A question about drunk drivers.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2012, 02:14 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
(22-10-2012 01:48 AM)LadyJane Wrote:  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.

Yeah, I see a pattern here. Birdguy wants reckless assholes to die, but doesn't want to be responsible for pulling the trigger. IMO he has the mentality that if they get hurt or die then they got what they deserved, and he has the opportunity to prevent harm from coming to them, he will pass by with a big grin on his face.

I have been guilty of driving way over the posted limit, especially as a kid, but I don't do it as a general rule now. I'd like to think I am a lot more careful now. Likewise, a drunk driver can realize the error of his ways and correct his/her actions. At the very least it needs to go before a public court.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 02:22 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
mmmmmmmmmmmm No, your last thread about driving like an asshole was that if those people did something wrong, they should be left to die. It's no different. You're still proposing that if someone makes a bad choice that instead of allowing the laws in place to decide their fate, that they simply be ignored by society to "correct" an issue. You're disregarding the chance for these people to:

- Explain themselves
- Correct mistakes
- Learn from mistakes

And instead, you are saying they should be ignored and left to die because of a choice. That is not due diligence. It's social darwinism. It's the same stuff you proposed in your last thread... the exact same thing... different scenario... same attitude.

We have courts of law for a reason. They help decide the fate and consequences of individuals who make bad choices. Yes... sometimes people get sentences that do not justify their actions. Others learn from their mistakes. But I cannot judge the motives of one person based off of one choice in a split second and could not allow them to die like that. I feel they should be tried in a court of law. If their intentions and sincerity are found questionable, and they cannot learn from their mistakes, by all means, they deserve consequences for their actions.

The only thing I thought was at least consistent about your discussion is that you said that you would hold yourself to the same consequences if they were enforced, should you do something stupid. However, I think it's safe to say that most people here would stop for you, and at least give you another chance, instead of letting you burn in the fire.

And I quote:

Quote:If you do these thigs and fuck up, ending up on the side of the road bleeding. I am not going to call the police if you were being a self important prick. By my standards the world will be far better off without your kind. If you pass me over a double solid yellow line and I encounter you flipped over somewhere down the road, you will be lucky if I don't run into your wreckage at full power. Of course I would only go around, because I have things to do and don't need to get involved. I am curious if you feel the same way, that maybe nature has decided that the idiots die to make life better for others?

Quote:I have to disagree. In my line of work, I see much stupidity. It always seems like the stupid, the drunks, the assholes never have any consequences for their actions. By refusing to help someone who clearly deserves the outcome, we ensure that they will never do it again. If they die or end up paralized, they can't do it again. If they get themselves out, they might just learn not to do it again. I tend to believe that they must be treated with the same disconnected disregard they treat others with in order to learn a really important lesson, even if it ends up killing them.

Quote:I see this differently. One of these assholes kills themself on the road, because they needed to get to the mall a few minutes quicker than everyone else. I feel they should die alone instead of getting the chance to go do it again and this time kill or harm someone else, because last time someone was there to save their ass. No harm to them, because they lied about how it happened and had an expensive lawyer to make sure they don't lose their license. Better off dying now, than having a chance of hurting or killing one of my kids when I finally have one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 02:24 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
(22-10-2012 02:10 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 01:43 AM)Logisch Wrote:  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.

Not everyone who drinks and drives on a particular night is bound and determined to do it the next day because his life sucks so bad that he must drown his sorrows at the local watering hole on a daily basis.

I drove under the influence once, and it was because after I had several pints I got abandoned. The person I rode in with left me with her keys and her vehicle but left with someone else (it was a family member). I was in a rural area (no bus, train, or even taxi). It was freezing outside, I was about 17 miles from home, had no phone and the place was closing for the night. If I wrecked my car (well, her car) and was on fire did I deserve to die?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dark Light's post
22-10-2012, 05:27 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
Hey Dark Light, sorry to say but Birdman has taken your position as forum's biggest idiot.

Tough luck DL.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
22-10-2012, 07:25 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
I can PM you a website Birdguy where you can watch people get judged, then beaten and set on fire for real if you like.

Its not nice No

You seem to have a black and white outlook on certain things.... not saying thats right or wrong its up to you, its your view. However like many things I try not to get reactionary as between the black and white is an massive and differing scale of grey.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 09:59 AM
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 don't know about the laws in the country of your hypothetical situation, but in Germany you can easily go to jail if you do not help someone whom you could have helped. This applies both to policemen, as well as to citizens.

http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/323c.html

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 10:40 AM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
Here's a thought experiment:

Imagine what would happen if a guy grabbed an uzi (or any other gun that fires tons of bullets really quickly) and a bunch of spare clips full of ammo. Then this guy drove to a shopping mall on a busy shopping day. He then puts on a blindfold and stands in the middle of the mall and opens fire. Sure, he can't see any targets, so he's just firing blindly. When he runs out of ammo, he reloads a new clip and keeps going and going and going.

