|
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Montreal pedestrians drunk driver/2397232/story.html
" Two pedestrians were seriously injured downtown this morning by a drunk driver.
The man who was hit, 25, is reportedly in critical condition while the woman, 50, is considered stable, police said.
The SUV was headed east on Ste. Catherine St. W. around 4 a.m. when the driver swerved, possibly to avoid to another vehicle. He hit another car and rolled onto the sidewalk between Crescent St. and de la Montagne St., striking the victims.
The driver and passenger of the vehicle were uninjured. Police arrested the driver and brought him back to the police station for an alcohol test, which he failed.
Police suspect it was the combination of alcohol, speed and weather that caused the accident. "
=>
What seemed to have happened:
Apparently a taxi came out of nowhere and he tried to avoid it, but instead hits another car and hits twp pedestrians on the sidewalk. As far as I know, he drank a few mini-shots in the club (I think) and didn't seem to have that much tolerance (but I barely know the guy and probably biased because I have a stereotype that asians don't have much tolerance). He honestly looked fine when I saw him about 5 minutes before the accident.
I almost hopped in his car to go eat at a Restaurant with other friends, but I decided to take the taxi home instead (too tired to go beyond 5am).
He's just an acquaintance. Seemed like a nice guy though (despite this...).
what is the most likely situation that can happen to him?
He failed the alcohol test.
|
United States42691 Posts
Don't drink and drive yo. Doesn't matter if the drink caused it or not, you just don't drink and drive. He'll probably get hit pretty hard by the law though. Over here if you're over the limit and injure someone in a car accident then you get fucked. Even if the alcohol didn't directly cause it.
|
He should go to jail and lose his DL.
SHOULD. Probably won't be that harsh tho.
|
16987 Posts
On January 03 2010 10:30 On_Slaught wrote:
He should go to jail and lose his DL.
SHOULD. Probably won't be that harsh tho.
It'll probably be as bad or worse, depending on whether or not it his previous history, actually.
|
He'll likely lose his license for awhile and face a stiff fine but will likely avoid jail time if he has a good police history.
That said, this dude is a tool. Drinking and driving is never a good idea, especially on new years in downtown Montreal.
|
When I talked to my friend about it, he has previous records about driving. I'm not sure what it is exactly.
|
United States42691 Posts
|
If you're going to drive drunk, at least eat a loaf of bread and drink a gallon of water to at least pretend like you give a shit.
|
If the guy he hit is in bad condition it won't end up good.
If he dies he will be charged with manslaughter, right? (in Romanian it's called murder by imprudence). Combine that with drunk driving and you're in deep trouble.
However, my guess is that it will revolve around the taxi that he avoided. Are there any witnesses to say that there actually was a cab? Because if there aren't, it will be his fault entirely in the eyes of the law.
|
I detest drunk drivers - you put others at so much extra risk when you're irresponsible.
As for the driver's fate, it depends on how his victims end up, and his previous record.
|
In some jurisdictions drunk driving leading to death can be charged as murder.
|
i hope karma fucks him over soon just like he fucked the guy over
|
Driving drunk is one of those things I never understand.
You carry a heavy risk to your own life, life of others, and heavy penalty if caught. Okay, plenty of things in life carry risks. But here's the kicker. IT'S 100% AVOIDABLE. If you can pay your bar tab, you can pay for a freaking cab fare.
Even if you take morality out of the discussion, driving drunk still makes zero sense.
Oh, and yeah, your acquaintance is fucked unless there's some very loose laws where you live. They don't mess around against drunk drivers.
|
I have zero tolerance for drunk drivers, no pun intended
|
Maybe only a bit related... a crazy pedestrian and a driver + his girlfriend (wife) got into an argument while the man was crossing the street. After a bit of banging on the car and a lot of shouting, the pedestrian eventually started to walk off, but the driver and his girlfriend/wife were still angry and got out of the car to confront the pedestrian. The pedestrian then ran into the guy's car and drove off on a rampage, hitting cars and people alike. Eventually he came crashing up a curb and the tires blew. The car slid into a wall or something and that was that. A bunch of people were taken to the hospital (no people died I don't think). Rage is a terrible thing  This was in Vancouver, BC
|
Yeah, that's why drunk driving is so senseless to me too. I've lost 3 friends due to being HIT by drunk drivers. It makes the friends/family of the victims so heartbroken because it's completely avoidable. It's just some asshole was too selfish to take themselves off the street and had the liquid courage to get behind the wheel. He was brave enough to drive drunk, hope he's brave enough to stay a month in the slammer.
|
My last DUI cost me 7000...
Yeah, just never ever do it.
I had to drive ONE FUCKN BLOCK!!!
So I did, and a spy assassin cop just nailed me.
He's gonna lose a ton of money over this.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On January 03 2010 10:20 ShcShc wrote:
(dunno if I should post the news article, but here's the copy/paste)
" Two pedestrians were seriously injured downtown this morning by a drunk driver.
The man who was hit, 25, is reportedly in critical condition while the woman, 50, is considered stable, police said.
The SUV was headed east on Ste. Catherine St. W. around 4 a.m. when the driver swerved, possibly to avoid to another vehicle. He hit another car and rolled onto the sidewalk between Crescent St. and de la Montagne St., striking the victims.
The driver and passenger of the vehicle were uninjured. Police arrested the driver and brought him back to the police station for an alcohol test, which he failed.
Police suspect it was the combination of alcohol, speed and weather that caused the accident. "
=>
What seemed to have happened:
Apparently a taxi came out of nowhere and he tried to avoid it, but instead hits another car and hits twp pedestrians on the sidewalk. As far as I know, he drank a few mini-shots in the club (I think) and didn't seem to have that much tolerance (but I barely know the guy and probably biased because I have a stereotype that asians don't have much tolerance). He honestly looked fine when I saw him about 5 minutes before the accident.
I almost hopped in his car to go eat at a Restaurant with other friends, but I decided to take the taxi home instead (too tired to go beyond 5am).
He's just an acquaintance. Seemed like a nice guy though (despite this...).
what is the most likely situation that can happen to him?
He failed the alcohol test.
Was this new years?
I heard about this. I think I was close to the area.
|
Your buddy should get the death penalty.
|
On January 03 2010 14:54 psion0011 wrote:
Your buddy should get the death penalty.
Right because that will solve all of our problems.
|
He is screwed.
If that person dies, he could be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, reckless driving, and manslaughter. Except no less than 10 years.
All we can do is to pray for the well-being of the victims.
EDIT: some information for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_(Canada)
If no one is killed or hurt, and the prosecutor is proceeding by summary conviction, the maximum sentence is 18 months of jail. If no is killed or hurt, and the prosecutor is proceeding by indictment, the maximum sentence is 5 years of jail.[16]
If another person suffers bodily harm because of the offence, the maximum sentence is 10 years in jail.[18]
If another person is killed because of the offence, the maximum sentence is a life sentence.[19]
Since someone is seriously hurt (actually, two people), he is looking at around 10 years assuming they don't die. If that person dies, o boy.
|
On January 03 2010 14:54 psion0011 wrote:
Your buddy should get the death penalty.
troll.
|
On January 03 2010 15:04 Rotodyne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 14:54 psion0011 wrote:
Your buddy should get the death penalty. troll.
If that person dies, he COULD face life imprisonment, however, which is the second harshest punishment available in Canada.
|
On January 03 2010 14:57 Rainmaker5 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 14:54 psion0011 wrote:
Your buddy should get the death penalty. Right because that will solve all of our problems.
Well, something is wrong with the system of deterrents in place if people continue to drink and drive, and in the process put other people at risk. If the punishment is harsh enough, you're not going to drink and drive. Simple as that.
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
What was his BAC? When police say he failed the test, in some states that's as low as .02 BAC which wouldn't of been the cause of this accident.
He's probably getting up to a couple of years for seriously injuring 2 people while under the influence. He better hope to god no one dies.
Then he has to worry about being sued. Your friend is fucked for a long time.
|
On January 03 2010 15:10 Snet wrote:
What was his BAC? When police say he failed the test, in some states that's as low as .02 BAC which wouldn't of been the cause of this accident.
He's probably getting up to a year for seriously injuring 2 people while under the influence. He better hope to god no one dies.
Then he has to worry about being sued. Your friend is fucked for a long time.
It's 0.08 in most provinces in Canada. And since it's DUI causing bodily harm, the Crown Attorney is obviously going to press charges.
|
On January 03 2010 11:07 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
If you're going to drive drunk, at least eat a loaf of bread and drink a gallon of water to at least pretend like you give a shit.
that shit doesnt work.
only way to sober up is to wait until your liver processes the alcohol
|
On January 03 2010 15:14 SoMuchBetter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 11:07 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
If you're going to drive drunk, at least eat a loaf of bread and drink a gallon of water to at least pretend like you give a shit. that shit doesnt work. only way to sober up is to wait until your liver processes the alcohol
The only way is to ASK a friend to drive you home and make sure you stay at the backseat.
|
On January 03 2010 15:04 Rotodyne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 14:54 psion0011 wrote:
Your buddy should get the death penalty. troll.
uhh no drunk drivers should all be killed before they kill innocent people
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
Drunk drivers that are above a certain limit (say .12 BAC) should lose their license for life. There's so much information on drunk driving and its consequences that they need to be pulled off the road for good. Sure it will fuck up their life not to be able to drive, but it's better than having them be able to be out there posing a danger to others.
I dunno how harsh jail time should be, though. Locking someone up for life for what is essentially an accident doesn't seem right to me, even if the drunk driver kills someone.
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
On January 03 2010 15:22 motbob wrote:
Drunk drivers that are above a certain limit (say .12 BAC) should lose their license for life. There's so much information on drunk driving and its consequences that they need to be pulled off the road for good. Sure it will fuck up their life not to be able to drive, but it's better than having them be able to be out there posing a danger to others.
I dunno how harsh jail time should be, though. Locking someone up for life for what is essentially an accident doesn't seem right to me, even if the drunk driver kills someone.
I agree for repeat offenders.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On January 03 2010 15:23 Snet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 15:22 motbob wrote:
Drunk drivers that are above a certain limit (say .12 BAC) should lose their license for life. There's so much information on drunk driving and its consequences that they need to be pulled off the road for good. Sure it will fuck up their life not to be able to drive, but it's better than having them be able to be out there posing a danger to others.
I dunno how harsh jail time should be, though. Locking someone up for life for what is essentially an accident doesn't seem right to me, even if the drunk driver kills someone. I agree for repeat offenders.
For most crimes, whether or not the crime is a repeat offense should be a big factor in the severity of the punishment. But for drunk driving, it's my opinion that the deluge of "over the limit under arrest" commercials and stuff like that negates the usefulness of the repeat offender policy. Maybe I'm being too harsh, though.
|
On January 03 2010 15:22 motbob wrote:
Drunk drivers that are above a certain limit (say .12 BAC) should lose their license for life. There's so much information on drunk driving and its consequences that they need to be pulled off the road for good. Sure it will fuck up their life not to be able to drive, but it's better than having them be able to be out there posing a danger to others.
I dunno how harsh jail time should be, though. Locking someone up for life for what is essentially an accident doesn't seem right to me, even if the drunk driver kills someone.
That's the maximum sentense. In Canada most criminals get early parole so even a maximum sentense is issued he probably will get out in no more than 25 years.
|
On January 03 2010 14:48 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 10:20 ShcShc wrote:
(dunno if I should post the news article, but here's the copy/paste)
" Two pedestrians were seriously injured downtown this morning by a drunk driver.
The man who was hit, 25, is reportedly in critical condition while the woman, 50, is considered stable, police said.
The SUV was headed east on Ste. Catherine St. W. around 4 a.m. when the driver swerved, possibly to avoid to another vehicle. He hit another car and rolled onto the sidewalk between Crescent St. and de la Montagne St., striking the victims.
The driver and passenger of the vehicle were uninjured. Police arrested the driver and brought him back to the police station for an alcohol test, which he failed.
Police suspect it was the combination of alcohol, speed and weather that caused the accident. "
=>
What seemed to have happened:
Apparently a taxi came out of nowhere and he tried to avoid it, but instead hits another car and hits twp pedestrians on the sidewalk. As far as I know, he drank a few mini-shots in the club (I think) and didn't seem to have that much tolerance (but I barely know the guy and probably biased because I have a stereotype that asians don't have much tolerance). He honestly looked fine when I saw him about 5 minutes before the accident.
I almost hopped in his car to go eat at a Restaurant with other friends, but I decided to take the taxi home instead (too tired to go beyond 5am).
He's just an acquaintance. Seemed like a nice guy though (despite this...).
what is the most likely situation that can happen to him?
He failed the alcohol test.
Was this new years? I heard about this. I think I was close to the area.
Yeah. New Years Day.
|
It's a shame. He should have used his head instead of the car.
Something tells me you and your friends should have stopped him before he got in his car. -_-
|
These is obviously a horrific thing, and this guy does deserve a pretty harsh punishment for fucking this guys life up possibly permanently. But these people saying drunk drivers deserve to die are idiotic.
|
On January 03 2010 15:38 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
It's a shame. He should have used his head instead of the car.
Something tells me you and your friends should have stopped him before he got in his car. -_-
Maybe. But he's just an acquaintance and he seemed sober enough.
I would feel much more guilty in other times where I knew a friend drank a lot and I still let him drive (though without accidents/without getting caught).
I do sometimes feel that drunk driving happens pretty frequently.
I think that's whats more disturbing. It happens pretty often, almost as if its the normal thing to do.
|
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o:
|
On January 03 2010 15:28 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 15:23 Snet wrote:On January 03 2010 15:22 motbob wrote:
Drunk drivers that are above a certain limit (say .12 BAC) should lose their license for life. There's so much information on drunk driving and its consequences that they need to be pulled off the road for good. Sure it will fuck up their life not to be able to drive, but it's better than having them be able to be out there posing a danger to others.
I dunno how harsh jail time should be, though. Locking someone up for life for what is essentially an accident doesn't seem right to me, even if the drunk driver kills someone. I agree for repeat offenders. For most crimes, whether or not the crime is a repeat offense should be a big factor in the severity of the punishment. But for drunk driving, it's my opinion that the deluge of "over the limit under arrest" commercials and stuff like that negates the usefulness of the repeat offender policy. Maybe I'm being too harsh, though.
I think you are. You underestimate the amount of times that drunk driving is a legitimate mistake that the person themselves feels terrible about. Say someone usually never does something like this, but in a fit of rage, love, whatever, they go to drive somewhere after having one too many drinks. They get pulled over, and lose their license for life? The punishment doesn't fit the crime imo. Now if they do it again that's another story.
I'm concerned with the sentiment of "they should be given the death penalty". While punishment is meant as a deterrent in many cases (a fine for example), just as often it's meant to provide society a way to remove a problem from itself and possible fix it. Prison terms can be rehabilitating for some people and some crimes and not just meant as punishment. Things can also only be deterred up to a certain point. If I know that if I murder someone and get caught I'll get 50 years in jail, but do it anyway, then it's very unlikely that a death penalty would be enough either. However, after those 50 years if I get out of prison, it's probably very likely that I'll have changed quite a bit from my murderous youth. (Of course there are situations were rehabilitation is unlikely, like serial killers, and then the death penalty would be appropriate). But this is just kind of a tangent on penalty/crime anyway.
This guy is probably going to get the book thrown at him regardless. These are exactly the types of cases that the harsher laws about drunk driver were designed to prosecute and he will no doubt get 5+ years in jail at least (assuming the person he hit doesn't die).
edit: I actually had a friend drink under the influence New Years morning, like 2:00 AM. It was literally down a residential street about 1 minute, but still. I was passed out but I'm a bit disappointed my other friends didn't stop him.
|
On January 03 2010 15:05 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 15:04 Rotodyne wrote:On January 03 2010 14:54 psion0011 wrote:
Your buddy should get the death penalty. troll. If that person dies, he COULD face life imprisonment, however, which is the second harshest punishment available in Canada.
Second harshest? I thought that was the worst you hippies could do.
|
Eh I think personal responsibility is the key. Your acquaintance is a moron (not really) and deserves whatever punishment the law deems necessary. I think the whole stance that people not preventing him to drive is just propaganda and slander against a lifestyle or behavior that is fairly norm. This is not to say that stopping people from driving drunk is unnecessary, but to call not doing it negligence is like calling rich people who don't give to the poor negligent (some people prolly would agree with that)
I know several drunk drivers, and most of them make it home safely every night. I think everyone in this thread is being absurdly results oriented. The issue isn't simple. Personal responsibility is key, but that also isn't a reason to ignore the status quo and social norms of our industrialized alcoholic societies.
I feel the need to mention that I myself very rarely drink, and don't particularly enjoy the effects of alcohol in most settings.
|
On January 03 2010 15:28 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 15:23 Snet wrote:On January 03 2010 15:22 motbob wrote:
Drunk drivers that are above a certain limit (say .12 BAC) should lose their license for life. There's so much information on drunk driving and its consequences that they need to be pulled off the road for good. Sure it will fuck up their life not to be able to drive, but it's better than having them be able to be out there posing a danger to others.
I dunno how harsh jail time should be, though. Locking someone up for life for what is essentially an accident doesn't seem right to me, even if the drunk driver kills someone. I agree for repeat offenders. For most crimes, whether or not the crime is a repeat offense should be a big factor in the severity of the punishment. But for drunk driving, it's my opinion that the deluge of "over the limit under arrest" commercials and stuff like that negates the usefulness of the repeat offender policy. Maybe I'm being too harsh, though.
Too harsh I think. It's an error of judgement, not malicious intent.
|
On January 03 2010 17:04 Motiva wrote:
I know several drunk drivers, and most of them make it home safely every night. I think everyone in this thread is being absurdly results oriented. The issue isn't simple. Personal responsibility is key, but that also isn't a reason to ignore the status quo and social norms of our industrialized alcoholic societies.
I don't see how what you say justify drunk driving.
It's true. Even while under the influence of alcohol, the odds of getting into an accident is still relatively low. But it's MUCH, MUCH higher than regular driving.
If you want to talk about driving home safely after drinking... I had an old friend who celebrated his 21st birthday getting wasted, and then proceeded to drive back to the dorm on a one way street with a friend THE WRONG WAY. He didn't get into an accident. But that doesn't mean what he did wasn't ridiculously reckless, and one he should ever repeat in his life.
|
On January 03 2010 17:04 Motiva wrote:
I know several drunk drivers, and most of them make it home safely every night.
most of them? lol
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On January 03 2010 17:04 Kwidowmaker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 15:28 motbob wrote:On January 03 2010 15:23 Snet wrote:On January 03 2010 15:22 motbob wrote:
Drunk drivers that are above a certain limit (say .12 BAC) should lose their license for life. There's so much information on drunk driving and its consequences that they need to be pulled off the road for good. Sure it will fuck up their life not to be able to drive, but it's better than having them be able to be out there posing a danger to others.
I dunno how harsh jail time should be, though. Locking someone up for life for what is essentially an accident doesn't seem right to me, even if the drunk driver kills someone. I agree for repeat offenders. For most crimes, whether or not the crime is a repeat offense should be a big factor in the severity of the punishment. But for drunk driving, it's my opinion that the deluge of "over the limit under arrest" commercials and stuff like that negates the usefulness of the repeat offender policy. Maybe I'm being too harsh, though. Too harsh I think. It's an error of judgement, not malicious intent.
This is exactly why I don't support strict jail time. But when an error of judgment can lead to the death of innocent people, it's important to take away the chance of the error being made again. In other words, it's important to take the license away.
|
sadly in canada, the "10 years maximum sentence" ends up being like 18 months in jail lol
|
On January 03 2010 17:33 baubo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 17:04 Motiva wrote:
I know several drunk drivers, and most of them make it home safely every night. I think everyone in this thread is being absurdly results oriented. The issue isn't simple. Personal responsibility is key, but that also isn't a reason to ignore the status quo and social norms of our industrialized alcoholic societies. I don't see how what you say justify drunk driving. It's true. Even while under the influence of alcohol, the odds of getting into an accident is still relatively low. But it's MUCH, MUCH higher than regular driving. If you want to talk about driving home safely after drinking... I had an old friend who celebrated his 21st birthday getting wasted, and then proceeded to drive back to the dorm on a one way street with a friend THE WRONG WAY. He didn't get into an accident. But that doesn't mean what he did wasn't ridiculously reckless, and one he should ever repeat in his life.
EDIT: wow, no idea how I wrote so much lol boredom ftw.
lol. I'm not sure I was trying to justify driving drunk. I was simply saying that it's a fact. It happens, and that simply saying that there is nothing much we can do about this. Morally judging people on this is pretty absurd... Most people who drink alcohol and live in a setting that requires driving, will at some point in their life drink and drive with some amount of alcohol in their system. I'm not condoning drinking and driving, but more so, people's perspective and personal bias on the situation. The law is abusrd as well... .06 and .07 aren't nearly the threat that .08 is?! To the degree that .07 is LEGAL and .08 is ILLEGAL? ROFLFL
and to the 2nd quote. Yes most of them. That is. Safely as in, they are conscious of the risk they are posing to themselves and others, and act maturely and rationally. As in: They've been driving with some level of alchohol in their system multiple times a week for multiple years, and have never gotten into an accident, had a ticket, or any other severe complications (like staying on your side of the road).
I also have friends, within similar circles, who consistently lie to themselves and overdrink and drive more/farther/faster/ect than they should. As such they've done things like accidently drive off the road, hit cars, get multple DWIs. I however certainly talk to people in this circle less frequently and as a matter of personal responsibility do not put myself in situations they routinely find themselves in. I would say that even when these people make it home without any complications, as they still typically do, it was not done so safely.
To say that by not going out and forcing a change in these peoples lifestyle is negligence is absurd. Many of these people struggle with alcoholism and have acquired 15,000+ in fines to the govt. if not much more. There is nothing I could do but alienate myself away from these people and in the end, just simply not have that friend when/if they come out of their shit-storm lifestyle. As such I simply tell them the truth, and as a result rarely see them.
I also think I have a skewed viewpoint on motor transportation as from the age of 18 to 23 my primary source of transportation was a motorcycle. I should mention that I lived at that time roughly 20 miles from Houston City limits, but worked 5 miles into Houston. Also during this time my profession was Bartending. As such I spent countless hours getting to work at 5pm (rush hour) and getting home from work at 3am (drunk time).
My point of view, ESPECIALLY on a motorcycle is that your personal safety is again a massive personal responsibility. If someone comes out of nowhere in hits you, it is still your fault for not seeing and anticipating. If an 18 wheeler turns into you because he did not see you, then it is your fault for not being aware that he could not see you. If someone pulls out directly in front of you (had happened to me countless times on a bike) then it is your fault for not watching them, anticipating, and most of all ALWAYS being EXTREMELY ready to react INTELLIGENTLY.
Of course there are always unforeseeable things, but humans are huge fans of inflating that list more so than it needs to be. There will always be inherit risks in everything, from drinking and driving, to simply driving or simply drinking. Some people are so risk-adverse that they can't even leave their houses. It's a matter of personal responsibility and awareness.
I can be sure that my life experiences have made me severely bias, and critical. I'm alright with that.
EDIT2: rofl time to add more wordz~
I figure I should point out that I agree with motbob that a matter of huge importance here is of course how this is regulated. I know some of the people I mentioned above, the notoriously bad ones, are the ones with Rich parents who can easily cover all of the fines. Some of these same people continue to drive (and drink) even after their licenses have been taken. I'm clearly not claiming to be an expert on regulating this quite complicated social phenomena (drunk driving) based on my few life experiences and those of the people I know. There is certainly room for improvement.
|
so tl;dr = dont drink and drive
dont plan on it, any whenever i drink i try to give my keys to someone sober i know even though i have always been a smart enough drunk to know not to even think about it.
|
i once had a dream in which i was drunk and driving. I got so scared that i've not drunk when going out with the car!
|
yeah just dont drink and drive
Start driving THEN drink! 
but seriously keep in mind this endangers other lives so dont do it unless your drinking and gokarting and you cant hurt others with your stupid decision 
|
|
|
Back here in good ol' Sweden you can get drunk and kill a bunch of people and BLAME IT on the alcohol.
"Sorry Judge, I was drunk. Had no control over my actions."
"Aight, bro. I feel ya. You still get one year though."
"I understand."
I heard some guy in New York got 20years because he was drunk and killed a young girl. Thats sounds about right. Nobody's forcing you to drink, much less to drink and drive. Its a conscious choice and you should therefore suffer the consequences of your actions.
|
On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o:
heh, of course.
Though if someone had to be the "give me your keys" guy, he would have to do it at every clubbing nights. I see drunk driving (friends, strangers, whoever) every time I go clubbing. Almost as if it was normal. That itself is pretty disturbing.
|
They should put breathalisers into every car so you have to take a breath test just to start the engine. They could easily do it but it'd cost a few extra dollars so thats not gonna happen.
The penalty the guy should get is Life(whole life) in prison or the death penalty if available in the state the crime took place.
There is no point in a deterrent if it's soft which clearly they are in the US.
Too harsh I think. It's an error of judgement, not malicious intent.
It could have quite easily been 10-20 ppl run over not just 2. Any more then 0 is too many ppl hurt and possibly killed/disabled for life.
|
On January 04 2010 01:11 Adeeler wrote:They should put breathalisers into every car so you have to take a breath test just to start the engine. They could easily do it but it'd cost a few extra dollars so thats not gonna happen. The penalty the guy should get is Life(whole life) in prison or the death penalty if available in the state the crime took place. There is no point in a deterrent if it's soft which clearly they are in the US. It could have quite easily been 10-20 ppl run over not just 2. Any more then 0 is too many ppl hurt and possibly killed/disabled for life.
yeah and then we kill the killer who killed this man and then we kill the killer of the killer of this man:
while(someone alive){
kill;
}
morron
|
On January 04 2010 01:11 Adeeler wrote:They should put breathalisers into every car so you have to take a breath test just to start the engine. They could easily do it but it'd cost a few extra dollars so thats not gonna happen. The penalty the guy should get is Life(whole life) in prison or the death penalty if available in the state the crime took place. There is no point in a deterrent if it's soft which clearly they are in the US. It could have quite easily been 10-20 ppl run over not just 2. Any more then 0 is too many ppl hurt and possibly killed/disabled for life.
1. If by a few extra dollars you meant a few hundred dollars => totalling millions, then your second sentence would be correct.
2. What about the majority of the population that don't drink at all?
|
On January 04 2010 02:14 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 01:11 Adeeler wrote:They should put breathalisers into every car so you have to take a breath test just to start the engine. They could easily do it but it'd cost a few extra dollars so thats not gonna happen. The penalty the guy should get is Life(whole life) in prison or the death penalty if available in the state the crime took place. There is no point in a deterrent if it's soft which clearly they are in the US. Too harsh I think. It's an error of judgement, not malicious intent. It could have quite easily been 10-20 ppl run over not just 2. Any more then 0 is too many ppl hurt and possibly killed/disabled for life. yeah and then we kill the killer who killed this man and then we kill the killer of the killer of this man: while(someone alive){ kill; } morron
lool
|
I like drinking. I drink a lot. I have a car. But I NEVER drive when I have drunk. I prefer walking 5 km in a cold night instead of driving after drinking even if it is only a beer.
Just NEVER EVER drive drunk!
@topic if your acquaintance really did drink then he is a total asshole. And he will surely receive a (heavy) penalty because he was involved in an accident.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On January 04 2010 02:36 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 01:11 Adeeler wrote:They should put breathalisers into every car so you have to take a breath test just to start the engine. They could easily do it but it'd cost a few extra dollars so thats not gonna happen. The penalty the guy should get is Life(whole life) in prison or the death penalty if available in the state the crime took place. There is no point in a deterrent if it's soft which clearly they are in the US. Too harsh I think. It's an error of judgement, not malicious intent. It could have quite easily been 10-20 ppl run over not just 2. Any more then 0 is too many ppl hurt and possibly killed/disabled for life. 1. If by a few extra dollars you meant a few hundred dollars => totalling millions, then your second sentence would be correct.
Well, let's think about this.
- Looking at stats online I'm gonna estimate that roughly 25% of fatal crashes are caused by alcohol (about 35% involve alcohol but obviously there's no way to tell which crashes were *caused* by it.)
- 37,261 people died last year in motor accidents in the U.S.
- Let's say that these breathalyser cars would slash drunk driving accidents by half.
If we assume that, then these breathalyser cars would save ~4657 lives.
If we're taking the EPA measurement of the value of a life, the value of those lives saved is about $22 billion.
7,667,066 vehicles were sold in the U.S. in 2006.
Thus, if it costs less than $2855 per car to install these breathalysers, we should.
...obviously it's not that simple just something to think about.
|
On January 04 2010 03:19 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 02:36 synapse wrote:On January 04 2010 01:11 Adeeler wrote:They should put breathalisers into every car so you have to take a breath test just to start the engine. They could easily do it but it'd cost a few extra dollars so thats not gonna happen. The penalty the guy should get is Life(whole life) in prison or the death penalty if available in the state the crime took place. There is no point in a deterrent if it's soft which clearly they are in the US. Too harsh I think. It's an error of judgement, not malicious intent. It could have quite easily been 10-20 ppl run over not just 2. Any more then 0 is too many ppl hurt and possibly killed/disabled for life. 1. If by a few extra dollars you meant a few hundred dollars => totalling millions, then your second sentence would be correct. Well, let's think about this. - Looking at stats online I'm gonna estimate that roughly 25% of fatal crashes are caused by alcohol (about 35% involve alcohol but obviously there's no way to tell which crashes were *caused* by it.) - 37,261 people died last year in motor accidents in the U.S. - Let's say that these breathalyser cars would slash drunk driving accidents by half. If we assume that, then these breathalyser cars would save ~4657 lives. If we're taking the EPA measurement of the value of a life, the value of those lives saved is about $22 billion. 7,667,066 vehicles were sold in the U.S. in 2006. Thus, if it costs less than $2855 per car to install these breathalysers, we should. ...obviously it's not that simple just something to think about.
Wish there was a way to collate the stats of how many accidents are caused by texting while driving and added those into your calculations. I bet the cost of breathalyzer + coverage blocker would be <<<< cost in human lives.
|
On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o:
Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence.
I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions.
|
On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions.
You got to be kidding. DUI kills - everyone agrees with that. How is that not dangerous? By your logic even people who are convicted of manslaughter do not need to go to jail - after all, they are not dangerous people; they just happened to have killed someone in the heat of the moment.
|
On January 04 2010 03:49 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions. You got to be kidding. DUI kills - everyone agrees with that. How is that not dangerous? By your logic even people who are convicted of manslaughter do not need to go to jail - after all, they are not dangerous people; they just happened to have killed someone in the heat of the moment.
Depends on what they did. Sure DUIs kill, but the person isn't dangerous as long as they don't drive. Don't put them in prison, give them house arrest if you must, make them work in soup kitchens and clean our roads as compensation. Locking them away does nothing for us and just costs us money. We are no safer having them behind bars.
|
On January 04 2010 03:54 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 03:49 illu wrote:On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions. You got to be kidding. DUI kills - everyone agrees with that. How is that not dangerous? By your logic even people who are convicted of manslaughter do not need to go to jail - after all, they are not dangerous people; they just happened to have killed someone in the heat of the moment. Depends on what they did. Sure DUIs kill, but the person isn't dangerous as long as they don't drive. Don't put them in prison, give them house arrest if you must, make them work in soup kitchens and clean our roads as compensation. Locking them away does nothing for us and just costs us money. We are no safer having them behind bars.
This is the same to say for all of the other kinds of criminals. In fact, by your logic, a murderer does not need to stay in jail - all we need to do is to put him into house arrest away from dangerous weapons. But I am pretty sure you are not OK with that, are you?
|
On January 03 2010 14:41 SuperJongMan wrote:
My last DUI cost me 7000...
Yeah, just never ever do it.
I had to drive ONE FUCKN BLOCK!!!
So I did, and a spy assassin cop just nailed me.
He's gonna lose a ton of money over this.
i just lost all my respect for you
|
how the fuck are people so self-centered that they live in a city and get charged with a DUI more than once.
ok, one time, i understand - you're retarded and ignorant.
but more than once....? you're just a self-centered asshole.
please note that I say "in a city" because in a city you can walk or get a taxi. out in the country there aren't so many options, not that it still isn't a terrible thing to do.
|
On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions.
There was a taxi. He could have called a taxi. He could have gotten rides from his friends. Lock him away and let him feel regret for his selfishness for a while.
|
On January 04 2010 04:18 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 03:54 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 04 2010 03:49 illu wrote:On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions. You got to be kidding. DUI kills - everyone agrees with that. How is that not dangerous? By your logic even people who are convicted of manslaughter do not need to go to jail - after all, they are not dangerous people; they just happened to have killed someone in the heat of the moment. Depends on what they did. Sure DUIs kill, but the person isn't dangerous as long as they don't drive. Don't put them in prison, give them house arrest if you must, make them work in soup kitchens and clean our roads as compensation. Locking them away does nothing for us and just costs us money. We are no safer having them behind bars. This is the same to say for all of the other kinds of criminals. In fact, by your logic, a murderer does not need to stay in jail - all we need to do is to put him into house arrest away from dangerous weapons. But I am pretty sure you are not OK with that, are you?
I feel that way with many types of criminals, but not murderers. You are completely twisting my words and deliberately not seeing what I am saying. I explicitly said that I don't believe in locking away criminals that "aren't dangerous." Sure this sounds ambiguous, but someone convicted of manslaughter can hardly be argued to be as dangerous as someone convicted of murder. A man who has gotten one DUI who can no longer drive can hardly be considered a menace to society. I feel this way about most people convicted of 'soft crime' like Conrad Black. These people would serve better by giving back to society what they took, not being locked away.
Please don't say "by your logic" when I have made it clear that it is NOT by my logic that murderers should not be in jail. Please reread what I initially said.
|
On January 04 2010 04:26 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions. There was a taxi. He could have called a taxi. He could have gotten rides from his friends. Lock him away and let him feel regret for his selfishness for a while.
Yeah, what he did was absolutely irresponsible and selfish and he should be punished for it. I am not defending drinking and driving. In downtown Montreal there are plenty of ways he could have gotten home safely. I was just explaining one other reason for why people drink and drive.
|
fwiw I agree with your general stance on imprisonment. I just think people who do this kind of shit deserve very harsh punishment.
|
So do all of you guys who want life time imprisonment agree for similar punishments for speeding, tailgating or driving in winter without winter tires? Because the effects (being less able to control your vehicle in dangerous situation) and the motives (save money, get to a place faster...selfishness) are the same, yet I remember some threat on TL where a lot of people admitted that they drove faster than allowed.
|
man, he's probably gonna get some serious jailtime
|
Instead of the death penalty they could have a sentence of hard labour for their natural life, when they are too old to do anything and they cost more to detain then execute them. This way at least they did something productive for society with there lives and they get to keep living many years until they are a financial burden.
This is quite harsh but at least they can reduce the damage they have done to society for maiming/killing someone and the deterrent factor is maintained. Sounds very harsh still but this is ppls lives we are talking about.
The Breathalyzer cars idea is something I wouldn't like but would accept even though I don't drink as that way I know its helping keep ppl from drink driving as their are still those that do. The inconvenience is greatly outweighed by the gain of fewer/nill DUI crashes.
|
On January 04 2010 04:56 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:
So do all of you guys who want life time imprisonment agree for similar punishments for speeding, tailgating or driving in winter without winter tires? Because the effects (being less able to control your vehicle in dangerous situation) and the motives (save money, get to a place faster...selfishness) are the same, yet I remember some threat on TL where a lot of people admitted that they drove faster than allowed.
Speeding might as well have the same punishments I don't see why not. Tailgating is rather difficult to detect someone doing without camera evidence/crash happening as a result to cause you to investigate. Driving without winter tires is a strange one as its only appropriate in places where there is this adverse weather and the government should just grit the roads so this shouldn't be necessary in most places but where the weather is truly that bad then sure, every car should have winter tires/chain links things for the cars.
Speeding could be immediately stopped on highways by putting in speed limiters in every car which is quite cheap anyways. To go a step further GPS + Speedlimiter working together could keep you from speeding at all, the only problem is ppl might accellerate to the limit all the time keeping their foot down which can be dangerous too as the speed limit is the limit not the speed you must go at if its not safe. But some form of technology could reduce this problem.
Also a black box in every car to record any speeding done would further keep ppl from ever speeding. I mean even if you speed on short journeys you save very little time and just waste petrol.
|
On January 04 2010 04:27 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 04:18 illu wrote:On January 04 2010 03:54 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 04 2010 03:49 illu wrote:On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions. You got to be kidding. DUI kills - everyone agrees with that. How is that not dangerous? By your logic even people who are convicted of manslaughter do not need to go to jail - after all, they are not dangerous people; they just happened to have killed someone in the heat of the moment. Depends on what they did. Sure DUIs kill, but the person isn't dangerous as long as they don't drive. Don't put them in prison, give them house arrest if you must, make them work in soup kitchens and clean our roads as compensation. Locking them away does nothing for us and just costs us money. We are no safer having them behind bars. This is the same to say for all of the other kinds of criminals. In fact, by your logic, a murderer does not need to stay in jail - all we need to do is to put him into house arrest away from dangerous weapons. But I am pretty sure you are not OK with that, are you? I feel that way with many types of criminals, but not murderers. You are completely twisting my words and deliberately not seeing what I am saying. I explicitly said that I don't believe in locking away criminals that "aren't dangerous." Sure this sounds ambiguous, but someone convicted of manslaughter can hardly be argued to be as dangerous as someone convicted of murder. A man who has gotten one DUI who can no longer drive can hardly be considered a menace to society. I feel this way about most people convicted of 'soft crime' like Conrad Black. These people would serve better by giving back to society what they took, not being locked away. Please don't say "by your logic" when I have made it clear that it is NOT by my logic that murderers should not be in jail. Please reread what I initially said.
Murderers without weapons are also not dangerous. So I think we are perfectly fine to make them under house arrest and have them doing whatever they want as long as they do not endanger anyone else. Same with criminals convicted of manslaughter - in fact, since you think criminals deprived of their weapons (which can be a hand gun, a kitchen knife, or a car; all of them are dangerous weapons when used "correctly") are not menace to the society,
Actually, I probably do not want to live in a world bond by the kinds of laws you mentioned. In your imaginary world, I can get angry, shoot and kill you, charged with manslaughter, and walk away simply by depriving me of my gun liscense. Alternatively, I can run you over with a car, and walk away simply by forfeiting my driver's liscense. Does that sound fair to you?
In my old neighbourhood, there is an old lady who always sit and watch over an intersection psychotically - accordingly, she has been doing it for many years because her only grandchild was killed on that intersection because of a drunk driver. You probably have not lost anyone to DUI before, and either have I, but statistics show that about one third of fatalities are caused by DUI, and lives that are lost to DUI is very real. That's why the law is tough on DUI. Now grow up.
|
On January 03 2010 15:09 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 14:57 Rainmaker5 wrote:On January 03 2010 14:54 psion0011 wrote:
Your buddy should get the death penalty. Right because that will solve all of our problems. Well, something is wrong with the system of deterrents in place if people continue to drink and drive, and in the process put other people at risk. If the punishment is harsh enough, you're not going to drink and drive. Simple as that.
Yet if you get the death penalty for murder...people still murder gee i wonder why?!??
|
On January 04 2010 07:11 Saturnize wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 15:09 Two_DoWn wrote:On January 03 2010 14:57 Rainmaker5 wrote:On January 03 2010 14:54 psion0011 wrote:
Your buddy should get the death penalty. Right because that will solve all of our problems. Well, something is wrong with the system of deterrents in place if people continue to drink and drive, and in the process put other people at risk. If the punishment is harsh enough, you're not going to drink and drive. Simple as that. Yet if you get the death penalty for murder...people still murder gee i wonder why?!??
Coz most of the people who do dumb things are... pretty dumb. Go figure!
|
On January 03 2010 15:12 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 15:10 Snet wrote:
What was his BAC? When police say he failed the test, in some states that's as low as .02 BAC which wouldn't of been the cause of this accident.
He's probably getting up to a year for seriously injuring 2 people while under the influence. He better hope to god no one dies.
Then he has to worry about being sued. Your friend is fucked for a long time. It's 0.08 in most provinces in Canada. And since it's DUI causing bodily harm, the Crown Attorney is obviously going to press charges.
It actually recently went from .07 to .04 in Ontario. In terms of if alcohol actually caused the accident, seems like bad asian driving and 'weather' was a much larger factor than a couple of minishots.
|
On January 03 2010 15:00 illu wrote:He is screwed. If that person dies, he could be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, reckless driving, and manslaughter. Except no less than 10 years. All we can do is to pray for the well-being of the victims. EDIT: some information for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_(Canada)Show nested quote +
If no one is killed or hurt, and the prosecutor is proceeding by summary conviction, the maximum sentence is 18 months of jail. If no is killed or hurt, and the prosecutor is proceeding by indictment, the maximum sentence is 5 years of jail.[16]
If another person suffers bodily harm because of the offence, the maximum sentence is 10 years in jail.[18]
If another person is killed because of the offence, the maximum sentence is a life sentence.[19]
Since someone is seriously hurt (actually, two people), he is looking at around 10 years assuming they don't die. If that person dies, o boy.
Oh wow I'm jealous of Canada.
In Texas Intoxication Manslaughter only gets you twenty years maximum
|
On January 04 2010 07:02 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 04:27 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 04 2010 04:18 illu wrote:On January 04 2010 03:54 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 04 2010 03:49 illu wrote:On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions. You got to be kidding. DUI kills - everyone agrees with that. How is that not dangerous? By your logic even people who are convicted of manslaughter do not need to go to jail - after all, they are not dangerous people; they just happened to have killed someone in the heat of the moment. Depends on what they did. Sure DUIs kill, but the person isn't dangerous as long as they don't drive. Don't put them in prison, give them house arrest if you must, make them work in soup kitchens and clean our roads as compensation. Locking them away does nothing for us and just costs us money. We are no safer having them behind bars. This is the same to say for all of the other kinds of criminals. In fact, by your logic, a murderer does not need to stay in jail - all we need to do is to put him into house arrest away from dangerous weapons. But I am pretty sure you are not OK with that, are you? I feel that way with many types of criminals, but not murderers. You are completely twisting my words and deliberately not seeing what I am saying. I explicitly said that I don't believe in locking away criminals that "aren't dangerous." Sure this sounds ambiguous, but someone convicted of manslaughter can hardly be argued to be as dangerous as someone convicted of murder. A man who has gotten one DUI who can no longer drive can hardly be considered a menace to society. I feel this way about most people convicted of 'soft crime' like Conrad Black. These people would serve better by giving back to society what they took, not being locked away. Please don't say "by your logic" when I have made it clear that it is NOT by my logic that murderers should not be in jail. Please reread what I initially said. Murderers without weapons are also not dangerous. So I think we are perfectly fine to make them under house arrest and have them doing whatever they want as long as they do not endanger anyone else. Same with criminals convicted of manslaughter - in fact, since you think criminals deprived of their weapons (which can be a hand gun, a kitchen knife, or a car; all of them are dangerous weapons when used "correctly") are not menace to the society, Actually, I probably do not want to live in a world bond by the kinds of laws you mentioned. In your imaginary world, I can get angry, shoot and kill you, charged with manslaughter, and walk away simply by depriving me of my gun liscense. Alternatively, I can run you over with a car, and walk away simply by forfeiting my driver's liscense. Does that sound fair to you? In my old neighbourhood, there is an old lady who always sit and watch over an intersection psychotically - accordingly, she has been doing it for many years because her only grandchild was killed on that intersection because of a drunk driver. You probably have not lost anyone to DUI before, and either have I, but statistics show that about one third of fatalities are caused by DUI, and lives that are lost to DUI is very real. That's why the law is tough on DUI. Now grow up.
You have absolutely missed what I am saying. A murderer purposefully killed someone. Killing someone while drunk driving is an accident. Sure the act is selfish and irresponsible but the man didn't intend to kill someone. The difference is intent. I said that someone who is not dangerous (ie. a man convicted of manslaughter) should not be locked away in prison but should serve in a more meaningful manner. I never said their punishment shouldn't be as severe. You seem to be arguing that somehow I want murderers out of jail and running around the streets, when what I want is nonthreatening criminals paying back their debt to society instead of costing it money.
I repeat, I do NOT want criminals to have lighter sentences, I want them to have different sentences. The current way has a miserable rate of reform, and it doesn't make sense to lock away people that aren't a threat.
|
Wow, as someone who just moved into Montreal (six-months) this news is bit too close to home for me. How much is DUI a problem in Montreal, if anyone knows? Anyhow, for the person driving under the influence, minimum penalty should be at least stiff fine and permanent loss of driver license. I think the last just depends on the severity of the victim's injury, because if it's death, it's definitely going to be jail.
I understand the people who are arguing the punishment could be restricted to community sentence etc., but if the injury due to DUI is permanent, it's pretty lenient for the driver to be released for probably completely messing over that guy's future life prospects.
|
Small update:
He's at home now. I'm not 100% sure of his punishment, but he's definitely at home now.
I don't think he got any severe punishment.
|
On January 06 2010 12:13 ShcShc wrote:
Small update:
He's at home now. I'm not 100% sure of his punishment, but he's definitely at home now.
I don't think he got any severe punishment.
he might have spent the night in jail, and given a court date for his criminal offences. He will be judged at that point, and given his punishment, including fines and loss of license. He will also most surely be taken to court again by the injured, and sued for damages caused to them, which could be a pretty steep fine.
It may look like he is at home, and nothing much will happen, but he probably only had to be in jail until he was sober, and then released until his court date. He may be on house arrest until that date too, never know. Either way he is going to be facing some steep punishment.
|
On January 06 2010 12:13 ShcShc wrote:
Small update:
He's at home now. I'm not 100% sure of his punishment, but he's definitely at home now.
I don't think he got any severe punishment.
He might be on bail; I can't imagine why someone charged with DUI must be remanded. However this is probably just temporary since there is no way he can get away from it without a trial.
|
On January 06 2010 12:33 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 12:13 ShcShc wrote:
Small update:
He's at home now. I'm not 100% sure of his punishment, but he's definitely at home now.
I don't think he got any severe punishment. He might be on bail; I can't imagine why someone charged with DUI must be remanded. However this is probably just temporary since there is no way he can get away from it without a trial.
He got his trial on Sunday and he's home now.
|
On January 03 2010 14:57 Rainmaker5 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 14:54 psion0011 wrote:
Your buddy should get the death penalty. Right because that will solve all of our problems.
I doubt people would drive drunk if the penalty was death. Death is obviously a little severe, but the penalty should be severe enough that people stop fucking doing it. IMO first offense DUI should result in you losing your license for 3-5 years (under circumstances where it is proven via breathalizer that you are well over the legal limit). Then maybe these idiots would actually considering taking a cab or public transit after getting hammered. Slap your buddy in the face for me. I think that the laws should be much worse than this 30days-6months no license + fine. If you are going to get behind the wheel and risk the lives of others you should lose the right to personal transportation for a significant period of time. Same should go for people who talk on the phone or text while driving.
|
and those speeding? and those eating? and those having naging kids on the backseat?
|
2. What about the majority of the population that don't drink at all?
your kidding right?
Drunk driving should be punished hard.
But most people in here that want to punish a drunk driver like a murderer are probably to retarded to pass a driving test anyway...
|
anyone fucking stupid enough to get hammered and drive on nye in montreal which has cabs all over deserves to get fucked by the long dick of the law
|
I did not say anything else.
But if you put "retardnes" on the same level as "willingly killing someone" then something is very wrong with your judgement.
Btw:
"Hammered" is also pretty "open", what is hammered? 0.2 (lol), 0.5, 0.8, 1?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
