I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Both of these idiots are just looking for an excuse to talk about child porography and rape, they're salivating about it already.

And, what's more, neither of them really care, at all, about either Thom or the man who was killed.

Hawkeye has already deemed Thom "an idiot" for calling the police and reporting the accident, and he has deemed the cyclist a worthless bum who was a "menace to society".
His only interest in this thread is pushing his usual anti-government, "the laws are unfair" crap--which he spouts regardless of what type of law is involved--and which generally reflects his sociopathic attitude toward any constraint of his own harmful behaviors by laws. It's always about him.

And BillRM, in his usual ridiculous attempt to try to play defense attorney, and excuse clear violations of law, drags in irrelevancies and ignores the wording of the actual laws that apply in this case--and that's only when you can actually decipher what he is talking about.

Funny how they both dragged in child porn and rape, when neither are related to this topic, isn't it?

3 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Funny how they both dragged in child porn and rape, when neither are related to this topic, isn't it?

I think it's just a matter of time. Bill's probably got a child porn default button that the frog presses every time he seizes up. You're right though, their response has just been about how they're persecuted by the big bad government, and has nothing to do with either Thom or the cyclist.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Yes and we all know that you would watch a man bleed to death before you would break the law and go for needed help as after all it the LAW.

2 Replies

@Wildhourses,

Calm down, friend is obviously upset over Thom, everyone in town knows the facts, not like it's a secret.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Don't be ridiculous, you're the one who's running from the froggies.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Funny how they both dragged in child porn and rape, when neither are related to this topic, isn't it?

Is it not strange that it was you not me who came up out of the blue with the claimed that I must had child porn on my computers because I had them protected not me on this thread.

But then you was always into lying on this system.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Yes and we all know that you would watch a man bleed to death before you would break the law and go for needed help as after all it the LAW.

Believe me, I am sure that Thom now regrets not stopping his car, as required by law, and trying to summon aid that might have saved the cyclist's life.

He didn't go for help--he went home and, at some point, called the police to report an accident he was involved in.

Do you have evidence that he called 911 to request an ambulance for the victim? There would be a recording of such a call had it been made. Do you really think he didn't have a cell phone with him? Even Hawkeye disagrees with you on that one.

And, if someone is bleeding, you can try to stop the bleeding. If the victim was your wife, would you excuse the driver who kept on going without stopping?

You are treating a very tragic situation as some sort of joke with your absurd comments. One man is dead, another has had his life irrevocably changed, and he has to live with the guilt of that death. Your nonsense is really inappropriate.
He should not have been driving drunk, and he should have stopped at the scene, just as required by law. This tragedy could have been avoided.

2 Replies

@jcboy,

jcboy wrote:

So we found out tonight that someone we know was arrested Friday night for DUI/Manslaughter and leaving the scene. He’s an acquaintance of ours, we only knew him from parties or other social functions. Not close friends, although he lives about six blocks from us and he was a close friend with good friends of ours.

He had a few cocktails, drove home and hit a man on a bicycle, killing him. He then left the scene but after getting home called the police. I heard this through a few friends of mine today. They were all feeling sorry for him, saying what a nice person he is and how tragic this is for him. I agreed he was a nice person but nobody seemed to mention the poor guy on the bicycle.

In this town you don’t have to drive after a few cocktails, you can take a cab for ten dollars, or fifty cents on the trolley that runs across the city. I know after a few cocktails you don’t think of these things but if you’re planning on going out and have a few why not take a cab in the first place? That way you have no choice but to find other means of getting home other then driving.

Although this is a sad case, I just wanted to say that I think your title is even more strange. What do you mean, you don't understand drinking and driving. It makes a lot of sense. People don't purposely go out and drink knowing they are going to get to the point they can't drive. If they thought that they wouldn't have driven and probably would have opted for another method to get home. Most just assume they will be fine so they tend to drive home drunk and occasionally something bad happens.

Does a person actually consciously think, "Hey I'm gonna drive to the bar and get so wasted and then I'll drive home blacked out and see if I make it with out killing anyone."

You already know that a person inebriated is less likely to make good decisions. So what is there that you don't understand?

1 Reply

@firefly,

Once more Firefly if the only way to summary help would be to leave the scene you would not do so as that is breaking the law.

You would calmly watched a man die instead of breaking the LAW.

You are a good citizen after all....LOL.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Does a person actually consciously think, "Hey I'm gonna drive to the bar and get so wasted and then I'll drive home blacked out and see if I make it with out killing anyone."

A lot of people think and do just that.

They really do know before they leave FOR the bar that they will be in no condition to drive.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Once more Firefly if the only way to summary help would be to leave the scene you would not do so as that is breaking the law.

You would calmly watched a man die instead of breaking the LAW.

You are a good citizen after all....LOL.

I wouldn't have left the scene, because there might have been a chance to save the person who got injured. Although to back up, I wouldn't have been driving drunk in the first place. I know for a fact that if I go to the bar, by the time I leave it, I won't be able to operate anything bigger than a cell phone and even that is sketchy.

Leaving the scene could have been what killed him. The initial accident might not have, but leaving him there without any quick medical attention might have been the worst idea. Had he survived or the chance that he could have survived had he received immediate help, the guy might be in better standings then he currently is. He is now facing potential vehicular homicide and leaving the scene makes it look even worse.

1 Reply

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

A lot of people think and do just that.

They really do know before they leave FOR the bar that they will be in no condition to drive.

I actually don't think they consciously consider it. I think they just do it without thinking about it or the possibility.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

chai2 wrote:

A lot of people think and do just that.

They really do know before they leave FOR the bar that they will be in no condition to drive.

I actually don't think they consciously consider it. I think they just do it without thinking about it or the possibility.

Sorry, you may think that, but it's not true.

Many times people go out with the intent to get wasted, know they are not going to be safe to drive, and do so anyway.

Honest and truly.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

but leaving him there without any quick medical attention might have been the worst idea. Had he survived or the chance that he could have survived had he received immediate help, the guy might be in better standings then he currently is. He is now facing potential vehicular homicide and leaving the scene makes it look even worse. 0 Replies

Once more if he did not have a working cell phone with him he should not go a block away to get to a phone to summary aid correct?

He should had just watch the man die.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Once more if he did not have a working cell phone with him he should not go a block away to get to a phone to summary aid correct?

He should had just watch the man die.

Well not having a working cell phone is a legitimate reason to leave in my opinion. But not as a cover up for why you would go home and sleep off the drunkenness and then make a call to try and avoid the DUI.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Once more Firefly if the only way to summary help would be to leave the scene you would not do so as that is breaking the law.

Once more, birdbrain, if Thom had left the scene in order to summon help, and he had actually immediately summoned that help from the first phone he could find, he wouldn't be charged with failing to aid the victim. Nor are you familiar with the wording of the statute he is charged with violating. Your comments simply display your ignorance of the statute, which is why they are absurd.

The frogs in your head can't distinguish between an immediate call to 911 to request an ambulance for a victim, and a call to police to report an accident, in which he thought he hit a pedestrian. Do you know whether he ever made a call to request an ambulance for the cyclist?

And this thread is not about me, or what I might do. It's about what actually took place in this specific situation.

Thom should not have been driving drunk, and he should have stopped at the scene. That's how one avoids the charges he is now faced with.

The cyclist might have been saved if immediate attempts to stop bleeding had been made and/or an ambulance had been immediately summoned.

2 Replies

@chai2,

Quote:

Many times people go out with the intent to get wasted, know they are not going to be safe to drive, and do so anyway.

I agree with you about that.

0 Replies

@stpetefriend22,

I happen to know the Jonathan “M” is referring to. Sounds all pretty factual to me and I’ve heard it from more than one person. Perhaps Thom needs to be careful who he's talking to!

0 Replies

@stpetefriend22,

I see Thom deleted his last three check in's at Georgies.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001930630120&sk=wall

1 Reply

As one who has frequently driven a car while in a state of unfortunate intoxication, but only got convicted of a DUI only, some 17 years ago, I think I may claim expert status in resolving an argument that has cropped up here. To wit, Krumple is right and Chai2 absolutely wrong. As a former alcoholic drunk, I think I can say without fear of condraction that I have never known anyone who intentionally got behind the wheel of a car fully aware that he/she should NOT be driving. People go out for "a few" drinks. By the time they're ready to leave, their judgement is way too badly impaired to allow them to make a rational judgement. They think they can drive just fine. Generally, they never intended to get this drunk to begin with when they left the house.

I am an alcoholic in recovery. I haven't had a drink in 16 years, three months, three days and several hours now. Trust me: I know whereof I speak.

1 Reply

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know