DUI Laws are Unnecessary

[Praxius]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Ad populum.

Indeed.... and if the internationally registered limit for drinking and driving is 0.08, then I guess the whole world who uses this method must be wrong, because someone who doesn't have a license is arguring that it is. :rolleyes:

The fact that drunk, reckless driving is different than sober, reckless driving is immaterial to the mitigating process.. You're going in circles.

Trust, me I already known I was going in circles since the last page..... Apparently putting it in different words doesn't get the point across......

Another waste of a debate it seems...... I understand the point you are trying to make and you are flawed.

Toodles.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Praxius Makes sense to me.... remember the highways and streets are not your's.... they are governend by the government.... you are issued a license if you are an able and proven safe driver........ you accept the rules of the road when you recieve, do your test, and pass your test..... you don't walk in and do your test drunk now do you?

How generous of them to give us the privilege to drive on the roads we pay for.

If you are sober, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about with the breathalizer...... get it done and go home.... if you're drunk.... then there you go.... it's a no brainer.

Oh, because we were completely unaware of the DUI regulation. It's not like I intended this thread to be about a real law. :rolleyes:

[Praxius]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 How generous of them to give us the privilege to drive on the roads we pay for.

You pay the government taxes on a lot of things that you don't have decisions in.... this is no different.

Oh, because we were completely unaware of the DUI regulation. It's not like I intended this thread to be about a real law. :rolleyes:

It is a real law... the rest of the world seems to think it is..... just out of curiosity, how old are you again?

Last I checked, you're not only not old enough to get a license, you're not old enough to drink, you're not even old enough to pay the taxes you're complaining about..... So where do you get the understanding that you're right and everybody else is wrong about something(s) you don't even have any real connection or involvement in at this time?

If you still don't see the differences between DUI laws and Reckless Driving/Vehicular Manslaughter laws, then go ask a few of these victim's families on their stances towards these laws and if they are required..... chances are they have a better insight on the impact of DUI's in our lives then you or I do.

Oh yes.... but their opinions are emotional attachments to the situations at hand and are not logical/factual reasoning...... Don't forget.... we're not robots.... we're humans.... and the laws revolve around humans and what the majority deems right and wrong. The laws are to protect the majority.... and a majority is the Democracy in our countries.... and the majority deem that DUI laws are valid.... If you don't like what the majority believes, either try and change the opinions of the majority, or form a communist party, take over the country and dictate what you feel is right.

Until then, if you feel DUI laws are not valid and are one extra piece of crap we don't need in the world, by all means, take it to the courts and try and get the laws changed..... I'll be here waiting.

[Kamehameha34]

Indeed.... and if the internationally registered limit for drinking and driving is 0.08, then I guess the whole world who uses this method must be wrong, because someone who doesn't have a license is arguring that it is.

Ad populum, and now ad hominem. Oh, and a straw man! You're on a roll.

Trust, me I already known I was going in circles since the last page..... Apparently putting it in different words doesn't get the point across......

Indeed, different words for the same point don't make it make any more sense.

You haven't once even provided relevant commentary, much less make a coherent point.

You pay the government taxes on a lot of things that you don't have decisions in.... this is no different.

Did my sarcasm not convey that I see that as a bad thing? :rolleyes:

It is a real law... the rest of the world seems to think it is..... just out of curiosity, how old are you again?

You don't even understand what I'm saying.

I'm going to give you one last chance to prove yourself to be capable of discussing this. Otherwise I'll not waste my time on your multiple and demonstrable fallacies.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Ad populum, and now ad hominem. Oh, and a straw man! You're on a roll.

Typical.... just like all your responses eventually.... you try to argue a pointless point, just for the sake of argument, and when shown that you're wrong, you end up resorting the straw-man excuse..... predictable.

Indeed, different words for the same point don't make it make any more sense.

It's not the same point, that's the thing you're not understanding..... nor will you understand it until you are actually of age to do anything about the things you are complaining....

You haven't once even provided relevant commentary, much less make a coherent point.

Yeah, it's not coherent to you, because you don't know what you're talking about.... and I have also provided much more information and resources then you have yet to do to back up your claim.... you just continue with your usual banter about logical fallicies and other hoopla you seem addicted to, because you can't honestly think for yourself yet.... but that's beside the point.

Did my sarcasm not convey that I see that as a bad thing? :rolleyes:

Well if that's a bad thing, why bother to state the obvious? It doesn't help your side of the debate and just adds one more tangent for you to argue about to trail off the original debate so nobody can determine that you are right or wrong... yet again.

You don't even understand what I'm saying.

I understand exactly what you are trying to say.... and you're still wrong. I even explained to you exactly how you are wrong in many different ways.... but you seem to have this one track outlet, where you dictate what you think is right, and argue everybody else's point because you don't understand it.... and if you don't understand it... it has to be a logical fallicy..... come on.

You still avoided the question.... How old are you? This kinda relates to your argument.... if you haven't experienced or have any involvement what-so-ever about the thing you are debating, then how the hell can you think you are right?

I'm going to give you one last chance to prove yourself to be capable of discussing this. Otherwise I'll not waste my time on your multiple and demonstrable fallacies.

Ohhh.... goodie.... one last chance? Thank you.... you made my day :rolleyes:

This is going just like every other debate with you..... no where... because you can't comprehend something that isn't explained like a robot. The only person who's honestly not capable of discussing this, is you... sorry to say, because not only have I pointed out your faults in your debate in the last two pages, but so has many others here.... you just seem to have some want or need to try and debate with me and think I'm the only one wrong.

Everything I have shown you, supplied to you, debated with you, not once have you directly responded to anything I comented on. All you do is spew "Logical Fallicy" garbage and don't respond directly to what has been debated to you.

Instead of saying that you understand what was being said and then rebound it with something useful, you try and pick it apart, bypassing the actual message trying to be sent your way, and you look for petty faults to make you sound like you're right, when you're completely wrong.

Sorry, but no offense... but your not mature enough to debate with me.... I've tried countless times to spell things out for you that even a 6 year old can understand, and you run around the bush with other meaningless points to seem like you're a good competiting debator, which you're not.

• You love to get the last word in all the time
• You will jump at any opportunity to make yourself sound better then everybody else and use petty insults that are borderline with the rules of the forum to try and make the other person in the debate sound dumber then you.
• You don't respond directly to what was asked or commented to you, but rather you jump off on some other tangent that goes to raise further questions and illude the original questions presented to you.

Quite honestly, and trust me.... I gave you the benifit of the doubt more times then I should have.... trying to have any meaningful debate or conversation with you always ends up the same way.

Even at times when I'm commenting and defending your side of the argument, you have to try and argue with me.....

Debating with you is useless.... so I've explained why the law exists..... if you don't understand it.... that's not my problem.

[Kamehameha34]

You blew your chance. I respect other opinions, just not your attitude. I told myself I'd stop reading after 3 compensatory snipes and didn't make it through the first paragraph.

[Thunder]

law.com Law Dictionary

"reckless driving n. operation of an automobile in a dangerous manner under the circumstances, including speeding (or going too fast for the conditions, even though within the posted speed limit), driving after drinking (but not drunk), having too many passengers in the car, cutting in and out of traffic, failing to yield to other vehicles and other negligent acts. It is a misdemeanor crime. A "wet reckless" is a plea in a drunk driving prosecution allowed to lessen the penalty when the blood alcohol level is close to the legal limit."

In other words, Reckless Drivers have to show intentional negligence towards others on the road. You cannot prove that a Drunk Driver is being negligent because their thinking is impaired. You certainly cannot penalize people just for getting drunk: "You got drunk, you are being negligent." Reckless drivers are intentionally reckless: swerving through traffic like a bat out of hell, not yielding for those who have the right of way, running red lights, etc. You cannot prove that a drunk driver is in any way getting drunk to be negligent to anyone else. People get drunk for several reasons: to have fun, they like getting drunk, stress, depression, or they are just addicted to liquor. People are accepting the possible consequences of drinking as they know that they could just possibly get into a car and drive. The word "possibly/possible" is not an absolute word and negligence IS an absolute: "you were negligent" not "You sort of, kinda maybe were negligent." A reckless driver is sober enough to make a logical decision to be negligent, but someone who receives a DUI is not sober enough to be penalized with an absolute charge of reckless driving.

"They are drunk" an absolute for a DUI.

[Kamehameha34]

You cannot prove that a Drunk Driver is being negligent because their thinking is impaired.

They willfully impair their thinking, making them completely responsible for their actions. Drunk driving still fits under negligence.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You blew your chance. I respect other opinions, just not your attitude. I told myself I'd stop reading after 3 compensatory snipes and didn't make it through the first paragraph.

And there lies your fault..... it's not my problem you don't understand things... .you stop yourself form understanding things.

As soon as someone gives you some constructive critism, you lock up like some fundimentalist christian and protect yourself with your basic understanding of the world around you.

Funny thing is, I responded towards your comments much more politely and more direct then any of your comments towards me..... and I have let everything you have said slide.... yet.... you seem so sensitive that you can't do the same.

I can take great critism towards myself and my life.... it sure doesn't phase me any..... but apparently that's not the case for you..... which is why I said that it is useless to debate with you, because not only are you limited in your understanding of the world in which you live in.... but you are too sensitive and too defensive towards anything different than what you believe.

Once again..... I'm not the one with the problem and the fact that you just admitted that you didn't even read the entire last post, but rather wanted to get that last word in, yet again..... goes to prove my point even further.

