A question about drunk drivers.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2012, 12:26 AM
A question about drunk drivers.
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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Birdguy1979's post
22-10-2012, 12:57 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
I think you have hit on something, though I don't know that this was your intention. On one hand it is easy to say "Although he was reckless, he didn't harm anyone, and everyone makes mistakes. Hasn't everyone done something regrettable before? He doesn't deserve to die." On the other hand, "What if he had killed while driving drunk? Does the fact that by mere chance no one got hurt by him make him less deserving of life?" You have to weigh intent of action with the results of the actions. This is a good example, but it happens in courts across the world all the time. Let's suppose that I decide to kill you by poisoning your tea. I have recorded my plan, but my chance I accidentally put sugar instead of a powdery poison into your cup. Although you lived with no harm suffered do I deserve less of a sentence than if my plan had worked and I killed you?

With that being said, whether someone deserves to die or not should be decided in a courtroom, not by policemen. Their job is to enforce the laws of the people, not to judge right from wrong and handout death-sentences.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 12:59 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
I do not condone drinking and driving and I think drunk drivers should be held responsible, but I do not think a drunk person is worthless and should just be left to burn when they are unaware of their surroundings in a fire.

This is a person and someone's loved one. I have a loved one who occasionally has been in similar scenarios when he relapses as an addict and he is not worthless. He is smart, caring, has a family and it would be tragic if someone didn't help him if he were down and out.

I think if someone I loved were hurt or killed by someone who was irresponsible like the person in this scenario, I could feel as though I'd want to dismiss the person as worthless instead of the behaviour. This behaviour is unacceptable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like LadyJane's post
22-10-2012, 01:17 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
If the certain someone is incapable of not doing it again and again then they are either worthless or insane. If worthless then let them burn. If it is insanity then they should be forever confined in a mental institution where they can't harm themselves or others, until such time as they are no longer a threat. Even if that means for life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 01:21 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
(22-10-2012 01:17 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  If the certain someone is incapable of not doing it again and again then they are either worthless or insane. If worthless then let them burn. If it is insanity then they should be forever confined in a mental institution where they can't harm themselves or others, until such time as they are no longer a threat. Even if that means for life.




Or an addict. A person who has an addiction is not worthless or insane.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like LadyJane's post
22-10-2012, 01:23 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
(22-10-2012 12:59 AM)LadyJane Wrote:  I do not condone drinking and driving and I think drunk drivers should be held responsible, but I do not think a drunk person is worthless and should just be left to burn when they are unaware of their surroundings in a fire.

This is a person and someone's loved one. I have a loved one who occasionally has been in similar scenarios when he relapses as an addict and he is not worthless. He is smart, caring, has a family and it would be tragic if someone didn't help him if he were down and out.

I think if someone I loved were hurt or killed by someone who was irresponsible like the person in this scenario, I could feel as though I'd want to dismiss the person as worthless instead of the behaviour. This behaviour is unacceptable.

You are also leaving out the possibility of said fire going out of control, and posing a serious threat to somebody else, or somebody else's property.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 01:43 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
(22-10-2012 01:23 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 12:59 AM)LadyJane Wrote:  I do not condone drinking and driving and I think drunk drivers should be held responsible, but I do not think a drunk person is worthless and should just be left to burn when they are unaware of their surroundings in a fire.

This is a person and someone's loved one. I have a loved one who occasionally has been in similar scenarios when he relapses as an addict and he is not worthless. He is smart, caring, has a family and it would be tragic if someone didn't help him if he were down and out.

I think if someone I loved were hurt or killed by someone who was irresponsible like the person in this scenario, I could feel as though I'd want to dismiss the person as worthless instead of the behaviour. This behaviour is unacceptable.

You are also leaving out the possibility of said fire going out of control, and posing a serious threat to somebody else, or somebody else's property.

So are you saying that a person should not be given due process and be given the chance for rehab and a chance to better themselves? One person on the scene, right there and then should be given the choice to just let another human being burn alive? No

I think a person's consequences should be decided in court, in front of their peers, just as any of the rest of us are given the chance. This is why we have laws and consequences. Snap decisions can be bad decisions. Perhaps good, perhaps bad.

So if you made a bad choice, you crash your car and I arrive on the scene... Do I say: "Fstrat seems like a total douche. He made a dumb choice. You know... this guy might reoffend in the future. Instead of saving him, citing him and giving him the chance to explain himself and make a choice to better himself... I think i'll just let the guy burn alive. Fuck that guy."

Is that what you would want? That's what we're proposing here. We've already gone over this stuff.... this is a duplicate topic from birdguy's "I don't like people who drive fast, so if they crash they should die" thread... Same proposal, different circumstances.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
22-10-2012, 01:44 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
(22-10-2012 01:23 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 12:59 AM)LadyJane Wrote:  I do not condone drinking and driving and I think drunk drivers should be held responsible, but I do not think a drunk person is worthless and should just be left to burn when they are unaware of their surroundings in a fire.

This is a person and someone's loved one. I have a loved one who occasionally has been in similar scenarios when he relapses as an addict and he is not worthless. He is smart, caring, has a family and it would be tragic if someone didn't help him if he were down and out.

I think if someone I loved were hurt or killed by someone who was irresponsible like the person in this scenario, I could feel as though I'd want to dismiss the person as worthless instead of the behaviour. This behaviour is unacceptable.

You are also leaving out the possibility of said fire going out of control, and posing a serious threat to somebody else, or somebody else's property.


No I'm not, it states in the OP that the door opened freely and it was under control.

If that were the case, however, I would have to trust the professional police and fire personal to make the appropriate judgement calls with everyone's safety.

A friend of mine was called out to a similar scenario that didn't end so well, there was nothing the firemen or paramedics could do (she was a paramedic). She couldn't return to work ever again after that night.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LadyJane's post
22-10-2012, 01:48 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
This conversation reminds me of this.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-lifestyle

Geez Birdguy, I hope I'm not in trouble driving one day and you're the only person around I could get help from.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like LadyJane's post
22-10-2012, 02:10 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
(22-10-2012 01:43 AM)Logisch Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 01:23 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  You are also leaving out the possibility of said fire going out of control, and posing a serious threat to somebody else, or somebody else's property.

So are you saying that a person should not be given due process and be given the chance for rehab and a chance to better themselves? One person on the scene, right there and then should be given the choice to just let another human being burn alive? No

I think a person's consequences should be decided in court, in front of their peers, just as any of the rest of us are given the chance. This is why we have laws and consequences. Snap decisions can be bad decisions. Perhaps good, perhaps bad.

So if you made a bad choice, you crash your car and I arrive on the scene... Do I say: "Fstrat seems like a total douche. He made a dumb choice. You know... this guy might reoffend in the future. Instead of saving him, citing him and giving him the chance to explain himself and make a choice to better himself... I think i'll just let the guy burn alive. Fuck that guy."

Is that what you would want? That's what we're proposing here. We've already gone over this stuff.... this is a duplicate topic from birdguy's "I don't like people who drive fast, so if they crash they should die" thread... Same proposal, different circumstances.

No, this is a bit different. When you are drunk off your ass, you are putting everyone at risk. I have seen pics of cars that have been launched into people's second floor bedrooms (seemingly defying the laws of physics). Someone that just drives too fast is an asshole, but a close call might get them to realize that they should slow down. Drunks have proven time and time again that even when they have totalled their car and killed people, they will just go do it again because life still sucks. They are either insane or beyond help in many situations. Problem is that I have seen too many news stories where a drunk has killed someone else (not drunk) and then fought all the charges in court and been let off with a really short jail term and/or community service. It is better in my opinion that they should either be allowed to die or confined for the safety of others. If it is blind drunkeness they are after, I know of more than a few mental institutions that would be happy to drug them out of their mind and keep them that way. I had a cousin die after getting drunk (yet again) and then on the way home decided to bend over in the middle of a street to pick up a coin. I do not feel sorry for him at all. He did it to himself. I control my drinking and have a set amount of time that I will not drive after I have had even a little alcohol. Imagine if he had gotten behind the wheel of a car and drove in that condition. Well, that is what many repeat offenders do even long after they lose their license. If you prove time and time again that you just can't avoid getting drunk and driving, you should be put away for a damn long time. If you want to get drunk off your ass and go for a walk, fine with me. If you can stay on the sidewalk and out of traffic, good for you. If not, may you rest in pieces.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: