[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. [/quote]
If I light a stick of dynamite in a crowd room and the fuse happens to go out prior to detonation was there ever any danger?
[/quote]
Yes. If I drive across the street, is there any danger? Yes. Danger should not be punished; it’s a fact of life.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I totally agree with you. What percentage of alcohol in his system does Jeff Gordon need to to reduce his driving ability to that of Memaw, the 95 year-old great-grandmother down the street that can barely see over her steering wheel? That really doesn’t matter, does it? They’re both allowed the same.[/quote]
So your argument is DUI should not be criminalize because Jeff Gordon is a better drive than a great grand mother; therefore, he would be a better driver while under the influence?
They are both allowed the same what? Blood alcohol content. That could mean 4 beers for Gordon and a sip of Miller Lite for Granny.
Does alcohol influence Gordon’s driving, yes or no? If yes, does it make him a better or worse driver?
[/quote]
No, what I was saying is that Jeff Gordon’s BAC would likely have to be FAR above the legal limit to reduce his driving ability to that of sober Memaw, so Gordon could be charged with DUI while being far safer than Memaw, who would be allowed to travel unmolested.
If I get three hours of sleep over the course of two days, I’m probably a worse driver than I would be if I had eight hours a night, so how should I be punished?[/quote]
You are trying to use two extremes to make your point when the vast majority of people are far closer to Memaw than Jeff Gordon. If Mewmaw is an unsafe driver while sober her license should be revoked. That should apply to everyone even Jeff Gordon.
You have no idea what Jeff Gordon’s BAC would have to be in order to impair his driving. The key word is “likely” and that’s just your opinion.
As for your sleep example, you should be pulled over and charge with reckless endangerment if caught swerving or whatever.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. [/quote]
If I light a stick of dynamite in a crowd room and the fuse happens to go out prior to detonation was there ever any danger?
[/quote]
Yes. If I drive across the street, is there any danger? Yes. Danger should not be punished; it’s a fact of life.[/quote]
You aren’t punished because there is inherent danger. You are punished because you put other people in danger.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. [/quote]
If I light a stick of dynamite in a crowd room and the fuse happens to go out prior to detonation was there ever any danger?
[/quote]
Yes. If I drive across the street, is there any danger? Yes. Danger should not be punished; it’s a fact of life.[/quote]
Lol, so you went from there is no proof there’s any danger to danger is a fact of life.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. [/quote]
If I light a stick of dynamite in a crowd room and the fuse happens to go out prior to detonation was there ever any danger?
[/quote]
Yes. If I drive across the street, is there any danger? Yes. Danger should not be punished; it’s a fact of life.[/quote]
Lol, so you went from there is no proof there’s any danger to danger is a fact of life. [/quote]
I suppose I could have said that there’s no proof of danger beyond that of normal life.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
An evidence of impairment should be addressed. How about Reckless Endangerment? If there is a victim/potential victim. [/quote]
That’s fine, IF everyone whose actions create the same situations is punished in the same way, regardless of the content of their blood. [/quote]
Lol, have you never had a drink before?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. [/quote]
If I light a stick of dynamite in a crowd room and the fuse happens to go out prior to detonation was there ever any danger?
[/quote]
Yes. If I drive across the street, is there any danger? Yes. Danger should not be punished; it’s a fact of life.[/quote]
You aren’t punished because there is inherent danger. You are punished because you put other people in danger. [/quote]
So I will only be punished if I have someone else in the car with me when I drive across the street?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. [/quote]
If I light a stick of dynamite in a crowd room and the fuse happens to go out prior to detonation was there ever any danger?
[/quote]
Yes. If I drive across the street, is there any danger? Yes. Danger should not be punished; it’s a fact of life.[/quote]
You aren’t punished because there is inherent danger. You are punished because you put other people in danger. [/quote]
So I will only be punished if I have someone else in the car with me when I drive across the street?[/quote]
Not if that person willing got in the car with you.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
An evidence of impairment should be addressed. How about Reckless Endangerment? If there is a victim/potential victim. [/quote]
That’s fine, IF everyone whose actions create the same situations is punished in the same way, regardless of the content of their blood. [/quote]
Lol, have you never had a drink before? [/quote]
I have. Have you? Have you ever observed the differences in impairment between different people at the same BAC?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. [/quote]
If I light a stick of dynamite in a crowd room and the fuse happens to go out prior to detonation was there ever any danger?
[/quote]
Yes. If I drive across the street, is there any danger? Yes. Danger should not be punished; it’s a fact of life.[/quote]
You aren’t punished because there is inherent danger. You are punished because you put other people in danger. [/quote]
So I will only be punished if I have someone else in the car with me when I drive across the street?[/quote]
Not if that person willing got in the car with you. [/quote]
So you’re alright with me being punished for driving across the street(remember, this is sober) if I have one of my children with me?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
An evidence of impairment should be addressed. How about Reckless Endangerment? If there is a victim/potential victim. [/quote]
That’s fine, IF everyone whose actions create the same situations is punished in the same way, regardless of the content of their blood. [/quote]
Lol, have you never had a drink before? [/quote]
I have. Have you? Have you ever observed the differences in impairment between different people at the same BAC?[/quote]
Yes as a matter of fact I have done both. The later while volunteering to help train local police cadets on what to expect during a DUI road test.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. [/quote]
If I light a stick of dynamite in a crowd room and the fuse happens to go out prior to detonation was there ever any danger?
[/quote]
Yes. If I drive across the street, is there any danger? Yes. Danger should not be punished; it’s a fact of life.[/quote]
You aren’t punished because there is inherent danger. You are punished because you put other people in danger. [/quote]
So I will only be punished if I have someone else in the car with me when I drive across the street?[/quote]
Not if that person willing got in the car with you. [/quote]
So you’re alright with me being punished for driving across the street(remember, this is sober) if I have one of my children with me? [/quote]
Are you the childs guardian and/or have permission from their guardian to drive them across the street? If yes, then my answer is no.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. [/quote]
If I light a stick of dynamite in a crowd room and the fuse happens to go out prior to detonation was there ever any danger?
[/quote]
Yes. If I drive across the street, is there any danger? Yes. Danger should not be punished; it’s a fact of life.[/quote]
You aren’t punished because there is inherent danger. You are punished because you put other people in danger. [/quote]
So I will only be punished if I have someone else in the car with me when I drive across the street?[/quote]
Not if that person willing got in the car with you. [/quote]
So you’re alright with me being punished for driving across the street(remember, this is sober) if I have one of my children with me? [/quote]
Are you the childs guardian and/or have permission from their guardian to drive them across the street? If yes, then my answer is no.
[/quote]
Okay, but if another car is traveling down the road, THEN I should be punished, as severely as a DUI is punished, for crossing the road?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. [/quote]
If I light a stick of dynamite in a crowd room and the fuse happens to go out prior to detonation was there ever any danger?
[/quote]
Yes. If I drive across the street, is there any danger? Yes. Danger should not be punished; it’s a fact of life.[/quote]
You aren’t punished because there is inherent danger. You are punished because you put other people in danger. [/quote]
So I will only be punished if I have someone else in the car with me when I drive across the street?[/quote]
Not if that person willing got in the car with you. [/quote]
So you’re alright with me being punished for driving across the street(remember, this is sober) if I have one of my children with me? [/quote]
Are you the childs guardian and/or have permission from their guardian to drive them across the street? If yes, then my answer is no.
[/quote]
Okay, but if another car is traveling down the road, THEN I should be punished, as severely as a DUI is punished, for crossing the road?[/quote]
Okay, okay, how 'bout this scenario?
I drop some acid, chug a pint of whiskey, smoke a blunt and get in my '84 IROC with t-tops and go for a ride while my girlfriend is giving me road head.
So far, so good.
Now I want to light some fireworks off out of my speeding car. You know, to keep all the bats away.
Criminal or not?
NickViar is doing a decent job, so I’m not going to tell him what he should be arguing. However, the discussion is typically thus: DUI as a standalone offense should not be illegal. If the driver is changing lanes, speeding, driving recklessly, etc there are laws in place that already ciminalize that behavior.
If the same driver has 3 beers then drives home and breaks no laws while doing so, there is no reason for him to be punished. DUI should be an aggravating charge, not the sole one.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
where’s the proof that he presented a danger? There is none. [/quote]
If I light a stick of dynamite in a crowd room and the fuse happens to go out prior to detonation was there ever any danger?
[/quote]
Yes. If I drive across the street, is there any danger? Yes. Danger should not be punished; it’s a fact of life.[/quote]
You aren’t punished because there is inherent danger. You are punished because you put other people in danger. [/quote]
So I will only be punished if I have someone else in the car with me when I drive across the street?[/quote]
Not if that person willing got in the car with you. [/quote]
So you’re alright with me being punished for driving across the street(remember, this is sober) if I have one of my children with me? [/quote]
Are you the childs guardian and/or have permission from their guardian to drive them across the street? If yes, then my answer is no.
[/quote]
Okay, but if another car is traveling down the road, THEN I should be punished, as severely as a DUI is punished, for crossing the road?[/quote]
Did you purposely and knowingly impair your motor skills prior to crossing the street putting the other driver at an increased risk of injury or death? If yes, then yes you should.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
NickViar is doing a decent job, so I’m not going to tell him what he should be arguing. However, the discussion is typically thus: DUI as a standalone offense should not be illegal. If the driver is changing lanes, speeding, driving recklessly, etc there are laws in place that already ciminalize that behavior.
If the same driver has 3 beers then drives home and breaks no laws while doing so, there is no reason for him to be punished. DUI should be an aggravating charge, not the sole one.[/quote]
I respectfully disagree. You are knowingly and willingly increasing the risk of property damage, injury, and death by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
I’m seeing 13K deaths and $37 Billion in annual damages. Data is from 2010.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
NickViar is doing a decent job, so I’m not going to tell him what he should be arguing. However, the discussion is typically thus: DUI as a standalone offense should not be illegal. If the driver is changing lanes, speeding, driving recklessly, etc there are laws in place that already ciminalize that behavior.
If the same driver has 3 beers then drives home and breaks no laws while doing so, there is no reason for him to be punished. DUI should be an aggravating charge, not the sole one.[/quote]
The basic question is whether the law should criminalize conduct that increases risk to an unacceptable level if the risky conduct doesn’t actually result in harm. The civil law generally says no claim without damages; the criminal law frequently punishes risky conduct even if no harm results.
Shooting a gun into a crowded mall shouldn’t be illegal. You should only be punished if you hit someone.