe you can do better...

Agreed. Enough with these "drunk driving is like exploding a nuclear bomb in a volcano over a fault line" strawmen.

[Suzanimal]

I just googled druck driver involved accident deaths and there aren't any.

There's a Mothers Against Druck Driving

http://www.acronymattic.com/Mothers-Against-Druck-Driving-(MADD).html

[tod evans]

Agreed. Enough with these "drunk driving is like exploding a nuclear bomb in a volcano over a fault line" strawmen.

But dey teached dat in da DARE programz........

[Theocrat]

Walk all you want. You don't have a right to drive.

Says who?

[Dr.3D]

Says who?
Point out in the Bill of Rights where you have a right to drive a motor vehicle.

[pcosmar]

There's a Mothers Against Druck Driving

http://www.acronymattic.com/Mothers-Against-Druck-Driving-(MADD).html

And there is DAMM

http://damm-madd.com/

[pcosmar]

Point out in the Bill of Rights where you have a right to drive a motor vehicle.

Were there drivers licenses and tags for horses and carriages?

That would be no.. The freedom to travel was established long before licensing scams began.

[sam1952]

all this talk kinda reminds me that you can get a DUI for riding a bike, horse, lawn mower, I guess anything... But you can"t get a DUI for walking drunk...... just arrested for that.

[Dr.3D]

So there is a right to be offended after all.

[euphemia]

Clearly some of you have never had friends or relatives injured or killed by a drunk driver with mulitple offenses. I hope you never have that experience. It's not fun when the perp is out in a couple of years and right back to his old tricks. Dude was under age, for starters, and so drunk he didn't know why his car stopped. He just killed three people and couldn't figure out he'd had a wreck.

[phill4paul]

Clearly some of you have never had friends or relatives injured or killed by a drunk driver with mulitple offenses. I hope you never have that experience. It's not fun when the perp is out in a couple of years and right back to his old tricks. Dude was under age, for starters, and so drunk he didn't know why his car stopped. He just killed three people and couldn't figure out he'd had a wreck.

This guy didn't kill anyone so your appeal to emotion is a fail.

[Theocrat]

Point out in the Bill of Rights where you have a right to drive a motor vehicle.


Were there drivers licenses and tags for horses and carriages?

That would be no.. The freedom to travel was established long before licensing scams began.

Dr.3D, you of all people should know that we don't get our rights from "The Bill of Rights." "The Bill of Rights" exist to keep the federal government from encroaching upon our rights, which come from our Creator. Even The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[Emphasis mine]

Your question about where the right to drive an automobile is found in "The Bill of Rights" sounds an awful like liberals who ask us to cite where in the Second Amendment can it be found the right to own an automatic weapon. Such anachronisms not only show the ignorance about the original intent of our documents, but it also exposes a serious deficit in one's political philosophy of liberty.

The right to travel (and the means to do it) is a God-given right. It does not belong to any civil government institution because such institutions do not own human bodies, nor have they created the natural world upon which humans can move and have their being. If anything, the civil authorities have the duty to protect our God-given right to travel by punishing those who use the means of travel to destroy life and/or damage property. But those civil authorities have no right to license traveling (by whatever means one chooses to do so) as a privilege because it is not theirs to bestow upon people.

[pcosmar]

Clearly some of you have never had friends or relatives injured or killed by a drunk driver with mulitple offenses. I hope you never have that experience. It's not fun when the perp is out in a couple of years and right back to his old tricks. Dude was under age, for starters, and so drunk he didn't know why his car stopped. He just killed three people and couldn't figure out he'd had a wreck.

It happens. And it happens often for many reasons.
Alcohol statistically is a rare cause..less than 10% of fatalities. (closer to 5%)

Yes,,alcohol can make people stupid.

But stupid people are legal to drive everywhere.

[nobody's_hero]

NO,, That is a straw man argument repeatedly brought up in every DUI thread.

That straw horse needs no more beating.

Could you elaborate on how you see it as a 'strawman' argument? You might feel it is a dead horse but to others, it is a good point. Making a threatening gesture with a lethal weapon against innocents could easily apply to guns as well as 2,000lb vehicles driving down the entrance ramp in the opposite direction on the highway.

Most of us agree with the 'no harm, no foul' principle but not everyone reaches the same conclusion on what constitutes harm here. It sounds like technically, 'harassment' isn't a crime in libertarian utopia, and if so, what rational person would want to live there?

[tod evans]

Clearly some of you have never had friends or relatives injured or killed by a drunk driver with mulitple offenses. I hope you never have that experience. It's not fun when the perp is out in a couple of years and right back to his old tricks. Dude was under age, for starters, and so drunk he didn't know why his car stopped. He just killed three people and couldn't figure out he'd had a wreck.

Remove the word "drunk" from your statement and substitute any other distraction and see if you can justify your position on this matter.......

What if the kid were getting a blowjob and ran over 3 people would you blame oral sex?

[Ronin Truth]

Remove the word "drunk" from your statement and substitute any other distraction and see if you can justify your position on this matter.......

What if the kid were getting a blowjob and ran over 3 people would you blame oral sex? Nope, the kid. Just like the drunk.

[euphemia]

It happens. And it happens often for many reasons.
Alcohol statistically is a rare cause..less than 10% of fatalities. (closer to 5%)

It's not a straw man, either. It was a mom, her teenage son, and her son's girlfriend. It was mom's birthday. Drunk ran a red light and crushed their car. He was too drunk to know he'd caused a wreck and killed three people. He was out in the street trying to figure out why his car stopped. He definitely violated the right to life of three people.

If driving is a right, it is one that carries more responsibility than almost any other right, because it is the one where the lives of others can be at stake if the right is misused. People who are determined to claim a broad spectrum of rights should be the most responsible people on earth. Other people have rights, too. I have the right to drive to work without some crackpot who woke up late, can't get off the phone, and demands I get out of his way. I have the right to go to the store without having to deal with a teenage couple who are a little too friendly while driving. If there is the right to drive, then it's not the right to drive plus something else. It's the right to drive. Drive the car. Be sober, and leave other people alone.

Maybe we could go down this path a bit. If someone takes away the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, maybe they should be brought up on federal civil rights charges.

[Theocrat]

Clearly some of you have never had friends or relatives injured or killed by a drunk driver with mulitple offenses. I hope you never have that experience. It's not fun when the perp is out in a couple of years and right back to his old tricks. Dude was under age, for starters, and so drunk he didn't know why his car stopped. He just killed three people and couldn't figure out he'd had a wreck.

Though I have never had a loved one killed by a drunk driver, I have immense sympathy for those who have suffered loss by such murders. The problem I saw immediately in your case above is that justice was not served by the court; the punishment did not fit the crime. The guy who killed those 3 innocent people should have received the death penalty for murder, not time in prison at the taxpayers' expense. He took lives irresponsibly, so therefore, his life should have been taken as restitution to the lives of his victims. If that had happened, then he would not have returned to his old, irresponsible habits, and also, it would (or could) serve as a deterrent to other would-be drunk drivers to be responsible with their behavior on the roads.

[euphemia]

Here's the problem with driving being a right. Everyone assumes because they have insurance, they are covered against stupidity. Unless the driver is willing to pay full compensatory damages to the victim of his negligence, then he should not plan to drive. I have yet to meet anyone who is willing to go beyond what their insurance company will pay, and some people actually hit and injure people and then take off. It happened to us. Not only was my car totalled, my daughter and I were both injured. Our insurance company was not all that generous, and the police did not seem to think finding the driver was a priority. We were hurt, but because we did not jump out of the car and read the tiny little number on the drive out dealer tag, they weren't going to help us. So we were the victims of someone else's negligence. We had our liberty curtailed due to the injuries and our property taken. We had to bear the full expense of that ourselves because someone claimed the right to drive.

[pcosmar]

Here's the problem with driving being a right. Everyone assumes because they have insurance,

Woah

Stop right there.

Insurance is one of the biggest problems. It allows stupid and poor drivers to be able to afford being stupid and incompetent.

It was not always the case.. My first car had no insurance. I was responsible..and I drove that way.

[Snowball]

This is too extreme.
There are many accidents that hurt people and have nothing to do with alcohol
(over 70% of fatal accidents) but the drivers almost never lose their license.
You can be "sober" and kill people but keep your license.
You can be high or otherwise impaired/distracted on many substances including prescription drugs
but nothing will happen if you are pulled over.
Driving after drinking will ruin your life even if you don't commit a traffic violation.
You can be driving perfectly and still pay a huge price.

[jonhowe]

WTF?

How is drunk driving any different than any other form of distracted driving?

Following your illogical analogy the new mother driving her sick child to the pediatrician's office should also be guilty of a crime and sentenced to some remedial program..

Try to disregard the publix-skool learnin' and see if maybe you can do better...

Drunkenness is not a distraction, it's intoxication. Not sure where you got this idea in your head that being drunk is a distraction. Drunk drivers are actually some of the most focused; they often drift over the yellow line precisely because they're concentrating so hard on it while driving.

I can walk a straight line when distracted. I can carry on a conversation, chew gum, listen to music, etc, and walk a straight line. Hell, I can even juggle and walk a straight line.

Maybe it's just me, but when I'm hammered I can't walk a straight line, and I certainly can't drive with any measure of safety.

A distraction can be ignored, switched off, etc. Intoxication cannot.


Your analogy is flawed.


EDIT: I learned to juggle in public school.

[jonhowe]

Remove the word "drunk" from your statement and substitute any other distraction and see if you can justify your position on this matter.......

What if the kid were getting a blowjob and ran over 3 people would you blame oral sex?

Great, so we agree both things should be illegal? Drunk driving and oral sex driving?

[pcosmar]

Maybe we could go down this path a bit. If someone takes away the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, maybe they should be brought up on federal civil rights charges.

No need. There is already a crime of Murder.. and that is separated into categories. Intentional (1st degree)l, unintentional (2nd degree) accidental (Manslaughter)

The sadness at a loss is understandable. but the DUI laws make no sense.
would you call for the same draconian laws fi someone had blown a tire and hit the same car?
or the brakes failed on the car that ran the light.. rather than drunk. (Brake failure is more common)

Would you react the same?

[phill4paul]

I have the right to drive to work without some crackpot who woke up late, can't get off the phone, and demands I get out of his way.

You don't have that right, because it is not a right.


I have the right to go to the store without having to deal with a teenage couple who are a little too friendly while driving.

You don't have that right, because it is not a right.


If there is the right to drive, then it's not the right to drive plus something else. It's the right to drive. Drive the car. Be sober, and leave other people alone.

Liberals like to place restrictions on how others can exercise their rights.

[Ronin Truth]

No need. There is already a crime of Murder.. and that is separated into categories. Intentional (1st degree)l, unintentional (2nd degree) accidental (Manslaughter)

The sadness at a loss is understandable. but the DUI laws make no sense.
would you call for the same draconian laws fi someone had blown a tire and hit the same car?
or the brakes failed on the car that ran the light.. rather than drunk. (Brake failure is more common)

Would you react the same?

I believe it's called reckless endangerment and driving without due regard. (Which it is.)

If you see a three year old carrying a loaded UZI, take it away, as a greater danger, preventative measure.

[pcosmar]

Could you elaborate on how you see it as a 'strawman' argument? You might feel it is a dead horse but to others, it is a good point. Making a threatening gesture with a lethal weapon against innocents



It is not a good point at all. Not even in the same realm,, however there is a law against Brandishing a weapon,, in most places.

I am not defending the stupidity of driving drunk,, or of driving with no sleep or on bald tires,,

I am only speaking to to stupidity misuse and abuse of DUI Laws.

I have been a victim of them twice. I have never wrecked a car ever.
It is an over-abused issue,

as to the right to travel,, it should be without question,, the same as firearm ownership.

but fuck that,, I'm a prohibited person.

[Ronin Truth]

It is not a good point at all. Not even in the same realm,, however there is a law against Brandishing a weapon,, in most places.

I am not defending the stupidity of driving drunk,, or of driving with no sleep or on bald tires,,

I am only speaking to to stupidity misuse and abuse of DUI Laws.

I have been a victim of them twice. I have never wrecked a car ever.
It is an over-abused issue,

as to the right to travel,, it should be without question,, the same as firearm ownership.

but fuck that,, I'm a prohibited person.

Some of life's lessons are just more expensive than others, and unfair. :(

The problem is not driving drunk. The problem is getting caught driving drunk ....... twice. For some it builds character.

[tod evans]

Drunkenness is not a distraction, it's intoxication. Not sure where you got this idea in your head that being drunk is a distraction. Drunk drivers are actually some of the most focused; they often drift over the yellow line precisely because they're concentrating so hard on it while driving.

I can walk a straight line when distracted. I can carry on a conversation, chew gum, listen to music, etc, and walk a straight line. Hell, I can even juggle and walk a straight line.

Maybe it's just me, but when I'm hammered I can't walk a straight line, and I certainly can't drive with any measure of safety.

A distraction can be ignored, switched off, etc. Intoxication cannot.


Your analogy is flawed.


EDIT: I learned to juggle in public school.

I take it you're not a parent....

Sorry bud but it's your analogy that's flawed, if one takes the legal definition of "drunk" and compares it to the sleepless parent it's going to be the parent who's unable to concentrate well enough to pilot an automobile..

We could discuss what-ifs ad nauseum..........To what end though?

I don't want government to have the authority to check the physical or mental state of anybody for any reason.

It's apparent you do.

[jonhowe]

I take it you're not a parent....

Sorry bud but it's your analogy that's flawed, if one takes the legal definition of "drunk" and compares it to the sleepless parent it's going to be the parent who's unable to concentrate well enough to pilot an automobile..

We could discuss what-ifs ad nauseum..........To what end though?

I don't want government to have the authority to check the physical or mental state of anybody for any reason.

It's apparent you do.

Guess I'm a statist then. Time to vote for Rubio :rolleyes:


I'd like to see your source on impairment of sleep vs being wasted.




Again, I don't think DUI laws are good as they are; throwing people in jail doesn't solve the problem. And an arbitrary measurement of BAC does not indicate level of impairment. Only observed reckless driving followed by a failed sobriety check (or, impairment check) should result in any kind of legal action.

[pcosmar]

Some of life's lessons are just more expensive than others, and unfair. :(

The problem is not driving drunk. The problem is getting caught driving drunk ....... twice. For some it builds character.
actually,, i was not driving drunk on either of those occasions.

Once I was not driving,,the second I was no where near drunk (but I had a beer)

[pcosmar]

I'd like to see your source on impairment of sleep vs being wasted.

.

We have already eviscerated the MADD claimed statistics in other threads.

but this is just one source.
http://drowsydriving.org/about/facts-and-stats/

According to the National Sleep Foundation’s 2005 Sleep in America poll, 60% of adult drivers – about 168 million people – say they have driven a vehicle while feeling drowsy in the past year, and more than one-third, (37% or 103 million people), have actually fallen asleep at the wheel! In fact, of those who have nodded off, 13% say they have done so at least once a month. Four percent – approximately eleven million drivers – admit they have had an accident or near accident because they dozed off or were too tired to drive.

Here is the government's,
http://www.cdc.gov/features/dsdrowsydriving/

and from media,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/drowsy-driving-dangerous-drunk-sleepy_n_1557200.html

and yet another (there are many)
http://school.sleepeducation.com/drowsydrivingstats.aspx


The AAA Foundation also estimates that drowsy driving is involved in:

6% of all crashes in which a vehicle was towed from the scene
7% of crashes in which a person received treatment for injuries sustained in the crash
13% of crashes in which a person was hospitalized

Based on these estimates, the AAA Foundation projects that drowsy driving plays a role in an average of 328,000 crashes annually. This total includes 109,000 crashes that result in injuries and 6,400 fatal crashes.

The actual impact of drowsy driving may be even higher than the statistics show. It is difficult to know how drowsy someone was prior to an accident. Unlike drunk driving, there is no “breathalyzer” test for drowsiness. So unless a driver admits falling asleep, drowsy driving often goes unreported.


Oddly,, the AAA drowsy driving is quite close to the corrected drunk driving statistics.

which still leave 80% of fatal accidents caused by something else.


Just to get things perfectly clear.
You ARE going to die. You,,me,, everyone. period

The chance of dying in a car is statistically slim to start with.. (lots of other places)
The chance of a drunk driver killing you is even slimmer at about 6% or round it to 10 if you like. but that's it.

slim chance at a slim chance.

be careful taking your bath.

[Ronin Truth]

actually,, i was not driving drunk on either of those occasions.

Once I was not driving,,the second I was no where near drunk (but I had a beer)

Well then, that really double sucks. :p Sorry. :(

[Occam's Banana]

and at the same time, as usual the liberty folk pretend to be obtuse when its actually a difficult situation with no right answer. they argue that we should wait until he kills someone before doing anything about him driving impaired and that just doesn't jive with reality. I dont' think life in prison is the answer, but doing nothing cuz he hasn't killed anybody yet isn't the right answer either.

There won't be anything but half-assed and unsatisfactory solutions to this sort of problem as long as roads remain "public" and every Tom, Dick and Harry (and specs and Banana and phill and spud and etc.) have different ideas about what should or should not be tolerated on "muh roads" ...

[Ronin Truth]

annual us drunk driving deaths

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=annual+us+drunk+driving+deaths&gbv=2&oq=annual+US+drunk+&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0.2703.11672.0.15734.16.13.0.3.3.0.359.2734 .0j3j8j1.12.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..1.15.2811.CtUweq9WqE4

[phill4paul]

annual us drunk driving deaths

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=annual+us+drunk+driving+deaths&gbv=2&oq=annual+US+drunk+&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0.2703.11672.0.15734.16.13.0.3.3.0.359.2734 .0j3j8j1.12.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..1.15.2811.CtUweq9WqE4

A non-profit abstinence advocate is the number one hit? The government agency that they lobby to is the next? Weird.

[Ronin Truth]

A non-profit abstinence advocate is the number one hit? The government agency that they lobby to is the next? Weird.

No one said the world wasn't weird. Have a drink.

[phill4paul]

No one said the world wasn't weird. Have a drink.

Time to turn pro.

[euphemia]

Chase all the rabbit trails you want. The fact is, that when people demand the right to drive under any and all conditions, even when they know they are impaired, we have a problem with rights. The free exercise of my rights doesn't put other people at high risk of injury or death because I am responsible. I don't assume I am always okay to drive. If someone has been stopped because they are in the wrong lane, and they fail a field sobriety test (reaction and coordination), they should learn to make other arrangements. Clearly what we have in the OP is someone who can feel but he can't hear. He has not learned that under certain circumstances he is not okay to drive. If he has been told that 10 times and is still driving after heavy alcohol consumption, he needs to be taught another way.

There are many free or inexpensive ways to get sober and stay that way. Clearly, the man discussed in the OP has not used the resources at his disposal. At some point he needs to be compelled to either stop drinking or stop driving.

[TheTexan]

Chase all the rabbit trails you want. The fact is, that when people demand the right to drive under any and all conditions, even when they know they are impaired, we have a problem with rights. The free exercise of my rights doesn't put other people at high risk of injury or death because I am responsible. I don't assume I am always okay to drive. If someone has been stopped because they are in the wrong lane, and they fail a field sobriety test (reaction and coordination), they should learn to make other arrangements. Clearly what we have in the OP is someone who can feel but he can't hear. He has not learned that under certain circumstances he is not okay to drive. If he has been told that 10 times and is still driving after heavy alcohol consumption, he needs to be taught another way.

There are many free or inexpensive ways to get sober and stay that way. Clearly, the man discussed in the OP has not used the resources at his disposal. At some point he needs to be compelled to either stop drinking or stop driving.

I agree 100%. And everyone who drives above the speed limit should likewise be compelled to stop driving. They are putting lives at risk.

Same goes for people who make rolling stops at stop signs. I don't have statistics on hand for how many traffic casualties are due to people not making a full and complete stop at stop signs, but I imagine it's quite a few.

These people need to be taken off the roads. Many lives would be saved.

[otherone]

I agree 100%. And everyone who drives above the speed limit should likewise be compelled to stop driving. They are putting lives at risk.

Same goes for people who make rolling stops at stop signs. I don't have statistics on hand for how many traffic casualties are due to people not making a full and complete stop at stop signs, but I imagine it's quite a few.

These people need to be taken off the roads. Many lives would be saved.

Thanks, my friend, for ensuring my right to feel safe.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Chase all the rabbit trails you want. The fact is, that when people demand the right to drive under any and all conditions, even when they know they are impaired, we have a problem with rights. The free exercise of my rights doesn't put other people at high risk of injury or death because I am responsible. I don't assume I am always okay to drive. If someone has been stopped because they are in the wrong lane, and they fail a field sobriety test (reaction and coordination), they should learn to make other arrangements. Clearly what we have in the OP is someone who can feel but he can't hear. He has not learned that under certain circumstances he is not okay to drive. If he has been told that 10 times and is still driving after heavy alcohol consumption, he needs to be taught another way.

There are many free or inexpensive ways to get sober and stay that way. Clearly, the man discussed in the OP has not used the resources at his disposal. At some point he needs to be compelled to either stop drinking or stop driving.

Sorry but you are wrong. "My right to swing my arms ends at your nose..." This simple statement puts rights and responsibilities into perspective. I have a right to swing my arms but that right ends when I hit your nose (or other parts). As long as I'm not causing harm to persons or property I have a right to do whatever I want. Shoot a gun in a crowded theater? Yes, if I can do it without hurting anyone or any property then I have that right (it would be pretty hard to pull that off). Drive drunk?? I knew many who could drive better drunk than a lot of people I know driving sober. I don't recommend it but as long as you have not hurt anyone then you have that right. You actually have a "right" to do any stupid thing that you want to do. Most of the time people don't do stupid things because some stupid things result in ending your life and most people want to live...

[William Tell]

That doesn't happen very often here.

You and Google are make a cute couple.

[Origanalist]

You and Google are make a cute couple.

Had a couple already Willie?

[pcosmar]

Some of life's lessons are just more expensive than others, and unfair. :(

For some it builds character.

I have been described as a character.

[Ronin Truth]

I have been described as a character.

I'd describe you that way too. :D

[GunnyFreedom]

I see them every single day. One minute they are driving normal and the next they are all over the place. Put em all in prison for life, I deserve to be kept safe!

And those idiots eating Arby sammiches on the road! Give those m'fers the CHAIR!

[euphemia]

I agree. Driving is not something people should do while they are distracted. If people were responsible in the first place, we would not have so many laws. It is the nature of government to take responsibility when people refuse to. Libertarians must be responsible if they expect government to butt out.

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree. Driving is not something people should do while they are distracted. If people were responsible in the first place, we would not have so many laws. It is the nature of government to take responsibility when people refuse to. Libertarians must be responsible if they expect government to butt out.

A crime has only taken place if and when there is a victim. I am all for impairment being used as a multiplier for an existing crime. Accidentally take out a mailbox sober and it's a traffic ticket and pay the victim to make it whole. Intentionally take out a mailbox and it's a misdemeanor and make the victim whole. Take out a mailbox drunk and call it a felony, accidental or otherwise. However, in the realm of "liberty," you simply cannot have a crime when there is no victim.

[Origanalist]

I agree. Driving is not something people should do while they are distracted. If people were responsible in the first place, we would not have so many laws. It is the nature of government to take responsibility when people refuse to. Libertarians must be responsible if they expect government to butt out.

Did I just wander into Police 1 by accident?

[Origanalist]

A crime has only taken place if and when there is a victim. I am all for impairment being used as a multiplier for an existing crime. Accidentally take out a mailbox sober and it's a traffic ticket and pay the victim to make it whole. Intentionally take out a mailbox and it's a misdemeanor and make the victim whole. Take out a mailbox drunk and call it a felony, accidental or otherwise. However, in the realm of "liberty," you simply cannot have a crime when there is no victim.

I'm not in favor of that either. If you take out a mailbox you take out a mailbox. Pay for it. In your scenario the poor bastard that had two beers will inevitably end up getting a felony.

[euphemia]

Did I just wander into Police 1 by accident?

Of course not, but if you want to drive drunk, you need to be able to pay for the damage. I think an insurance company might not look so kindly on it and might deny your claim. Be prepared. Damages are usually about 2.5 times the actual damages.

If you want freedom, you have to be willing to pay when it doesn't work out so well.

[otherone]

Accidentally take out a mailbox sober and it's a traffic ticket and pay the victim to make it whole.

That's a civil matter.

[tod evans]

Of course not, but if you want to drive drunk, you need to be able to pay for the damage. I think an insurance company might not look so kindly on it and might deny your claim. Be prepared. Damages are usually about 2.5 times the actual damages.

If you want freedom, you have to be willing to pay when it doesn't work out so well.

Fixed that for you.......

Take "drunk" out of the equation.....

There's more blue-hairs cruising these hills on a cornucopia of pharmaceuticals than there are drunks and believe you me they cause a hell of a lot more damage than the booze hounds...

But really any type of distraction can lead to a fatality including and especially a set of gumballs lighting up your mirror when you're doing 75 at night on the interstate..

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm not in favor of that either. If you take out a mailbox you take out a mailbox. Pay for it. In your scenario the poor bastard that had two beers will inevitably end up getting a felony.

I didn't actually mean that a drunk mailbox crasher should actually get a felony, I was exaggerating to explain the concept of a multiplier.

[Origanalist]

Of course not, but if you want to drive drunk, you need to be able to pay for the damage. I think an insurance company might not look so kindly on it and might deny your claim. Be prepared. Damages are usually about 2.5 times the actual damages.

If you want freedom, you have to be willing to pay when it doesn't work out so well.

OK mom.

[Origanalist]

Of course not, but if you want to drive drunk, you need to be able to pay for the damage. I think an insurance company might not look so kindly on it and might deny your claim. Be prepared. Damages are usually about 2.5 times the actual damages.

If you want freedom, you have to be willing to pay when it doesn't work out so well.

How long have you been driving?

[tonyaustin]

Moral of the story: Don't drink and drive kids!

Self driving cars cannot come soon enough for some people.

The government and police/courts/prison industrial complex will not want to end the DWI gravy train. They will likely have some sort of rule that you must be prepared at all times to take over from the AI and therefore must not be impaired.

[ChristianAnarchist]

The will government and police/courts/prison industrial complex will not want to end the DWI gravy train. They will likely have some sort of rule that you must be prepared at all times to take over from the AI and therefore must not be impaired.

Oh believe me... Every goon agency that exists is dreading the day we all have self-driving cars. The biggest nightmare for the goons is to lose their gravy-train money machine ticket mill. If all the cars drive according to the "rules" they are all out of work!!

[tonyaustin]

Oh believe me... Every goon agency that exists is dreading the day we all have self-driving cars. The biggest nightmare for the goons is to lose their gravy-train money machine ticket mill. If all the cars drive according to the "rules" they are all out of work!!

So it won't happen any time soon and I would go as far as to say some jurisdictions will ban it's use.

[Origanalist]

How long have you been driving?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9c_KttvQPU

[ChristianAnarchist]

Sorry but you are wrong. "My right to swing my arms ends at your nose..." This simple statement puts rights and responsibilities into perspective. I have a right to swing my arms but that right ends when I hit your nose (or other parts). As long as I'm not causing harm to persons or property I have a right to do whatever I want. Shoot a gun in a crowded theater? Yes, if I can do it without hurting anyone or any property then I have that right (it would be pretty hard to pull that off). Drive drunk?? I knew many who could drive better drunk than a lot of people I know driving sober. I don't recommend it but as long as you have not hurt anyone then you have that right. You actually have a "right" to do any stupid thing that you want to do. Most of the time people don't do stupid things because some stupid things result in ending your life and most people want to live...

I guess no one wanted to address the above... Oh well, I'll further comment by bringing up a very famous pilot (whom I will not name). If you have spent any time going to airshows 10 to 30 years ago you probably saw him perform. He is one of the greatest pilots to ever live. Although I have only seen him at appearances I volunteer for the Reno Air Races so I rub elbows with many people who know him well. They all have the same report -- He never flew sober... Put that in your "one size fits all pipe and smoke it" rules. The man could fly anything and make those planes do things the designers say they should not be able to do... Probably never flew with blood alcohol levels under .02...

[Origanalist]

I guess no one wanted to address the above... Oh well, I'll further comment by bringing up a very famous pilot (whom I will not name). If you have spent any time going to airshows 10 to 30 years ago you probably saw him perform. He is one of the greatest pilots to ever live. Although I have only seen him at appearances I volunteer for the Reno Air Races so I rub elbows with many people who know him well. They all have the same report -- He never flew sober... Put that in your "one size fits all pipe and smoke it" rules. The man could fly anything and make those planes do things the designers say they should not be able to do... Probably never flew with blood alcohol levels under .02...

I think nobody addressed it because most of us agree.