A song in honor of this thread and 3814's as well: 6x6 - from wall to wall Shutters on the windows, no light at all Damp on the floor you got damp on the bed They're trying to get you crazy - get you out of your head They feed you scraps and they feed you lies To lower your defenses, no compromise Nothing you can do, the day can be long Your mind is working overtime, your body's not too strong Hold on, hold on They put you in a box so you can't get heard Let your spirit stay unbroken, may you not be deterred Hold on, you have gambled with your own life And you face the night alone While the builders of the cages They sleep with bullets, bars and stone They do not see your road to freedom That you build with flesh and bone They take you out - the light burns your eyes To the talking room - it's no surprise Loaded questions from clean white coats Their eyes are all as hidden as their Hipppcratic Oath They tell you - how to behave, behave as their guest You want to resist them, you do your best They take you to your limits, they take you beyond For all that they are doing there's no way to respond Hold on, hold on They put you in a box so you can't get heard Let your spirit stay unbroken, may you not be deterred Hold on, you have gambled with your own life And you face the night alone While the builders of the cages They sleep with bullets, bars and stone They do not see your road to freedom That you build with flesh and bone Though you may disappear, you're not forgotten here And I will say to you, I will do what I can do You may disappear, you're not forgotten here And I will say to you, I will do what I can do And I will do what I can do And I will do what I can do
I'm not going to venture to far into this, but you proved my point. How is killing a family under the influence different from killing a family by running a red light?
It's amazing really. You see a bunch of teenage @$_****s going 100+ on a freeway with semi traffic and they go home free. The departments pretty much screwed up, the cops acted like a bunch of uncivilized idiots, and someone has to pay 4 digits just to get things fixed. That's really what's wrong with people here nowadays. The service that comes with businesses or departments have gone straight to h*ll. If people would cooperate and listen to reason, this would not have cost half as much. In fact, the only person that gets screwed is the person without the service. And you wonder why these people make diddly squat to begin with. They're just there with their shotty attitudes and only interested in making life comfortable for themselves at work while making it **** for others.
And how is shooting someone in a robbery different than shooting someone in a hunting accident? Yes a lost one lost cannot be recovered but are you saying they should both have the same punishment? In both examples, the first one results in the loss of life while committing a crime, the second one is an accident - many times avoidable - but still an accident.
Apples and Oranges, and keep in mind the difference between laws meant to be a deterrent and actual charges after the fact. 1) Rough figures here (remembering from an insurance study I received earlier this year), but the nation, as a whole, has approximately 800 deaths a year resulting from red light runners, and approximately 18,000 resulting from DWIs. Since red light runners don't cause nearly as many traffic fatalities as DWIs, the punishment when caught doing either (assuming no one is hurt) is appropriately different, based purely on being a deterrent. Its like saying an unsafe lane change should be punished along the same lines as a DWI, since someone could get killed in an accident when doing so. There are tons of things a driver could do, thats against the law, that could lead to a an accident, and a fatality. No way each violation should receive equal punishment. 2) In both instances (killing someone running a red light or DWI), the charges/punishment are up to the court system. IOW, you can be charged with a form of homicide and/or manslaughter in both instances.
Way to lump all officers into one group. BTW ....I've never seen a peace officer watch someone drive 100+ on the freeway and not get pulled over. Perhaps in your case, there was no officer there to witness the crime? It does happen from time to time ya know.
i thought the same thing... sorry about your incident, fatty. red tape can get pretty thick sometimes...
Well, personally, I've felt the 18,000 statistical deaths due to DWI has always had a political tilt, but maybe that's just me. Personally, I got into a hell of a lot more accidents when I was younger by myself than my entire group has had while driving under the influence in the last 10 years.
Well, lets see, Fatty. So you're saying that it's 'no-harm, no-foul' unless someone gets killed. Oh, okay, that makes perfect sense. As for prosecuting callous drivers who end up killing someone, there's a little law called 'manslaughter' and another one called 'criminally negligent homicide'. And these are used when the situations warrant. For example, I tried a case in August where an 18 year old kid WAS driving 'like a bat out of hell' going over 100 mph, at dusk, with no headlights, on a two lane county road and killed a mother who was walking on the shoulder while holding her six month old baby (the baby was vaulted 40 feet and landed in some mud, unharmed). But because of the result of his conduct we had a life-changing experience. Now did he MEAN to do it? Of course not, or I would have charged him with murder. But he DID intentionally drive 100mph, and he assumed the risk of doing so. Same thing with driving drunk. How can a reasonable person argue that it's an ACCEPTABLE thing to get into a 5,000lb piece of metal and drive on the same streets others are traveling while our mental and physical faculties are impaired? Driving is such an attention-divided event. I have to check my mirrors, watch out for other drivers, see if that light up ahead is turning yellow, watch my speed, yadda yadda. I mean, there's a method to the madness with the law here. Now, look. I'm not talking about 'surcharges' or 'parking tickets', etc. I'm talking about 'real-life' situations that have real and lasting effects on folks. And my above post wasn't an untoward comment on you at all. It just gets to the point that this 'There-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I' way of thinking leads us down a path where we don't really want any of these 'pesky laws' getting in our way. But whats funny is that as soon as one of these people are on the victim-side of things, they're the first ones sitting in my office wanting 'justice' from the person that did it. Just because "we've all done it", and we tend to get that queezy feeling in our stomach thinking about how that poor soul who's been arrested could have been us, and it might make me feel better to argue that we should lower the "statutory" bar to better conform with my normal conduct DOESN'T make it right. It just doesn't. I'm just saying before we jump on this bandwagon of bashing the laws and those that enforce them, why don't we back it up, gain some perspective, and simply handle our business? There are quite a few laws that I don't agree with, but DWI laws ain't one of 'em.
^^^^ I don't know why. jlaw718's posts are very logically and well written. Makes me wish I hadn't dropped out of college.
There are TONS of people every night who drive drunk. Way more than you might even think. If I'm ever out on the roads past midnight, especially on a weekend night, I try to stay away from all other cars as much as possible because you never know who might be drunk, and at that hour I'd have to assume a lot of them are in fact drunk. I pay extra to live within walking distance (or a short cab ride) of a lot of bars - it's well worth the extra money to live there and avoid driving.
jlaw: By no means am I saying it is acceptable. I'm saying the ramifications for it have gotten out of hand. Back in the 70's, it was accepted. People were told to drive home safe, and let go. That was too lenient. Then the laws came in the 80's. These were totally acceptable laws and cut drunk driving accidents down immensely. During the 90's, up until now, the laws keep getting harsher and harsher, with no viable results. In other words, the new laws are doing nothing at all except to make MADD feel better, and to line the coffers of the Gov't. Look at the stats. There is no discernable difference in drinking-related deaths between the 80's and now. And as far as your lawsuits, to each their own. But you would still be able to sue the hell out of someone for a drinking related death with the laws that were put into place 20 years ago. And you know it.
I have to agree that the laws in place right now are pretty damn silly. I have a good friend who got a DUI after two beers which is a joke and it has cost him over 6,000 bucks and he STILL doesn't have a license... but he still drives and just carries his passport with him everywhere he goes. The laws currrently in place aren't cutting down on the number of alcohol related accidents, they are just padding the DUI arrest numbers.
I got a DWI leaving a rockets game last year, right down the road from the toyota center. I had 4-5 beers at the game, refused the breathalyzer and didn't do too well on the sobriority test. I had a severly sprained ankle at the time and couldn't walk the line very well. I was buzzed pretty good however, because I don't drink much and 4-5 beers was enough to get me a lil tipsy. I spent 2 days in jail, missed 2 days of work, so far i've spent $8500 on court fees, lawyer fees, "surcharges", car getting towed, car insurance, had to sell my badass BMW M3 because no insurance would cover me with that car for under about $400 per month. I lost my license for a year, have to pay the state of texas a surcharge of $1000 per year for the next 3 years, have to have a special SR-22 insurance policy on file with the DPS for the next 2 years. I now drive a piece of **** truck, have an occupational license to where I can only drive to and from work, and to top it all off I have a breathalyzer on my truck that I have to blow in for it even to start. It will also show a class "B" misdomeaner on my record for DWI so i'll always have trouble getting car insurance and possibly a job if the employer does a background check for these types of things. All of this for 4-5 beers at a rockets game, 1st offense, and no prior criminal record. Yes, I think its excessive, but I also tell people that I was guilty and that I will deal with whatever cards are dealt to me because of this and I keep my head up and press on. I will never drink and drive again, trust me, it isn't worth it. I tell this story in hopes that people will learn from my mistake.
And remember, that is a first offense DWI with no accident involved. An idiot driver that blatantly runs a red light and t-bones someone will get a $250 fine, and let his insurance deal with the pain and suffering he caused. Oh, and hisinsurance will go up a couple hundred bucks a year. Yeah, the DWI laws are very reasonable.
I think you aren't really understanding the situation. In the cases you are mentioning, where no one gets hurt, it is much much more likely, that had they not gotten said ticket and continued driving, someone could get hurt. I'm not saying everyone who drives home a littly tipsy is going to get into an accident. I'm saying, the guy who runs the red light and doesn't get a ticket is significantly less likely to get into any kind of accident on the rest of his drive. It really is pretty straightforward. If you are drunk in any way, your chances of getting into an accident skyrocket. As such, so should the penalties, to deter such driving in the first place.
Statistics show that drinking-related deaths have stayed relatively the same per year since the first DWI laws were established in the 80's. Like I said, they went down drastically when the first laws were introduced, and rightfully so.