Oh well..... no skin off my back..... At least I read your posts.... even though most of the time they make no sense.

[Kamehameha34]

Another long winded, two-bit psychological examination with no substance. People aren't ill for refusing to feed the troll.

I'm going to start ignoring you in this thread, and request moderator intervention if you continue to sidetrack it.

[Thunder]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 They willfully impair their thinking, making them completely responsible for their actions. Drunk driving still fits under negligence.

They did take the drinks, again, you cannot charge people with being negligent just for getting drunk.

Explain how someone who gets drunk is being negligent to anyone besides themselves and their own health. You cannot assume that: "they got drunk and are being negligent to Mr X. and Ms. O and Dr. H"...people get drunk for many reasons, and you cannot prove that people get drunk to endanger people on the road. It is about sober decisions: "Driver A. was negligent as he sped through traffic, sped through red lights, and lane hopped in front of other cars"...It has to do with logical decisions and not drunk ones when it comes to reckless driving.

[Kamehameha34]

They did take the drinks, again, you cannot charge people with being negligent just for getting drunk.

No, but you can punish them for the harm they cause while they are drunk.

As I've said, the fact that someone accepts a drink means that they accept responsibility for the resulting actions.

[Kamehameha34]

You're setting up a straw man - you're pinning the position I'm fighting onto me!

I've never said that drunks should be punished for being drunk. I've always said that theys hould be just responsible for their actions as a sober person.

[Thunder]

Getting drunk is the main decision...getting into the car is a sub decision once they are already piss drunk.

A DUI is punishment for endangering people's lives once intoxicated.

What is the huge issue?

DUI = Punishment

(not able to be proven intentional)

Reckless Driving = Punishment

(able to be proven intentional)

I've always said that theys hould be just responsible for their actions as a sober person

You are tossing argument around. They DO get punished.

[Kamehameha34]

You're not getting it. As soon as they have alcohol, they accept responsibility for their behavior. Their impaired judgement is voluntary.

[Thunder]

As soon as they have alcohol, they accept responsibility for their behavior.

I've said this all along.

Their impaired judgement is voluntary

You have to rule people based on their state of mind that they are in. You cannot penalize them just from the get go, that is penalizing someone for getting drunk. Negligence is about intentions and not about the "consequences of." The "consequences of" comes in when they accept the possibilities...they may or may not have intentions on hurting anyone on the road, but they are drunk so they receive a different infraction.

[Kamehameha34]

You have to rule people based on their state of mind that they are in. You cannot penalize them just from the get go, that is penalizing someone for getting drunk. Negligence is about intentions and not about the "consequences of." The "consequences of" comes in when they accept the possibilities...they may or may not have intentions on hurting anyone on the road, but they are drunk so they receive a different infraction.

No, they accept the risk of running people off the road when they take the drink. They also accept the consequences for doing so.

They should get a lighter sentence only if the harm they cause is completely involuntary. Criminals shouldn't get lighter sentences because they were drunk.

[Thunder]

No, they accept the risk of running people off the road when they take the drink. They also accept the consequences for doing so.

> _> you cannot stamp someone for reckless driving when they have no intentions of reckless driving. That is why the crime is categorized as a DUI.

They should get a lighter sentence only if the harm they cause is completely involuntary

Involuntary harm is not a criminal act. For example, if we are playing catch, and I throw the baseball and hit you in the arm and you get all bruised up, that is not assault. Explain what harm is involuntary and criminal at the same time.

Criminals shouldn't get lighter sentences because they were drunk.

A DUI isn't all that light, you make a DUI sound like getting ice cream and reckless driving sound like the guillotine.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 They should get a lighter sentence only if the harm they cause is completely involuntary. Criminals shouldn't get lighter sentences because they were drunk.

Should they get harsher sentences because they were drunk?

Quote by: Thunder > _> you cannot stamp someone for reckless driving when they have no intentions of reckless driving. That is why the crime is categorized as a DUI.

The punishment for a DUI is much harsher than that for reckless driving, amirite?

- Rob

[Kamehameha34]

Should they get harsher sentences because they were drunk?

As harsh as another, sober driver guilty of reckless driving.

> _> you cannot stamp someone for reckless driving when they have no intentions of reckless driving. That is why the crime is categorized as a DUI.

I explained my stance on this.

Involuntary harm is not a criminal act. For example, if we are playing catch, and I throw the baseball and hit you in the arm and you get all bruised up, that is not assault. Explain what harm is involuntary and criminal at the same time.

This is the gist of what I just said..

And I've explained why it does not relate to drunk driving.

A DUI isn't all that light, you make a DUI sound like getting ice cream and reckless driving sound like the guillotine.

I'm not using a tone when describing any of these punishments.

My case this whole time was that it is redundant to have two laws to cover the same crime.