43
   

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

 
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 08:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
Of course, we all know that only you know the truth. Laughing

Particularly about a trial you didn't watch. Laughing
Quote:
Re trials, I fully advocate forcing this corrupt and unjust state to put on trials.

Then why do you refer to defense attorneys as "slime" when they go to trial and challenge the state's case? They are the champions of the defendant's due process.

It is the facts of their guilt that screw most defendants, particularly in DUI cases. The state just points those facts out to the jury.

Just what "extreme prejudice" was Goodman subjected to by the state? He wound up being convicted of just what he had been charged with--the state met its burden of proof on all charges.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 10:24 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Particularly about a trial you didn't watch.


Ya, I work 65+ hours a week. Was it on Cable like OJ's?......that there trial sure inspired confidence in our "justice" system didn't it...

But then I did not need to watch to know what was going to happen, as you know, as I told you what the result was going to be before the trial started. That is the one benefit of corruption, we know what the future holds.

Quote:
It is the facts of their guilt that screw most defendants, particularly in DUI cases. The state just points those facts out to the jury


Sounds great, but you dont want to talk about how jury instructions go, do you. Or about how impossible it is for anyone who is not very well off to put together experts to verify what the state claims. And for damn sure you dont want to talk about how the law now so often ropes off entire avenues of truth which courts are not allowed to consider, least they reach a conclusion that is not wanted by this corrupt and unjust state.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 10:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
BAC levels in DUI cases speak for themselves--juries listen.

So, how would you propose we get people to understand that drunk driving can screw up their life?



hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 11:32 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
So, how would you propose we get people to understand that drunk driving can screw up their life?


Unlike confused sexual consent situations which should not be in the legal system at all drunk driving is properly handled with law. But the law must be just, which includes the demand that penalties be reasonable and that citizens are not punished for demanding that the state prove their case in a trial. There are also a whole slate of abusive tactics which are routinely used by DA's which need to stop, and we must get legislatures to stop writing vague laws with the intent to facilitate the DA's abuse of the citizens.

But here is the thing, unlike police state advocates such as yourself I dont view law as a tool to manipulate the citizens into wanted behavior. I view the law as a tool to get to justice, as the way to even the scales some when an individual wrongs others. Unlike you I have no Utopian dreamland that I am trying to establish in reality, so I have no interest in trying to force others people to do or not do anything. The power of persuasion is rightfully mine if I choose to use it, but for the most part I take a "live and let live" attitude.

Please show me where justice has anything to do with trying to get others to do what you want them to do

Quote:
Definition of JUSTICE

1
a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments
b : judge
c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2
a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair
b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness
c : the quality of conforming to law
3
: conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness
See justice defined for English-language learners »
See justice defined for kids »

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 11:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
You didn't answer the question...

How would you get people to understand that drunk driving can screw up their life?
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 11:49 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

You didn't answer the question...

How would you get people to understand that drunk driving can screw up their life?



I would not attempt to do so, I dont care how ignorant they are, that is their problem to fix should they chose to do so. I care only that the justice system works to get to justice if they should wrong me or others.

I am not a bossy bitch like you are. You stay in your lane and I will stay in mine...and if we would all do this the world would be a much better place.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 12:12 am
@hawkeye10,
Unlike you, I see drunk drivers as a potential danger to all of us--so it is not simply "their problem to fix".

And, unlike you, I'd rather see situations like the one Swift is in avoided, along with the fatalities they involve. The justice system can react to DUI manslaughters only after the fact--I'd rather put my effort into preventing these tragedies from occurring.

Swift might not be in the situation he is in now if someone in that bar had said to him, "Hey, Thom, you're not in shape to drive home--you've had too much to drink."



OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 12:14 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Unlike you, I see drunk drivers as a potential danger to all of us--so it is not simply "their problem to fix".

And, unlike you, I'd rather see situations like the one Swift is in avoided, along with the fatalities they involve. The justice system can react to DUI manslaughters only after the fact--I'd rather put my effort into preventing these tragedies from occurring.

Swift might not be in the situation he is in now if someone in that bar had said to him, "Hey, Thom, you're not in shape to drive home--you've had too much to drink."
random chance
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 02:42 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Unlike you, I see drunk drivers as a potential danger to all of us--so it is not simply "their problem to fix".


Says who? I never said that I dont see drunk drivers as a danger.

Quote:
And, unlike you, I'd rather see situations like the one Swift is in avoided, along with the fatalities they involve.
Ditto

Quote:
The justice system can react to DUI manslaughters only after the fact--I'd rather put my effort into preventing these tragedies from occurring.

There is zero evidence of this, your are by all that I have seen someone who believes that retribution through the law is the solution to every communal problem that you imagine exists.

Quote:
Swift might not be in the situation he is in now if someone in that bar had said to him, "Hey, Thom, you're not in shape to drive home--you've had too much to drink."
For damn sure (if the states assertions are correct) it would have been avoided if Thom had learned to be a better drunk driver. THAT is his major sin here, not knowing his limits, not that he did not kowtow to the collectives demand that he not drive with a BAC over .08. I have for instance in my life driven several hundred miles with a BAC in the high teens, but I dont feel guilty about it, because I did it safely. I have also driven stoned more often than I can count, again never with any problem. Your hysteria over this does not match my life experience, which trumps all theory.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 03:01 am
@hawkeye10,
I should add that while I dont see any evidence that I was a danger to others while driving drunk or stoned I was several times a danger while trying to drive when I was too tired to drive. THAT is something that I have guilt about, because I should have known better. If you Firefly want to take up a cause to make our roads safer and you take up tired driving you will have my complete support. Texting a driving too is one that I can get behind, based upon the education that I have received through life experience.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 04:01 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

I should add that while I dont see any evidence that I was a danger to others while driving drunk or stoned I was several times a danger while trying to drive when I was too tired to drive. THAT is something that I have guilt about, because I should have known better.


When you were driving drunk your judgement was impaired, so you would not be able to see the evidence. You should have guilt about a lot of things, it's part of the human experience. As you're completely contemptuous of the lives of others, I can't see you having a normal response to anything.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 04:19 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
When you were driving drunk your judgement was impaired, so you would not be able to see the evidence.


You have made the exact same argument alleging that I am an idiot, so you are clearly not going to honor my opinion as being worthy of consideration by me under any condition.

Quote:
As you're completely contemptuous of the lives of others,
this in spite of the fact that I am a lone wolf here at A2K, arguing that people are basically good and should be left alone to run their own lives as they see fit for the most part.

Quote:
I can't see you having a normal response to anything.

Normal is over-rated anyways. I have have an abnormal life which has radicalized me.....it has been a lot of years since I last desired to be normal. I dont make any effort to hang out with normal people either, they tend to be boring and I cant learn anything from them.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 04:31 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
this in spite of the fact that I am a lone wolf here at A2K, arguing that people are basically good and should be left alone to run their own lives as they see fit for the most part.


And being sterilised if they don't match you ideal of what is acceptable. You may have rejected normality, but at the same time you've embraced ennui.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 04:33 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
this in spite of the fact that I am a lone wolf here at A2K,
arguing that people are basically good and should be left alone
to run their own lives as they see fit for the most part.
Tho I have not commented upon whether people r "basically good" (by what criteria??),
I have energetically argued that thay shud be left alone
in an environment of laissez faire capitalism
to run their own lives as they see fit.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 11:07 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
For damn sure (if the states assertions are correct) it would have been avoided if Thom had learned to be a better drunk driver.

That is a colossally stupid statement.

Alcohol affects the central nervous system--you cannot get voluntary control over those effects. Learning how to be a better driver in a chemically impaired state makes no sense. The point is not to drive in an impaired state, whether impaired by chemicals, extreme fatigue, etc. A car is a potentially lethal weapon, and people have to take the responsibility of operating it seriously. Alcohol impairs both driving ability and accident avoidance ability--if you want to be a better driver, you don't drive drunk.
Quote:
THAT is his major sin here, not knowing his limits, not that he did not kowtow to the collectives demand that he not drive with a BAC over .08

The "major sin" is that he killed someone while driving in an impaired state--and driving abilities are impaired at a BAC level of .08+--and he chose to violate the DUI laws.
Quote:
your are by all that I have seen someone who believes that retribution through the law is the solution to every communal problem that you imagine exists.

That's because you systematically distort everything I say so you can construct a straw-man to argue against. Consequently, you fail to correctly comprehend what I do say.

I see the chief value of laws, including DUI laws, in terms of their deterrent effects--to prevent certain types of behaviors, such as drunk driving.
You're the one hung up on the aspect of punishments after the fact, not me. Once someone chooses to break the law, they have subjected themselves to the punishments specified in those laws. In the case of DUI manslaughter/failing to aid, that includes minimum mandatory sentences.
Quote:
I have for instance in my life driven several hundred miles with a BAC in the high teens, but I dont feel guilty about it, because I did it safely. I have also driven stoned more often than I can count, again never with any problem

I never thought you were particularly responsible or had good judgment, but I never thought you'd actually brag about such things.

I'm sure that Swift might have felt the same way--until that night in last December.


hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 12:53 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
A car is a potentially lethal weapon, and people have to take the responsibility of operating it seriously.


Again we find you redefining words to suit yourself

Quote:
A dangerous or deadly weapon is one that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. A handgun, a hand grenade, or a long knife are examples of deadly weapons. A weapon capable of causing death is, however, not necessarily a weapon likely to produce death. For example, an ordinary penknife is capable of causing death, but it is not considered a deadly weapon.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/weapons

Quote:
I'm sure that Swift might have felt the same way--until that night in last December


We dont know if Thom feels that his drinking and anything to do with his not avoiding Barry or if he feels that he had any moral liability here. It may be that reports of him bring broken up is about his legal troubles or that he was involved in a death by no fault of his own as railroad engineers often are after people do suicide by train. Thom can not talk, the state would crucify him if he did.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 03:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
A dangerous or deadly weapon is one that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

As when a motor vehicle is the weapon in a DUI manslaughter or vehicular homocide.

A car is a potentially lethal weapon, and people have to take the responsibility of operating it seriously--which means not driving drunk..



0 Replies
 
Keith424
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 06:58 pm
Has anyone heard the latest with Thom's troubles?
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 10:52 pm
@Keith424,
There is a pre-trial hearing scheduled on 5/7/12.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 10:58 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

There is a pre-trial hearing scheduled on 5/7/12.


This should be when we get told that there is a plea deal, and that we will never know what happened that night. We also should get to hear if I am right about the 13 years prison.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Can a thread be removed or locked? - Question by BeachBoy
dui - Question by sylvia chomas
Drinking and Driving Tip.... - Discussion by Slappy Doo Hoo
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.81 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 05:26:00