I believe it is punishable in all circumstances; drinking and driving is stupid. However, jail time is wholly too harsh for a non-violent crime. If it does become a violent crime (by hitting a dude or a child like you say), then it is a violent crime and constitutes jail time, barring his innocence.
so lets just slap him on the wrist till he does kill somebody. Genius logic
I believe it is punishable in all circumstances; drinking and driving is stupid. However, jail time is wholly too harsh for a non-violent crime. If it does become a violent crime (by hitting a dude or a child like you say), then it is a violent crime and constitutes jail time, barring his innocence.
so lets just slap him on the wrist till he does kill somebody. Genius logic
If you can drink and drive without causing a disturbance or suspicion, then that is your decision.
If you can drink and drive without causing a disturbance or suspicion, but are pulled over for a non-alcohol related reason (expired tags, smashed headlight, speeding, etc.), the alcohol should not be considered a factor in the case.
If you can drink and drive without causing a disturbance or suspicion, then that is your decision.
If you can drink and drive without causing a disturbance or suspicion, but are pulled over for a non-alcohol related reason (expired tags, smashed headlight, speeding, etc.), the alcohol should not be considered a factor in the case.
You posted a story about having a guy blow you at a gay club. Either you're an attention person of the most extreme kind or else you're fucking gay as shit. Either way, no-one gives a fuck about your opinion.
You posted a story about having a guy blow you at a gay club. Either you're an attention person of the most extreme kind or else you're fucking gay as shit. Either way, no-one gives a fuck about your opinion.
A person worthy of deeming someone an idiot would never actually do so, for a worthy person would know that calling someone an idiot is idiotic in itself.
It's not a coincidence that you're from California, the land of the 3-strikes law which is the most counterproductive, stupid, ineffective, ill-thought, and inoperative piece of legislation EVER created.
The difference between you (and the rest of the meatheads on this site) and I is that I make valid and logical arguments and you simply name call.
Your one attempt at a counter argument: "so lets just slap him on the wrist till he does kill somebody. Genius logic" is actually hilarious. You speak of logic as if you have any...
Though I don't agree we should wait until he kills someone, I do agree with waiting until he commits a crime, which only seems LOGICAL.
Weapons sometimes kill people when in the wrong hands (much like a car sometimes kills when in drunk hands), but you likely believe in your right to possess a firearm. Well then I throw your shitty sarcastic argument back at you "so lets just slap him on the wrist till he does kill somebody. Genius Logic."
The whole point is you can't restrict, limit, or punish the innocent majority because of the guilty minority.
A person worthy of deeming someone an idiot would never actually do so, for a worthy person would know that calling someone an idiot is idiotic in itself.
It's not a coincidence that you're from California, the land of the 3-strikes law which is the most counterproductive, stupid, ineffective, ill-thought, and inoperative piece of legislation EVER created.
The difference between you (and the rest of the meatheads on this site) and I is that I make valid and logical arguments and you simply name call.
Your one attempt at a counter argument: "so lets just slap him on the wrist till he does kill somebody. Genius logic" is actually hilarious. You speak of logic as if you have any...
Though I don't agree we should wait until he kills someone, I do agree with waiting until he commits a crime, which only seems LOGICAL.
Weapons sometimes kill people when in the wrong hands (much like a car sometimes kills when in drunk hands), but you likely believe in your right to possess a firearm. Well then I throw your shitty sarcastic argument back at you "so lets just slap him on the wrist till he does kill somebody. Genius Logic."
The whole point is you can't restrict, limit, or punish the innocent majority because of the guilty minority.
If someone is an expert at shooting a rifle, is it OK with you if they shoot into a crowd of people provided they don't hit anyone?
Did I make it sound like I don't know what intent is?
When I drink and drive, I don't intend to hurt anyone and are no more likely to hurt anyone, despite what any law or research says. Basically, that research was not done on me so it cannot account for me, therefore the laws based on said research also do not account for me. Through my experiences, perception, intuition, and logic; I've determined and set a person threshold which I believe keeps others and myself safe.
If the expert marksman knows himself and rifle and shoots into the crowd knowing full-well that he won't hit anyone, then he has not sufficed EITHER requirement for a crime to occur. The mens rea has not been met because he did not intend or try to hurt or kill anyone. The actus reus has not been satisfied because no one has been hit. Therefore, no crime has occurred, and that is based on legal theory and not my opinion.
But that is a loaded example, you're making it seem as if I endorse shooting into crowds... or that I endorse drunken driving. I simply endorse personal rights and freedoms and don't accept the fact that others can take mine away for their actions.
You think the government will ever stop trying to protect you? It's a slippery slope as more and more of our choice becomes the government's choice, all in the name of 'protecting society'. In actuality, all it does is promote and protect the government's power. If we don't start fighting now, it will be far too late.
If someone is an expert at shooting a rifle, is it OK with you if they shoot into a crowd of people provided they don't hit anyone?
Did I make it sound like I don't know what intent is?