Maybe he kills some people. Maybe he misses everyone. Maybe even nobody gets hurt.

Now imagine what happens if, right in the middle of his shooting spree, the police show up. Do they shoot him to keep everyone else safe? Do they just evacuate the building and let the guy shoot til he runs out of ammo?

Suppose this guy survives the police intervention and ends up in court. What are the charges? Murder? Attempted murder? Assault with a deadly weapon? Even if he didn't hit anyone at all, not a drop of blood was spilled, he would still be up on serious charges and would definitely serve some hefty prison time.

Make the idea even more abstract, suppose he didn't even do any property damage. I know, impossible, but suppose it was an outdoor environment like a county fair, and all his firing went over everyone's head and didn't even strike buildings or other property. Zero damage, other than some bullets landing in a dirt field some distance away. He's still facing serious charges and certain prison time.

Now, by comparison, some guy gets drunk and drives down a road, passing pedestrians and other vehicles. He is just as capable of killing people as the blindfolded guy with the uzi. But, instead of prison time, we give this guy a fine and turn him loose to do it again tomorrow, and the next day, and as often as he likes. Heck, we don't even confiscate his weapon (car) - but I guarantee you the gunman in my scenario would have his weapon confiscated even if he was legally licensed to own it.

Me, while I don't agree with the OP saying that we should just let the guy burn, I wouldn't oppose legislation to treat drunk driving under the same laws that we would treat the blindfolded gunman in my hypothetical scenario. To me, both the drunk driver and the blind gunman are equally responsible for breaking society's laws and threatening the lives of innocent people who don't deserve to be jeopardized by either man's actions - we have laws to protect us from one of those scenarios (gunmen opening fire in crowds) but the laws for the other scenario are extremely weak and, in my opinion, inadequate for handling the other guy (drunk drivers).

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Aseptic Skeptic's post
22-10-2012, 01:14 PM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
I would like to think I have an obligation to help someone, no matter how responsible they are for the position they find themselves in. I would pull the drunk driver in a wrecked and burning car out of his vehicle and set him on the curb and wait for the police to arrive so they can prosecute him and hold him responsible for endangering both his life and others.

The question is how to prevent him/her from doing it again. My suggestion is the following - someone who has been found guilty of drink driving is prevented from owning a car for a fixed period of time, say 10 years - after which time they may reapply to take their driving test. And anyone who knowingly lends a convicted drunk driver their vehicle during the terms of the sentence faces both prosecution and the confiscation of their vehicle

The secret to a happy life is lowering your expectations to the point where they are already met
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 01:31 PM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
(22-10-2012 10:40 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Here's a thought experiment:

Imagine what would happen if a guy grabbed an uzi (or any other gun that fires tons of bullets really quickly) and a bunch of spare clips full of ammo. Then this guy drove to a shopping mall on a busy shopping day. He then puts on a blindfold and stands in the middle of the mall and opens fire. Sure, he can't see any targets, so he's just firing blindly. When he runs out of ammo, he reloads a new clip and keeps going and going and going.

Maybe he kills some people. Maybe he misses everyone. Maybe even nobody gets hurt.

Now imagine what happens if, right in the middle of his shooting spree, the police show up. Do they shoot him to keep everyone else safe? Do they just evacuate the building and let the guy shoot til he runs out of ammo?

Suppose this guy survives the police intervention and ends up in court. What are the charges? Murder? Attempted murder? Assault with a deadly weapon? Even if he didn't hit anyone at all, not a drop of blood was spilled, he would still be up on serious charges and would definitely serve some hefty prison time.

Make the idea even more abstract, suppose he didn't even do any property damage. I know, impossible, but suppose it was an outdoor environment like a county fair, and all his firing went over everyone's head and didn't even strike buildings or other property. Zero damage, other than some bullets landing in a dirt field some distance away. He's still facing serious charges and certain prison time.

Now, by comparison, some guy gets drunk and drives down a road, passing pedestrians and other vehicles. He is just as capable of killing people as the blindfolded guy with the uzi. But, instead of prison time, we give this guy a fine and turn him loose to do it again tomorrow, and the next day, and as often as he likes. Heck, we don't even confiscate his weapon (car) - but I guarantee you the gunman in my scenario would have his weapon confiscated even if he was legally licensed to own it.

Me, while I don't agree with the OP saying that we should just let the guy burn, I wouldn't oppose legislation to treat drunk driving under the same laws that we would treat the blindfolded gunman in my hypothetical scenario. To me, both the drunk driver and the blind gunman are equally responsible for breaking society's laws and threatening the lives of innocent people who don't deserve to be jeopardized by either man's actions - we have laws to protect us from one of those scenarios (gunmen opening fire in crowds) but the laws for the other scenario are extremely weak and, in my opinion, inadequate for handling the other guy (drunk drivers).

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.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 01:43 PM
RE: A question about drunk drivers.
You can't leave a car on fire near a road. There's a chance that it might explode (a)effecting nearby drivers.

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.

You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: