Drunken driving laws don't prevent tragedies

ktuu ^

[weikel]

Drinking and driving poses a great enough threat to the rights of others that it can be proscribed.

[Allrightnow]

If physics are God's laws and the second law of thermodynamics is that entropy in a closed system increases with time, does this mean that my intentions to organize my sock drawer are sacriligous?

[weikel]

Well Ive always thought that god laughs at neat freaks LOL.

[Willie Green]

Can you really sit there and tell me that drinking and driving is harmless?

Libertarian druggies will tell you anything to gain legal access to their "herb" of choice.
It shouldn't be surprising that their "logic" seems a little out of kilter.

[FF578]

Just like my ideal form of Government would never come to pass by human hands, neither will yours.

However we will all be judged by Almighty God one day, and he will establish a set of laws that cannot be disobeyed.

[weikel]

I don't drink at all myself actually.

[weikel]

This guy is a lot nuttier than you he wants fornication to be a capital offense.

[FF578]

Whatever alcohol content is in a tablespoon of nyquil is the strongest drink I have ever, or will ever have.

[eno_]

Actually, I believe you. They probably puked on your shoes, too. But do you really think going to a BAC of 0.06 or 0.04 will do anything? No. In fact, one reason these sloppy drunks stay on the road is that there are too many people getting put into the system on the basis checkpoints that catch people who are no danger at all. So the courts spit them back out with minimal effect.

Same goes for what you said about criminals. Most real criminals cannot be reformed. They will mug or burgle again, right as soon as they are out. But if you get sent around to kick in the doors of stoners and send them to jail, you ain't executing warrants on the burglars and muggers.

[Dead Dog]

I never said I would establish a theocracy anywhere.

No you stated the religious based rule of the Puritans is, IYO, superior to our Judau-Christian based laws. You also expressed a desire execute all who posses alcohol. That is your right, until you attempt to act on it.

I'm definitely not implying a threat, I am stating that the second amendment protects our constitutional form of government from domestic insurrection. That could only be a threat to someone who has chosen to be a threat to us.

ie. Commies, Islamists.

[FF578]

I actually am against no-knock warrants unless the life of an officer would be in danger serving a regular "Knock" warrant.

I am against drug use and the legalization of drugs. I have seen far to many people who are involved in drugs, and the harm that it causes for you to ever convince me that it is a harmless fun vice to be enjoyed.

I will ask you what I asked Weikel. Do you think our founders were "Nannys"? Why do you think they had no problem with the various states setting up laws that libertarians consider nanny laws. Laws that made blasphemy, fornication, adultery and other things capital crimes?

[FF578]

I said that my ideal form of government would be the Puritan model or John Calvin's model in Geneva. I never said that I would attempt to establish that government other than by the power of voting. I am bound under the Laws and Constitution just as you are. I can however work within those bounds to work towards an end legally and by the established constitutional principle. IE Amendments to the Constitution.

[Ramius]

Most vehicle accidents are caused by sober people. Should we outlaw sobriety too?

It's a classic of unanticipated consequences. You make the penalty for DUI more severe than other infractions, say, leaving the scene of an accident. Sure, we don't want people leaving the scene, but we create the incentive to do so when there is any amount of alcohol involved. Someone driving drunk that causes an accident is actually going to be better off if they leave, sober up, and then turn themselves in.

But this is what happens when we get accustomed to writing laws based on emotion instead of sound reason.

[Willie Green]

This guy is a lot nuttier than you he wants fornication to be a capital offense.

Kinda gives new meaning to the phrase "off with their heads", doesn't it?

Then again, our nation's fornication/capital punishment ratio is somewhat out of balance,
It wouldn't hurt to make an adjustment to bring the figures back to normal.

[Knitebane]

How can you draw an analogy to gun owners who are partaking of their freedoms legally and drunk drivers who are breaking the law?

Very simple. It's called "prior restraint."

If I drink six beers, fire up the car and go tooling down the road, I have not harmed anyone.

Yet, you say. True, but that's the point. And if I load up my rifle and step out into the back yard, I haven't harmed anyone. Yet.

At what point do you start locking people up for what they might do?

Do you lock up people and take away their children because they were abused as children? After all, abused children grow up into people that are at a greater risk for abusing their own children. Why not just lock them up now, before they get the chance?

Or how about banning men from any place that single women drink? After all, those drunk women might decide to go home with one of those men, and then he'd be guilty of rape. Better to lock them up.

Or how about locking up any driver over 65 found driving at night. It's a medical fact that night vision deteriorates with age. Those people might be impaired. And we'll lower it to 60 in a few years. I mean, it's better to be safe, right?

See the problem? If you go around arresting people because they might hurt someone, you're going to have a lot of very full jails. That, or the law will be unevenly enforced because the police can't be everywhere. Kind of like it is now.

But it gets scarier. Right now we arrest people because they're driving drunk and might hurt someone. How long until some wacko congresscritter submits a bill to lock up anyone that is pro-life? Hey, they might go to a protest in front of an abortion clinic and frighten pregnant women away. We better lock them up because they might violate that woman's rights.

Locking up people because they might hurt someone or might cause property damage is prior restraint.

If the laws were sensible, then drunk driving, in and of itself, would not be illegal. But if you hit a parked car, drunk or sober, you'd be tried for vandalism. If you injured someone, drunk or sober, you'd be charged with battery, a felony. And if you killed someone, you'd be charged with manslaughter.

Whether a person is drunk or not should be entirely irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Until every cop is trained to be psychic, there is no way to make sure that people that might hurt others get stopped. So how about we concentrate on actually putting people away that have actually caused harm? Instead of filling up the courts and jails with so many "might have" cases that the real criminals, the ones that have actually caused harm, get rolled right back out on the street to cause more harm. You know, like it is now.

[tacticalogic]

Well Ive always thought that god laughs at neat freaks LOL.

I think God probably finds a lot of the things we do quite humorous, even though believing in a God with a sense of humor seems to put me at odds with organized religion frequently.

[Ramius]

You're a cop. You don't get called to the happy parties. Don't you think your sample is just a little skewed by your profession?

You say you've seen drugs and alcohol do too much damage. But that's impossible. Drugs are illegal, therefore there shouldn't be any problem. Right?

[Dead Dog]

does this mean that my intentions to organize my sock drawer are sacriligous?

Yes, and knock it off, your pissing off the big guy!

[Ramius]

I completely agree. It is the collision, the injury, the death-- whatever-- that matters. Whether the perp was drunk or sober has little to do with the impact of the crime. That's what must be the focus.

Assault is assault. Drunk or sober, it is and should be the same charge.

[Dead Dog]

Hey, as much heat as everyone is taking and giving on this thread, I would say:

THANK YOU!

For your service as an LEO. We disagree on principle, but don't think the risk you take on a daily basis is not appreciated. You're job puts you with the worst of society, not many of us could deal with them on a daily basis. I, for one, would not be a good cop.