Think drunk driving is a victimless crime?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
5,769
Likes
3,538
These threads are just miserable.

It comes down to this: Many, if not most, will trade inconvenience for the promise of safety. And those same people think that government force is special. They don't see it as just another mob, corrupt and susceptible to irrationality and abuse. They would never tell you how letting a local street gang harass drivers might improve safety, but they will prattle on endlessly about how letting an elected gang do the same is a great idea.

They think majority vote establishes moral authority. They think problems demand solutions, that ends necessitate all manner of means. Because they are the majority (and they always are) these people are the driving force behind the demise of liberty, assuming such liberty is ever established in the first place (and it rarely is).

Stand up to them and they accuse you of complicity with the problem. Don't like a police state harassing drivers? Then you must like drunk driving. Don't like kicking in doors to get the druggies? Then you must like overdoses. Don't like government? Then you must want violent and thuggish anarchy (they can't imagine anarchy any other way).

Fear, along with the weakness it feeds, is the single biggest corrupter of mankind. That it is the most coddled of human emotions is telling of man's failures.
 
Last edited:

GunGrey

Banned
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
6,640
Likes
1,189
Location
The Western side of HELL
Would you steal from a store if laws against shoplifting were removed?
i'm not a piece of shit so no i wouldn't steal.

if drunk driving wasnt a crime i still wouldnt do it because the risk of hurting someone else and the risk of destroying a piece of property that makes my life much easier is not worth it.
 

flintoid

Banned
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
5,496
Likes
2,440
Location
your tight sphincter
A number of people have been executed in this country and turned out to be innocent, no amount of law and order can protect everyone.
Correct. But more careful application of law can help protect the innocent.

It depends on what your priorities are. Do you want to protect the innocent? Or do you want to makes sure that you have effectively handled the "bad" within a higher certainty at the risk of the innocent.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,786
Likes
2,972
Location
Green Eggs and...
so we know you like laws. Why not have laws that punish the end result of bad behavior instead of just bad behavior?

I find bad behavior without bad results to be troublesome to diagnose as "bad." Especially when you include all of the variables that have been touched on in this thread.
Because I believe that enforcing laws against OUI decreases the instances of OUI, likely significantly, and therefore are worthwhile. This is largely based of my own experiences.

Again, agree to disagree.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
 

flintoid

Banned
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
5,496
Likes
2,440
Location
your tight sphincter
Because I believe that enforcing laws against OUI decreases the instances of OUI, likely significantly, and therefore are worthwhile. This is largely based of my own experiences.

Again, agree to disagree.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
I have a hard time agreeing with discretionary laws that can endanger people's freedoms.

For the sake of our country, I hope that people like you end up on the wrong side of the discretion that keeps the order you so crave. It makes me sick to say that, but there's really no other way (it appears, because you like to strike down debate - anything that crosses your opinion- as incorrect, it appears). Hopefully I'm wrong.

This is largely based off my own experiences. We definitely disagree.
 

ColdDayInHell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
23,459
Likes
4,710
Location
North Shore
These threads are just miserable.

It comes down to this: Many, if not most, will trade inconvenience for the promise of safety. And those same people think that government force is special. They don't see it as just another mob, corrupt and susceptible to irrationality and abuse. They would never tell you how letting a local street gang harass drivers might improve safety, but they will prattle on endlessly about how letting an elected gang do the same is a great idea.

They think majority vote establishes moral authority. They think problems demand solutions, that ends necessitate all manner of means. Because they are the majority (and they always are) these people are the driving force behind the demise of liberty, assuming such liberty is ever established in the first place (and it rarely is).

Stand up to them and they accuse you of complicity with the problem. Don't like a police state harassing drivers? Then you must like drunk driving. Don't like kicking in doors to get the druggies? Then you must like overdoses. Don't like government? Then you must want violent and thuggish anarchy (they can't imagine anarchy any other way).

Fear, along with the weakness it feeds, is the single biggest corrupter of mankind. That it is the most coddled of human emotions is telling of man's failures.

+1
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
66,805
Likes
23,294
My house's curtilage has been struck 3 times since I've lived here, each and every time by a drunk driver. All three were convicted and all three were my neighbors: My stone wall once and the telephone pole in front of my house, which stopped the vehicle and the pole did not fall onto my house.

Would you have cut them a break?
I'm not saying I would "cut them a break" just that I don't think that someone who did something like that should be legally treated the same way as someone who made a conscious decision to steal from me.

Did you sue your neighbor (s) for damages to your wall or other affected areas of your property?

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
14,787
Likes
7,520
Location
Southern NH
so we know you like laws. Why not have laws that punish the end result of bad behavior instead of just bad behavior?

I find bad behavior without bad results to be troublesome to diagnose as "bad." Especially when you include all of the variables that have been touched on in this thread.
That right there is the crux of the debate really.

These threads are just miserable.
I think this thread has been quite interesting. Lots of different opinions and perspectives. Forums would suck if everyone had the same opinion and were full of group think.

They think majority vote establishes moral authority. They think problems demand solutions, that ends necessitate all manner of means. Because they are the majority (and they always are) these people are the driving force behind the demise of liberty, assuming such liberty is ever established in the first place (and it rarely is).
True, which is why we are we were are now, and why this thread has gone the way it has.

Stand up to them and they accuse you of complicity with the problem. Don't like a police state harassing drivers? Then you must like drunk driving.
Exactly. One is not conditional on the other. This is often hard for people to understand.

I have a hard time agreeing with discretionary laws that can endanger people's freedoms.
A good way of putting the issue at hand. Again, right on.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,786
Likes
2,972
Location
Green Eggs and...
I have a hard time agreeing with discretionary laws that can endanger people's freedoms.

For the sake of our country, I hope that people like you end up on the wrong side of the discretion that keeps the order you so crave. It makes me sick to say that, but there's really no other way (it appears, because you like to strike down debate - anything that crosses your opinion- as incorrect, it appears). Hopefully I'm wrong.

This is largely based off my own experiences. We definitely disagree.
Not really, I've posed my argument. I dont feel like going back and fourth with the same points.

I don't crave OUI laws, Im simply stating I believe they reduce instances of OUI, and actually make me safer, so I support them.

I certainly believe in more of a role of government than many (but not all) here.

I also find it funny how ill wishes commonly are bestowed on me along side insults when I spend a good ammount of my time lobbying for civil liberties, largely those surrounding firearms (go figure) as well as at this point having got many hundreds involved and educated on shooting.

Sorry I believe government has a place a little more broadly than you do, but much more narrowly than 99% of this country does.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
 

flintoid

Banned
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
5,496
Likes
2,440
Location
your tight sphincter
Not really, I've posed my argument. I dont feel like going back and fourth with the same points.

I don't crave OUI laws, Im simply stating I believe they reduce instances of OUI, and actually make me safer, so I support them.

I certainly believe in more of a role of government than many (but not all) here.

I also find it funny how ill wishes commonly are bestowed on me along side insults when I spend a good ammount of my time lobbying for civil liberties, largely those surrounding firearms (go figure) as well as at this point having got many hundreds involved and educated on shooting.

Sorry I believe government has a place a little more broadly than you do, but much more narrowly than 99% of this country does.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
I don't justify my opinions with numbers or polling myself next to my neighbor. But that's cool that you do.

If you want to boil down my opinion to it's most raw form, it's this: I value the freedoms and rights of an innocent man more than I value taking away the rights of those who could use them to do harm to others. And then I move from there.

An innocent man's rights are sacred to me. And I don't care what 99.9% of america thinks. Or how much good you do. That's great that you help further shooting and whatnot. I still think your attitude is dangerous. And you wouldn't have replied in the manner that you did if I didn't strike some sort of truth in your soul with even the smallest of logic hammers.

Anyways, keep up the good fight, I guess?
 

MrSlave

Banned
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
63
Likes
8
Location
Sheltered In Place
The weak will always fight viciously for more government power if they feel it makes them safer, and those who will gain from this usurpation of power will ofcourse aid them in their fight in every way possible. The indifferent will side with this large mass as it easier and comes with the herd mentality. Those who are just and advocates off freedom will always be in the minority and shouted down as wreckless and out of touch. This is the formula that has, and always will, bring democratic societies ultimately to their knees while ensuring that freedom a very rare thing.
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,806
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
I'm not saying I would "cut them a break" just that I don't think that someone who did something like that should be legally treated the same way as someone who made a conscious decision to steal from me.

Did you sue your neighbor (s) for damages to your wall or other affected areas of your property?

-Mike
I didn't have to sue, the insurance companies both paid up without a hassle. Not like there was a question of whether I was backing up my wall when the collisions occurred.

One was so drunk he couldn't figure out how to get his car off my lawn. The tow truck driver just go into it and backed it up... but it's brakes were failed as well. Drunk and driving a car with no brakes. Awesome.

The next guy got turtled against my wall and on top of a stump which, if I hadn't removed that tree would have been a worse day for him I think. He was trying to get off the hump when I came down to introduce myself.

The third just sat in her car against the pole. All three fall down drunk. Two of the three moved right after, the third moved a few years later.
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,806
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
I don't crave OUI laws, Im simply stating I believe they reduce instances of OUI, and actually make me safer, so I support them.
I do believe that OUI is on it's way out due to technology making us drivers, as the British would say, "redundant."

Then there will be laws making it illegal to drive yourself anywhere but at a closed track or a shooting range.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,786
Likes
2,972
Location
Green Eggs and...
I dont consider getting behind the wheel of a car intoxicated as innocence. I believe it is acting in wreckless disregard for human life, though not often maliciously. In my mind, it is the same as some yahoo randomly firing a gun into a populated area. Unfortunately it is not as obviously stupid, so many people do it. For some, the presence of a law is what stops them. Not because they are bad people, but because they are in denial of or ignorant of the risk which they pose to other people when driving under the influence.

As far as my opinion on trial and conviction, I take a liberty minded (vs utilitarian) approach and of course would rather see 10 guilty walk free than 1 innocent go to jail.

I felt it neccessary to point out that I have worked pretty hard at trying to improve civil liberties to the best of my abilities with my free time as a counter to you wishing I end up in jail/dead/ whatever for not being in lock step with your political views in a private conversation on a forum. Thats pretty ****in sad.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:

flintoid

Banned
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
5,496
Likes
2,440
Location
your tight sphincter
I dont consider getting behind the wheel of a car intoxicated as innocence. I believe it is acting in wreckless disregard for human life, though not often maliciously. In my mind, it is the same as some yahoo randomly firing a gun into a populated area. Unfortunately it is not as obviously stupid, so many people do it. For some, the presence of a law is what stops them. Not because they are bad people, but because they are in denial of or ignorant of the risk which they pose to other people when driving under the influence.

As far as my opinion on trial and conviction, I take a liberty minded (vs utilitarian) approach and of course would rather see 10 guilty walk free than 1 innocent go to jail.

I felt it neccessary to point out that I have worked pretty hard at trying to improve civil liberties to the best of my abilities with my free time as a counter to you wishing I end up in jail/dead/ whatever for not being in lock step with your political views. Thats pretty ****in sad.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
when was the last time you've been in a courtroom? Honest question. (actually, it encompasses more than just the courts.. anything between and inclusive of LE and the penal system is encompassed here)

You don't have to be in lock step with my political position. Just don't be pissed when I express my concern over yours.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,786
Likes
2,972
Location
Green Eggs and...
Just a magistrate for fighting a speeding ticket when I harmed nobody... I havent gone that fast since getting that ticket (Ive also grown up).

I'm not pissed, I just think its sad that your wishing misfortune upon me. Expressing concern is different wishing ill upon someone. I understand we dont agree on this issue. We have differring beliefs in both the effectiveness of X law and the role of government in what laws they impose.

However, I'm not sitting here saying I hope you all get pegged by drunk drivers.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
 

flintoid

Banned
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
5,496
Likes
2,440
Location
your tight sphincter
However, I'm not sitting here saying I hope you all get pegged by drunk drivers.
That is unfair. I never said such a thing. I only wished that you got to "experience" the joys of discretionary law enforcement. Laws that don't punish you for the poor end result, but for the symptom that could possibly lead to a poor end result. Preventative laws that are enforced by arbitrary metrics.

If you thought I meant that I wanted you to get ran over by a drunk driver, I am sorry. But I'm fairly certain I never expressed this. If I did, then maybe I should stop using the english language.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,786
Likes
2,972
Location
Green Eggs and...
Cause getting ****ed in the courts is much better.

And again, I treat driving on the road intoxicated as endangering the lives of others significantly. Which I believe should be a criminal act. Person X is willfully engaged in a behavior that unneccesarily endangers the lives of others. I am of the belief that it is within the scope of law enforcement to effect that.

We seem to disagree on whether or not that constitutes a crime. I believe it does. I understand that you do not and I see where you are coming from, but I simply do noy agree.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
 

flintoid

Banned
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
5,496
Likes
2,440
Location
your tight sphincter
Cause getting ****ed in the courts is much better.

And again, I treat driving on the road intoxicated as endangering the lives of others significantly. Which I believe should be a criminal act. Person X is willfully engaged in a behavior that unneccesarily endangers the lives of others. I am of the belief that it is within the scope of law enforcement to effect that.

We seem to disagree on whether or not that constitutes a crime. I believe it does.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
how do you measure what endangers another person when danger is never inflicted on that person?

and more profoundly (when talking about this topic) how do you measure how much alcohol an individual can ingest before they are incapable of inflicting harm on someone on the road?

Or have you even looked into how this is measured? What sort of studies these metrics are based on? What percentage of people these metrics theoretically apply to?
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,442
Likes
1,896
This. Drunk driving laws I -think- were the beginning of the modern police state in which we now live. The legislatures and the courts let cops get away all kinds of shit in the name of getting "drunk drivers" off the road. It goes hand in hand with prohibition of some drugs and letting cops break into your house, murder you, and get away free.
Drunk driving vs. Prohibition and the New Deal? Sorry, the latter two were far more detrimental.
 

flintoid

Banned
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
5,496
Likes
2,440
Location
your tight sphincter
Drunk driving vs. Prohibition and the New Deal? Sorry, the latter two were far more detrimental.
Prohibition, theoretically, would prevent drunk driving.

Or is this another one of those threads where convenience reigns king? I have a feeling that it might be one of those threads and I'm too naive to realize it. "If it violates my desires... bad!" "If it doesn't bother me....good!" etc. etc.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,786
Likes
2,972
Location
Green Eggs and...
how do you measure what endangers another person when danger is never inflicted on that person?

and more profoundly (when talking about this topic) how do you measure how much alcohol an individual can ingest before they are incapable of inflicting harm on someone on the road?

Or have you even looked into how this is measured? What sort of studies these metrics are based on? What percentage of people these metrics theoretically apply to?
Im not an expert on this tipic and as I mentioned the standard by which intoxication is measured may need to be looked at.

Human intoxication WITH OUI laws is responsible for approximately 10k of 40k traffic fatalities a year... from the CDC. Also, having been drunk, I know that I would be a hazard on the road if driving. As a biology student, I understand how alcohol effects human physiology.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
 

ColdDayInHell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
23,459
Likes
4,710
Location
North Shore
Im not an expert on this tipic and as I mentioned the standard by which intoxication is measured may need to be looked at.

Human intoxication WITH OUI laws is responsible for approximately 10k of 40k traffic fatalities a year... from the CDC. Also, having been drunk, I know that I would be a hazard on the road if driving. As a biology student, I understand how alcohol effects human physiology.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
Yup. BAC is subjective. I'm fine after 2-3 drinks. But drunk, **** no. That's why you go out with a DD. JFC, you don't get it or aren't reading Flintoids' posts correctly.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,442
Likes
1,896
Let me ask, if you fire a gun into a crowd of people and don't hit anyone, has any crime been committed? Does it matter whether the people know they're been shot at?

There's no debating that alcohol intoxication exponentially increases the risks of injuries and fatalities on the roadways. And while I respect the views that we should only have criminal laws with a result-based elements, the biggest complaint seems to be the shenanigans that come from such laws that don't require a result.

There's a middle ground in there no one seems to be discussing. Just because you favor OUI laws doesn't mean you favor OUI checkpoints or unconstitutional shenanigans based on "public safety exceptions".
 

flintoid

Banned
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
5,496
Likes
2,440
Location
your tight sphincter
Im not an expert on this tipic and as I mentioned the standard by which intoxication is measured may need to be looked at.

Human intoxication WITH OUI laws is responsible for approximately 10k of 40k traffic fatalities a year... from the CDC. Also, having been drunk, I know that I would be a hazard on the road if driving. As a biology student, I understand how alcohol effects human physiology.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
so you would also understand how 1 metric standard to govern a felony for a few billion people of all different shapes, sizes, and metabolisms could be.. I dunno.. interesting?

You already know the correlation to gun control I could bring up. So I won't waste my time. I could bring up heart attacks and fast food, but then you'll say "that's a personal choice- you chose to kill yourself via heart attack/lung cancer by eating that/smoking that."

Not if your mom fed you it. Or smoked around you. Or if you couldn't afford anything better than crap food. Or if you weren't properly educated about it.

Which is when I would tell you- there should be felonies charged to those mothers for doing that to their kids. Etc.

slippery slope and all that. I doubt you care. I only bring these scenarios up because you wanted to make a profound argument with a CDC stat and a ton of dead people. Much like gun control proponents do. It's convenient until you compare it to other car related deaths, or the actual number of people on the road, and other stuff like that because then it doesn't look so profound.

Perhaps you should make it a felony for people to not buckle up. Or not buy a car with airbags. Or make it a felony to drive while talking on the phone. Etc. I say "felony" and I actually mean "take away freedoms from a person permanently."
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,786
Likes
2,972
Location
Green Eggs and...
Making it a felony may not be the answer... my objective is to keep hazards off the road, not neccessarily ruin peoples lives. Our legal system should be set up to keep us safe and protect civil liberties. Not punish people just to punish them (as is usually the case).

It is a slippery slope undoubtedly (and I am arguing ONLY my beliefs wrt to OUI in this thread, not all legal policy)... but then thats how we got here in the first place... the law of the land from day 1 has been ballooning... you could consider the commerce clause (and some flat out wrong scotus decisions) to be the tipping point. Granted a lot of these laws are passed at the state level anyway...

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom