Texas Dad DUI Revenge Killing

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

I agree with your disagreement, and have one more thing to add.

I get the line of thought, but the deterrence factor of criminalizing the behavior on its own is very important and the good Dr’s argument fails to acknowledge that important element.

82

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Shooting a gun into a crowded mall shouldn’t be illegal. You should only be punished if you hit someone. [/quote]

Yes. That’s the basic argument at issue, although I would argue in your case that if the bullet hits a wall or whatever it has caused property damage.

83

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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. [/quote]

Yet, you’ve actually committed no property damage, you’ve injured no one, nor have you killed anyone.

Edit: My hearts not in this argument so I’m not going to pursue it beyond this post. The discussion Nick was having resonated with me as one that libertarians have struggled with for years so I thought I’d toss in my 2 bits.

84

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
I get the line of thought, but the deterrence factor of criminalizing the behavior on its own is very important and the good Dr’s argument fails to acknowledge that important element.
[/quote]

One way to address your argument is to make the punishment much more severe than it is now if the risky conduct causes harm. Frankly, some people will not be deterred from risky conduct no matter how severe the consequences.

85

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Shooting a gun into a crowded mall shouldn’t be illegal. You should only be punished if you hit someone. [/quote]

Driving should be illegal. Society shouldn’t accept the risk inherent in such action.

86

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Shooting a gun into a crowded mall shouldn’t be illegal. You should only be punished if you hit someone. [/quote]

Yes. That’s the basic argument at issue, although I would argue in your case that if the bullet hits a wall or whatever it has caused property damage. [/quote]

Yes, in addition to the mall being private property.

87

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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. [/quote]

Yet, you’ve actually committed no property damage, you’ve injured no one, nor have you killed anyone.
[/quote]

A certain percentage of the time that is true.

If we decriminalized DUI do you think more property damage, injuries, and/or deaths would occur or less?

88

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

One way to address your argument is to make the punishment much more severe than it is now if the risky conduct causes harm. Frankly, some people will not be deterred from risky conduct no matter how severe the consequences. [/quote]

OK, maybe one more post…

This is now the argument is typically addressed. DUI in and of itself should not be illegal as no crime has been committed. However, offenses while intoxicated should be dealt with severely.

Thanks, jjackkrash.

89

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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. [/quote]

Yet, you’ve actually committed no property damage, you’ve injured no one, nor have you killed anyone.
[/quote]

A certain percentage of the time that is true.

If we decriminalized DUI do you think more property damage, injuries, and/or deaths would occur or less? [/quote]

It depends.

What are the consequences when one does destroy property while intoxicated?

90

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Shooting a gun into a crowded mall shouldn’t be illegal. You should only be punished if you hit someone. [/quote]

Driving should be illegal. Society shouldn’t accept the risk inherent in such action.[/quote]

It is for a percentage of the population. As it should be.

You’re absolutely right. Society does not accepted the increased risk of 5 year old driving. Just like it does not accept the increased risk of DUI, which is why it’s been criminalize.

91

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Shooting a gun into a crowded mall shouldn’t be illegal. You should only be punished if you hit someone. [/quote]

Yes. That’s the basic argument at issue, although I would argue in your case that if the bullet hits a wall or whatever it has caused property damage. [/quote]

Yes, in addition to the mall being private property. [/quote]

And most roads are public…

Buy up all the roads, turn them private, and make whatever rules you want.

92

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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. [/quote]

Yet, you’ve actually committed no property damage, you’ve injured no one, nor have you killed anyone.
[/quote]

A certain percentage of the time that is true.

If we decriminalized DUI do you think more property damage, injuries, and/or deaths would occur or less? [/quote]

It depends.

What are the consequences when one does destroy property while intoxicated?

[/quote]

Depends on what a Judge rules I suppose. Tax payers foots the repair bill.

93

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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]

Follow this little sidetrack to its beginning(your dynamite post), and you will see no mention of impairment. This has all been about danger. I said that it is dangerous to drive across the street and asked if one should be punished for doing so. You said that one should not be punished for driving across the street unless that action puts another in danger. I said, okay, what if I have my child with me while driving across the street? You said that’s fine. I asked if I should be punished for driving across a street while another car is on the road. You asked if my motor skills were impaired prior to crossing the road.

Obviously, I was asking if driving across the street while another car is coming should be punished like a DUI, even if my actions occur when I’m sober. Should they? If my action is exactly the same, regardless of BAC, why should I be punished differently, depending on my BAC?

94

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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. [/quote]

Yet, you’ve actually committed no property damage, you’ve injured no one, nor have you killed anyone.
[/quote]

A certain percentage of the time that is true.

If we decriminalized DUI do you think more property damage, injuries, and/or deaths would occur or less? [/quote]

I don’t know. What if we decriminalize(this may not be the right term…most drunk in public charges don’t go on your record, and I’m not sure that it’s considered a criminal offense) being intoxicated in public and put the same amount of money towards offering drunks a taxi service that we currently use to combat DUIs? Do you think more property damage, injuries, and/or death would occur?

95

[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:

[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]

Follow this little sidetrack to its beginning(your dynamite post), and you will see no mention of impairment. This has all been about danger. I said that it is dangerous to drive across the street and asked if one should be punished for doing so. You said that one should not be punished for driving across the street unless that action puts another in danger. I said, okay, what if I have my child with me while driving across the street? You said that’s fine. I asked if I should be punished for driving across a street while another car is on the road. You asked if my motor skills were impaired prior to crossing the road.

Obviously, I was asking if driving across the street while another car is coming should be punished like a DUI, even if my actions occur when I’m sober. Should they? If my action is exactly the same, regardless of BAC, why should I be punished differently, depending on my BAC?[/quote]

No, you need to retrace your steps to the post I only partially quoted in this wall of text.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
It should not be a crime, because it does not harm anyone or anything. If MAN A drives home with a .4 BAC, and does not damage anyone or anything, then where’s the proof that he presented a danger? [/quote]

I have been talking this entire time about this entire statement. I’ll take some of the blame if there was confusion because I did cut the quote down.

This entire side conversation has been about the increased risk of DUI, at least from my perspective, and that increased risk is worth, imo, criminalization. This goes for really anything, on public property, that involves a risk to others and any substance that impairs a person.

If you’re a diabetic and you drive to an all you can eat Pancake buffet w/ an ice cream bar you probably shouldn’t be allowed to drive home (That might be a terrible example I don’t know anything about diabetics really).

Now, if you want to get drunk and cut your grass you shouldn’t get a DUI imo.

96

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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. [/quote]

Yet, you’ve actually committed no property damage, you’ve injured no one, nor have you killed anyone.
[/quote]

A certain percentage of the time that is true.

If we decriminalized DUI do you think more property damage, injuries, and/or deaths would occur or less? [/quote]

I don’t know. What if we decriminalize being intoxicated in public and put the same amount of money towards offering drunks a taxi service that we currently use to combat DUIs? Do you think more property damage, injuries, and/or death would occur?[/quote]

I’ve got no problem with that and I also don’t know what the outcome will be.

97

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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:

[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]

Follow this little sidetrack to its beginning(your dynamite post), and you will see no mention of impairment. This has all been about danger. I said that it is dangerous to drive across the street and asked if one should be punished for doing so. You said that one should not be punished for driving across the street unless that action puts another in danger. I said, okay, what if I have my child with me while driving across the street? You said that’s fine. I asked if I should be punished for driving across a street while another car is on the road. You asked if my motor skills were impaired prior to crossing the road.

Obviously, I was asking if driving across the street while another car is coming should be punished like a DUI, even if my actions occur when I’m sober. Should they? If my action is exactly the same, regardless of BAC, why should I be punished differently, depending on my BAC?[/quote]

No, you need to retrace your steps to the post I only partially quoted in this wall of text.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
It should not be a crime, because it does not harm anyone or anything. If MAN A drives home with a .4 BAC, and does not damage anyone or anything, then where’s the proof that he presented a danger? [/quote]

I have been talking this entire time about this entire statement. I’ll take some of the blame if there was confusion because I did cut the quote down.

This entire side conversation has been about the increased risk of DUI, at least from my perspective, and that increased risk is worth, imo, criminalization. This goes for really anything, on public property, that involves a risk to others and any substance that impairs a person.

If you’re a diabetic and you drive to an all you can eat Pancake buffet w/ an ice cream bar you probably shouldn’t be allowed to drive home (That might be a terrible example I don’t know anything about diabetics really).

Now, if you want to get drunk and cut your grass you shouldn’t get a DUI imo. [/quote]

It’s probably my fault. Since danger is inherent, I should have just asked where’s the proof that the drunk presents a greater danger than the worst legal driver.

I think we are pretty much in agreement; I just think the danger to society and individuals of excessive punishments is greater than the risk presented by drunk drivers. Let Otis Campbell sleep in a local government building(or the street, or walk home) instead of trying to drunkenly drive himself home. Drunks know they can’t drive; they just think they can drive well enough to get home and avoid arrest.

98

The thing is, when a drunk drives, nobody is hurt; if the drunk hurts someone, that’s a different story. When the government is allowed to punish victimless activities, victims are created.

99

[quote]NickViar wrote:
The thing is, when a drunk drives, nobody is hurt; if the drunk hurts someone, that’s a different story. When the government is allowed to punish victimless activities, victims are created.[/quote]

I agree it is a “what if” scenario and I agree with the above sentiment in several cases (prostitution, drug use, etc…). My opinion is just the opposite of yours in this case. I believe criminalizing the action of DUI increases the likelihood that there is no victim at all.

This is of course predicated on where the DUI takes place. I am only for charges when on public property.

I Think of it this way. Playing Russia roulette by yourself (private property) perfectly fine and should be legal (stupid as all hell, but whatever). Playing Russian roulette with an unwilling or unknowing party (DUI) imo should be illegal because you are knowingly endangering another party against their will or knowledge.

100

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This goes for really anything, on public property, that involves a risk to others and any substance that impairs a person.
[/quote]

The above links seem to point to a member of a certain race(52.4% of murderers were members of this race, while that race makes up only 12.3% of the U.S. population) presenting an increased danger to others, as well as a substance(melanin) that’s responsible for that increased risk.