StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Great now there's a new thing happening recently on the news here,they just caught another old drunk asshole DWI and againg he was caught several times 6 times in less than a year,how many more times was he driving without being arrested?

Well anyway the few others who were caught before this fucker killed or injured young kids,all of them are between 50 and 70 years old,yeah we have more responsible driver in the younger people,but its the old farts who are dangerous,either they are losing their eyesights or they are just stupid.

Is this something that the news is simply focusing attention upon or is it actually a real trend?

Personally I would support a zero tolerance law. One offense = license revocation and judge's discretion for forfeiture of the automobile.

I would like to see a law that sentence anyone caught driving intoxicated with attempted murder.

And if a intoxicated driver hurts or kills anyone sentence the asshole for murder.

Faram wrote:I would like to see a law that sentence anyone caught driving intoxicated with attempted murder.

And if a intoxicated driver hurts or kills anyone sentence the asshole for murder.

attempted murder would be over the top, however something like wreckless endangerment would be suitable.

Faram wrote:I would like to see a law that sentence anyone caught driving intoxicated with attempted murder.

And if a intoxicated driver hurts or kills anyone sentence the asshole for murder.

I can agree with the mentality. But charging, let alone convicting someone for murder if no one has died is a massive crime in its self and should never occur.

Darth_Zod wrote:attempted murder would be over the top, however something like wreckless endangerment would be suitable.

Over the top? If it where up to me I would have them shot at once. I HATE drunk drivers.

Faram wrote:

Darth_Zod wrote:attempted murder would be over the top, however something like wreckless endangerment would be suitable.

Over the top? If it where up to me I would have them shot at once. I HATE drunk drivers.

i'm not trying to say that driving while drunk isn't a bad thing by any means, but you have to make the charge suitable to the crime. If nobody got hurt as a result, then attempted murder is hardly suitable.

Darth_Zod wrote:i'm not trying to say that driving while drunk isn't a bad thing by any means, but you have to make the charge suitable to the crime. If nobody got hurt as a result, then attempted murder is hardly suitable.

I am biased in this question, and cannot be rational about it.

I have beaten up a drunk driver that asked for assistance because he wreked his car. Only a small part of my self restraint revented me from doing him lasting harm.

Se this post from the archive:

Archive Board

They should implement a zero tolerance policy on drunk driving. If they get caught once, they should get reckless endangerment with no way to wiggle out of it. If they get caught again it should be 5 year removal of license and vehicle as well as being listed like that of sex offenders.

Here's why i started this thread......and thats only this month.
Caught 11 times
11 year old kid killed by drunken fucker
Caught Drunk Again While Waiting To Be Tried On A Previous Charge
Caught 14th times drunk,fucker doesn't learn
Father Want The Law To Be Change
This Time Its A 34 Year Old Bitch

All links are in french,have fun googlin them

I think some celebrity here in America was recently busted for DUI and recieved THREE DAYS. And evidently, because she was a celebrity, they MADE AN EXAMPLE OUT OF HER.

THREE DAYS?!? That's pathetic. Were I running things, DUI (not just alcohol) would be reckless endangerment, immediate loss of license for some ridicolously long time, absolutely massive fines and serious jail time. Second offense and you really get fucked.

In mesa if someone is injured by a drunk driver the drunk is charged with agrivated assault. Most drunk drivers get put away for 4-6 years sometimes the max of 8. Oh and usually they loose their lisence perminantly.

Shark Bait wrote:In mesa if someone is injured by a drunk driver the drunk is charged with agrivated assault. Most drunk drivers get put away for 4-6 years sometimes the max of 8. Oh and usually they loose their lisence perminantly.

Too bad it never stops them from driving. I'd be rich if I had a quarter for every time I hear about some asshole driving drunk without a license. It pisses me off big time and makes my cop buddy want to do a Rodney King beating on every drunk driver he pulls over.

The way I'd do things is this. First time you get caught your car gets crushed by the wreckers in front of your eyes, your license gets revoked for a year and you're put on the police shit list so they pay extra attention to you to make sure you don't come anywhere near a car. If the asshole tries to borrow a friend or family member's car and gets caught, that car gets crushed as well and the buddy or family member gets a nice big fine for being an enabler. If the asshole drunk doesn't learn and drives drunk again, he's in jail for 20 years, and if he still doesn't learn I'd have him shot.

What if he steals the car from the friend or family member? Oh how about this after the car is crushed he has to wear a 4 lb. sign arround his neck that says "I am an Idiot and a danger to myself and others"

I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

Why exactly should you punish potential crimes instead of ones that occur?

If someone actually destroys property or God forbid hurts someone while behind the wheel drunk, then by all means open the gates of hell under them.

My beef with zero tolerance laws comes in when someone has had two beers and is driving home, gets dinged for something trivial like a bored offi...I mean, a busted tail light, the officer then smells alcohol, the guy blows above legal, and bam, he's fucked for a DUI.

Same guy, barring said tail light, would have made it home fine without incident.

Another problem comes in when you compare the media frenzy about DUI's and drunk drivers with the actual amount of deaths caused by them. Compare the number of total deaths that occur *from drunk drivers*, not simply "alcohol related" accidents which even include wrecks in which the vehicle not at fault contained an intoxicated passenger.

Drunk drivers seem to be one of those "causes" for which everyone gets on a high horse....but how many people in all actuality actually die from or get into accidents with drunks?

As I said above...the guy that's driving shit-faced at 3pm in heavy traffic, nail that SOB. And if he's habitual, by all means. For a first-time offense at 2am? If he killed somebody, sure. But for simply being pulled over on suspicion? I just can't see dropping the eternal hammer on them for that.

If that's going to be the case, I want to see cops enforcing the exact same punishments and zero tolerance on idiots that tailgate, exceed the speed limit no matter how slightly in the rain, can't merge properly, cut people off in traffic, eat/use a cell phone/put on makeup while driving, etc.

That's the same degree of willful endangerment if not more, IMO, and you'll find that those incidents, a result of stupidity, cause vastly more fatalities than drunkeness. Drunk driving just seems to be a common scapegoat.

# Transport Canada reports that in 2000, there was a total of 981 fatalities due to impaired driving

# Canadian Centre of Substance Abuse reports that in 1996, 41.6% of fatally injured drivers had alcohol in their system.

# Health Canada estimates that 1690 Canadians die and 74000 Canadians are injured as a result of drunk driving.

The last year I have stats for (2001) there were 3021 total traffic fatalities & an estimated 356 000 injuries in Canada. So depending on whose numbers you use, between 1/3 & 1/2 of all motor vehicle fatalities were caused by drunks. Drunks as in they blew over the legal limit, which believe me, takes a lot more than a couple beers even if you're a 115 lbs woman. A bunch of us have verified this at the local bar and at parties with my cop buddy's official police breathalyzer. The stories of people getting blowing over the limit because they had one beer are just that, stories. Stories they made up.

The stories of people getting blowing over the limit because they had one beer are just that, stories. Stories they made up.

Really? In Health class they told us that a single shot would put you over the limit. Unless PA's .8 limit is much, much lower than Ontario's.

Even one shot cna impair your ability to drive, regardless of whether you're over the legal limit. You'll always be in more control when stone sober than with just under the legal limit.

HemlockGrey wrote:Really? In Health class they told us that a single shot would put you over the limit. Unless PA's .8 limit is much, much lower than Ontario's.

That's the same as our limit, and you mean .08, at .8 you'd be dead from alcohol poisoning. We got the same lecture in our driver's ed class, and there is a bit of truth to that. If you were to down a shot of liquor (40% alcohol) you'd have residual liquor & fumes in your mouth for a few minutes. If you blew into a breathalyzer right after doing a shot, you'd blow over the limit. But if you wash it down with a glass of water or simply wait a few minutes before blowing, you'll be under the limit. This doesn't happen with beer or wine since the alcohol content generally isn't high enough to cause the residue & fume problem.

aerius wrote:# Transport Canada reports that in 2000, there was a total of 981 fatalities due to impaired driving

Impaired due to what?

# Canadian Centre of Substance Abuse reports that in 1996, 41.6% of fatally injured drivers had alcohol in their system.

How much alcohol?

# Health Canada estimates that 1690 Canadians die and 74000 Canadians are injured as a result of drunk driving.

The last year I have stats for (2001) there were 3021 total traffic fatalities & an estimated 356 000 injuries in Canada. So depending on whose numbers you use, between 1/3 & 1/2 of all motor vehicle fatalities were caused by drunks.

Again playing devil's advocate, just from a utilitarian standpoint-- ~1000 deaths is what you're up in arms about?

Aren't there other issues, even on the roadways, that are a bit more deserving of crusading?

Drunks as in they blew over the legal limit, which believe me, takes a lot more than a couple beers even if you're a 115 lbs woman. A bunch of us have verified this at the local bar and at parties with my cop buddy's official police breathalyzer. The stories of people getting blowing over the limit because they had one beer are just that, stories. Stories they made up.

I had a friend, a 165 lb male and no stranger to alcohol, who had literally drank three beers from noon till about 9pm and still managed to blow a .07

On the other hand, I'd been drinking pretty much non-stop that whole time, and I blew the exact same a mere 20 minutes after he did. I'm a bit larger than he is, but I digress.

This among other stories from friends (I'm in law enforcement as well).

Needless to say, I'm not convinced it's that accurate of a tool.

For those stats, impaired driving is defined as having over the legal limit or flunking a sobriety test if they were under the limit, as in the guy had a beer but couldn't walk straight. And ~1000 deaths doesn't sound like much, but when that number's a full third of all traffic fatalities I'd say we have a problem. Thing is cars are loaded with safety features these days so it takes a lot to get killed in one. Put another way there were 74 000 injuries from drunk driving a year, that's a pretty big number of people, and I was one of them. The guy that hit me had about 3 times the legal limit, and believed he could merge onto the passing lane of a highway at 30km/h when the speed limit is 100km/h.

1337n1nj4 wrote:Again playing devil's advocate, just from a utilitarian standpoint-- ~1000 deaths is what you're up in arms about?

Aren't there other issues, even on the roadways, that are a bit more deserving of crusading?

No, frankly there are not.

Howedar wrote:

1337n1nj4 wrote:Again playing devil's advocate, just from a utilitarian standpoint-- ~1000 deaths is what you're up in arms about?

Aren't there other issues, even on the roadways, that are a bit more deserving of crusading?

No, frankly there are not.

Thank you for the rational, logically backed response.

I'll bear that in mind next time the completely sober SOB flies past me doing 90 in a rainstorm, locks up his brakes, causes a 10-car pileup that kills 5 people, and gets off with nothing because he wasn't drunk.

1337n1nj4 wrote:[
I had a friend, a 165 lb male and no stranger to alcohol, who had literally drank three beers from noon till about 9pm and still managed to blow a .07

Unless your friend had one beer at noon and the other two between 8 and 9 or the analyzer malfunctioned, I'd recommend he get his liver checked out by a physician.

And I'm willing to bet you were drinking about 1.5 beers an hour on average.

Montcalm wrote:Great now there's a new thing happening recently on the news here,they just caught another old drunk asshole DWI and againg he was caught several times 6 times in less than a year,how many more times was he driving without being arrested?

Well anyway the few others who were caught before this fucker killed or injured young kids,all of them are between 50 and 70 years old,yeah we have more responsible driver in the younger people,but its the old farts who are dangerous,either they are losing their eyesights or they are just stupid.

Recently a drunk old man slammed into a minivan down the street from me.

He killed two young teenagers.