When I drink and drive, I don't intend to hurt anyone and are no more likely to hurt anyone, despite what any law or research says. Basically, that research was not done on me so it cannot account for me, therefore the laws based on said research also do not account for me. Through my experiences, perception, intuition, and logic; I've determined and set a person threshold which I believe keeps others and myself safe.
If the expert marksman knows himself and rifle and shoots into the crowd knowing full-well that he won't hit anyone, then he has not sufficed EITHER requirement for a crime to occur. The mens rea has not been met because he did not intend or try to hurt or kill anyone. The actus reus has not been satisfied because no one has been hit. Therefore, no crime has occurred, and that is based on legal theory and not my opinion.
But that is a loaded example, you're making it seem as if I endorse shooting into crowds... or that I endorse drunken driving. I simply endorse personal rights and freedoms and don't accept the fact that others can take mine away for their actions.
You think the government will ever stop trying to protect you? It's a slippery slope as more and more of our choice becomes the government's choice, all in the name of 'protecting society'. In actuality, all it does is promote and protect the government's power. If we don't start fighting now, it will be far too late.
Unless one thing causes another thing to happen 100% of the time, it is not causative. If I go get drunk and drive around the block, I'm not going to kill someone. I know my limits and I know my change in perception and thus would make it around the block no problem.
This argument alone is what ryriggs is trying to get at...
We shouldn't punish the people who can drink and drive responsibly just because of those who can't.
I already know the backlash I'm going to get but if you logically think about it, there are HUNDREDS of things that are dangerous to not only the individual but people around him that are still legal (ex. tobacco smoke, pharms, stunt flying, possessing a firearm, etc.).
DUI laws also put everyone on the same playing field which is stupid since I could be perfectly fine blowing a .08 yet another person could be totally wasted at that level.
Unless one thing causes another thing to happen 100% of the time, it is not causative. If I go get drunk and drive around the block, I'm not going to kill someone. I know my limits and I know my change in perception and thus would make it around the block no problem.
This argument alone is what ryriggs is trying to get at...
We shouldn't punish the people who can drink and drive responsibly just because of those who can't.
I already know the backlash I'm going to get but if you logically think about it, there are HUNDREDS of things that are dangerous to not only the individual but people around him that are still legal (ex. tobacco smoke, pharms, stunt flying, possessing a firearm, etc.).
DUI laws also put everyone on the same playing field which is stupid since I could be perfectly fine blowing a .08 yet another person could be totally wasted at that level.
I agree with your legal interpretation, however it has already been established that his license was already revoked prior to the accident. With today's nationwide database, no state will issue a license if a suspension/revokation is still in effect somewhere else.
Correct if the license was already suspended then this would not work. However, the nationwide database is still not completely up to speed either. Certain states already share data w/one another but not all. At least that was the case couple years ago.
I agree with your legal interpretation, however it has already been established that his license was already revoked prior to the accident. With today's nationwide database, no state will issue a license if a suspension/revokation is still in effect somewhere else.
Correct if the license was already suspended then this would not work. However, the nationwide database is still not completely up to speed either. Certain states already share data w/one another but not all. At least that was the case couple years ago.
Want to elaborate why that's so 'out there' to defend this guy?
Here's what you said:
"They should jail these fuckin drunk driving douchebags the 1st time for a while and fine the f*ck out of them
inexcusable crime, pisses me off when people laugh it off or the posts that will follow this the jerkoffs that say "oh i suppose youve never done anything wrong?" or "everyone does it"
go f*ck yourself"
Here's what I said: "If you can drink and drive without causing a disturbance or suspicion, then that is your decision.
If you can drink and drive without causing a disturbance or suspicion, but are pulled over for a non-alcohol related reason (expired tags, smashed headlight, speeding, etc.), the alcohol should not be considered a factor in the case.
If you can't drink and drive without causing a disturbance or suspicion, then you should be held liable, though never through the use of incarceration.
If you can't drink and drive without causing a disturbance or suspicion and happen to cause injury, then you should be held criminally liable with harsh punishments, including the use of incarceration where necessary."
Who's being more reasonable, compassionate, and logical?
Want to elaborate why that's so 'out there' to defend this guy?
Here's what you said:
"They should jail these fuckin drunk driving douchebags the 1st time for a while and fine the f*ck out of them
inexcusable crime, pisses me off when people laugh it off or the posts that will follow this the jerkoffs that say "oh i suppose youve never done anything wrong?" or "everyone does it"
go f*ck yourself"
Here's what I said: "If you can drink and drive without causing a disturbance or suspicion, then that is your decision.
If you can drink and drive without causing a disturbance or suspicion, but are pulled over for a non-alcohol related reason (expired tags, smashed headlight, speeding, etc.), the alcohol should not be considered a factor in the case.
If you can't drink and drive without causing a disturbance or suspicion, then you should be held liable, though never through the use of incarceration.
If you can't drink and drive without causing a disturbance or suspicion and happen to cause injury, then you should be held criminally liable with harsh punishments, including the use of incarceration where necessary."
Who's being more reasonable, compassionate, and logical?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.