A question about drunk drivers.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2012, 01:51 PM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
(22-10-2012 01:31 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 10:40 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Here's a thought experiment:
*SNIP*

This is similar to what I posted earlier in the thread but you go on to say that the drunk driver is as guilty as the blind-folded shooter. I think you are nuts, they aren't comparable. The drunk driver used risky actions but the gunman went far beyond that. He just open-fired on innocent bystanders. That isn't just risky, that is intentionally exposing people to harm for it's own sake. I would argue that it is downright attempted murder. The drunk driver was not trying to hurt anyone.

I didn't say he opened fire on innocent bystanders. Just near them. Maybe he thinks he's the luckiest man on earth and just bet his friend he could fire 120 rounds blindfolded in a crowded shopping center without hitting anyone. Maybe his intent is to leave everyone around him completely uninjured.

However, I think you'll find in most courts of law that you cannot argue intent. If a defense attorney tries to suggest that his client intended to do the right thing, the prosecution will object, and vice-versa.

So whether the hypothetical gunman intended murder or not, or whether the drunk driver intended to avoid hurting anyone, is irrelevant in a court of law.

My thought experiment was to suggest that both people are
1. operating a deadly weapon around innocent people who could be harmed or killed
2. unable to control their deadly weapon - it will or won't hurt/kill people and there is little they can do about it other than to avoid being in that situation to begin with

What if I change the scenario a bit to suit your line of thinking:

Instead of blindfolded, imagine my gunman scenario is simply piss-drunk while he opens fire in a crowded shopping center. All he wants to do is write his name on the wall in bullet holes, he doesn't want to hurt anyone. It's just "risky actions".

Do you think the cops who arrive on the scene and see the guy firing in the direction of innocent bystanders won't gun him down to save lives just because it's "risky actions"?

Modifying it like this, I think it's exactly the same: One guy gets drunk and uses a dangerous item, putting the health and lives of everyone around him at risk, and probably dies for it when the cops show up but certainly gets lots of years in prison. The other guy gets drunk and uses a dangerous item, putting the health and lives of everyone around him at risk, and probably gets a fine for it with no chance of prison or jail time.

Compare it like this: if both guys kill someone, they both get the same prison sentence. But if they don't, one still gets prison while the other gets a fine.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 02:13 PM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
(22-10-2012 12:26 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  I was watching an episode of wildest police videos today. One of the clips shown was of a drunk driver that crashed his car and caused a fire. The fire was next to the car and he was concious, although too drunk to be aware of the danger. The police told him to get out of the car and his response was "No, I'm good.". In my opinion they should have just left it at that. If the fire department got there in time to put the fire out, he gets to live. Likewise if he came too his senses in time to save himself and get out of the car, he lives but should be taken immediately to jail. If he in fact is so intoxicated that he burns to death, then the world is just a slight bit better because it is just one less repeat offender that no longer has a chance at killing others in this world. What is your opinion of this? Am I right that these fools that just don't give enough of a shit to not drive stupid drunk should be allowed to accept their fate? If they save themselves, I have no problem with them being punished. If they are too blind drunk though to help themselves, should they just be allowed to meet their demise? Of course if they can't help themselves due to damage to the car, that is a different story. In the case I am reffering to, the damage to the car was pretty minimal, the door he would have had to open opened easily for the cops that saved his worthless ass.

I do not want Police Officers or Fire Fighters making these judgments. They are sworn to protect society and whether we like this or not, these people are part of our society and deserve the full protection that entails.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KidCharlemagne1962's post
22-10-2012, 07:29 PM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
I certainly don't think they should be left to die.
Having said that, the courts have a lot to answer for when it comes to 'letting off' drunk drivers (here in OZ). The penalties are not hard enough which allows drunk drivers to re-offend indefinitely.
I have seen this first-hand as my brother is a serial offender and has only had his license revoked for short periods. He has left a trail of destruction because of his addiction to the bottle. If it were up to me he would be incarcerated for months at a time (I understand this is better handled in the U.S - from what I can gather from TV news reports).
That is all.

Humankind Dodgy (a total misnomer)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 12:29 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
(22-10-2012 07:29 PM)aurora Wrote:  I certainly don't think they should be left to die.
Having said that, the courts have a lot to answer for when it comes to 'letting off' drunk drivers (here in OZ). The penalties are not hard enough which allows drunk drivers to re-offend indefinitely.
I have seen this first-hand as my brother is a serial offender and has only had his license revoked for short periods. He has left a trail of destruction because of his addiction to the bottle. If it were up to me he would be incarcerated for months at a time (I understand this is better handled in the U.S - from what I can gather from TV news reports).
That is all.

Really, check this story out. http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2012...story.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13320570/ns/...k-drivers/

The second one talks about repeat offenders. Now, tell me again how the courts in the US do a better job.
Also for everyone else that feels the people I have the most problem with (repeat offenders), tell me again that we should not just let them burn when they finally fuck up in a way that puts them in a position to finally die.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 12:42 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
How do you tell the difference between someone who will not repeat offend, and someone who will? You propose a snap decision on the spot. Are you really such a great psychologist and have the human brain so figured out that you can tell exactly what a person will do in the future right then and there? If you do, you should try writing books, since you know, it'd be of great value to science.

You went from talking about a snap decision on the spot, to talking about how you hate repeat offenders. So repeat offenders should be left to burn as opposed to those who aren't? My point is that you cannot tell who is and isn't going to be a repeat offender right then and there. So do you let every person who makes a bad decision die on the spot, or does such an individual need to be evaluated?

Did you also know that we're coming close to being able to tell whether or not a person is a psychopath or sociopath JUST off their genetic structure and brain activity in reaction to things emotionally? Why would such an individual not just be... you know... studied and evaluated? I highly doubt you carry a cat scanner and have the tools necessary to break down the human genome with you, so I doubt you're a perfect judge of character to people on the spot.

So what's the issue you really have, is it repeat offenders? The court system and how you feel they lack justice and you feel like you should be some sort of judge dredd here? Or do you really feel like anyone who makes a mistake is a fuckup in life?

Perhaps someone did you some sort of injustice in life so you have a grudge against people who do these things? Seems an underlying anger towards people who do things you don't like, or have caused people issues, or something along those lines. Since most people are not so hostile towards such things in general, and also generally contain empathy until a reason to reserve otherwise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 01:09 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
How the fuck is this thread still alive? I hope a drunk driver runs over Birdguy just to end his retarded view and consequently retarded threads about wanting everyone that fucks up to die. There is not point in trying to convince him otherwise.....

Deep breaths....no nicotine in a while, very grouchy. Need nicotine in the bloodstream. Sorry for cruelty.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 01:12 AM (This post was last modified: 25-10-2012 01:17 AM by Vosur.)
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
(25-10-2012 01:09 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  How the fuck is this thread still alive? I hope a drunk driver runs over Birdguy just to end his retarded view and consequently retarded threads about wanting everyone that fucks up to die. There is not point in trying to convince him otherwise.....

Deep breaths....no nicotine in a while, very grouchy. Need nicotine in the bloodstream. Sorry for cruelty.
Calm down. Inflammatory responses are neither constructive, nor do they help your case.

(25-10-2012 12:29 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  Really, check this story out. http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2012...story.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13320570/ns/...k-drivers/

The second one talks about repeat offenders. Now, tell me again how the courts in the US do a better job.
Also for everyone else that feels the people I have the most problem with (repeat offenders), tell me again that we should not just let them burn when they finally fuck up in a way that puts them in a position to finally die.
Your inability to empathize with other humans surprises me.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
25-10-2012, 01:19 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
(25-10-2012 12:42 AM)Logisch Wrote:  How do you tell the difference between someone who will not repeat offend, and someone who will? You propose a snap decision on the spot. Are you really such a great psychologist and have the human brain so figured out that you can tell exactly what a person will do in the future right then and there? If you do, you should try writing books, since you know, it'd be of great value to science.

You went from talking about a snap decision on the spot, to talking about how you hate repeat offenders. So repeat offenders should be left to burn as opposed to those who aren't? My point is that you cannot tell who is and isn't going to be a repeat offender right then and there. So do you let every person who makes a bad decision die on the spot, or does such an individual need to be evaluated?

Did you also know that we're coming close to being able to tell whether or not a person is a psychopath or sociopath JUST off their genetic structure and brain activity in reaction to things emotionally? Why would such an individual not just be... you know... studied and evaluated? I highly doubt you carry a cat scanner and have the tools necessary to break down the human genome with you, so I doubt you're a perfect judge of character to people on the spot.

So what's the issue you really have, is it repeat offenders? The court system and how you feel they lack justice and you feel like you should be some sort of judge dredd here? Or do you really feel like anyone who makes a mistake is a fuckup in life?

Perhaps someone did you some sort of injustice in life so you have a grudge against people who do these things? Seems an underlying anger towards people who do things you don't like, or have caused people issues, or something along those lines. Since most people are not so hostile towards such things in general, and also generally contain empathy until a reason to reserve otherwise.

No, I do not have any such knowledge when it comes to first offenders. I am talking about when the police arrive the first thought is (I know that asshole, he/she is the one we keep pulling over for DUI.). That is when we need to just let them go. For the good of the many.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 01:21 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
(25-10-2012 01:12 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(25-10-2012 01:09 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  How the fuck is this thread still alive? I hope a drunk driver runs over Birdguy just to end his retarded view and consequently retarded threads about wanting everyone that fucks up to die. There is not point in trying to convince him otherwise.....

Deep breaths....no nicotine in a while, very grouchy. Need nicotine in the bloodstream. Sorry for cruelty.
Calm down. Inflammatory responses are neither constructive, nor do they help your case.

(25-10-2012 12:29 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  Really, check this story out. http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2012...story.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13320570/ns/...k-drivers/

The second one talks about repeat offenders. Now, tell me again how the courts in the US do a better job.
Also for everyone else that feels the people I have the most problem with (repeat offenders), tell me again that we should not just let them burn when they finally fuck up in a way that puts them in a position to finally die.
Your inability to empathize with other humans surprises me.

My inability to empathize probably stems from the years of abuse I suffered in school, all the while I was told I had to own my mistakes. I feel it is only right if it applies to everyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 01:26 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
Everyone has their demons, but allowing people to die for a mistake with no supporting evidence is stupid. Not only that but anytime you allow people to be the judge, jury, and executioner with virtually no evidence of their character, intent, and reasons for their predicament you incite to tyranny and a dangerous society full of chaos and havoc. Your way is not the answer. By the way I have nicotine coursing through my veins now Big Grin

Vosur Wrote:Calm down. Inflammatory responses are neither constructive, nor do they help your case.

Quite right. Apologies all around. Me - Nicotine = Angry Asshole.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Question about logic le_bard 15 437 22-02-2014 09:28 AM
Last Post: le_bard
  Is this begging the question? parsonf 28 733 18-01-2014 08:52 PM
Last Post: womendezuguo
  The impossible question about evolution? slimlover360 17 568 04-01-2014 09:26 AM
Last Post: houseofcantor
  My questioning of the question "What is the meaning of life" bemore 61 2,640 22-09-2013 03:56 PM
Last Post: Philosoraptor
  Question Regarding a Fallacy Misanthropik 8 308 09-11-2012 12:43 PM
Last Post: Misanthropik
  The Deepist Philosophical Question... Julius 4 524 26-10-2012 03:18 AM
Last Post: Birdguy1979
Question What is the ultimate Philosophy question? Dark Light 74 3,352 01-10-2012 10:05 PM
Last Post: Vorlon
Forum Jump: