Worse thing that killing somebody (not for the squeamish)

http://www.fnnc.org/drunk-driving.html

This punk-ass motherfucker (named Reggie Stephey)


was driving drunk; his car hit this girl's car


and turned her into this:


Apparently, poor Reggie "can't forgive himself" for what he did.

I don't fucking care. I say douse the worm in gasoline, light him up, and extinguish him just in time, so he can live his life following in the footsteps of his victim.

And you damned well fucking better believe that no power on earth would prevent me from exacting vengeance that would make all previous atrocities in human history look like bedtime stories in comparison if somebody did that to my wife or daughter.

there are no words that can be said...

seriously...

I am so sad right now.

Sympathy for that poor girl

or rage at the worm who did it to her

Reggie gets out of prison by 2007-2008.

I hope somebody greets him with a jerrycan and a Zippo.

He was no different than millions of teenagers.

I am pretty fascist when it comes to drunk driving.

I agree it's very wrong.

But it's to easy to just heap scorn on this guy. We pass normal-looking people on the street every day, work with people, know people, who have also driven drunk.

It's not right to just single this guy out for scorn without spreading it around.

. . . You would have invaded Iraq, not kept a civilian body count, and fostered an environment of prisoner torture because your emotions overpower your "brain."

Maybe you don't realize it, but there's a difference between "spouting off for therapeutical reasons to a bunch of people one knows and who will understand" and "doing something".

What's your point?

I wanted to initiate a comprehensive nuclear air strike against all major arab and muslim cities, and follow it up with an engineered virus attack that would reduce the affected (and now immuno-deprived) populations to as close to zero as possible.

I wanted genocide. Total and complete.

I wanted to annihilate 10% of the earth's population in a single afternoon.

But even if I were president, and even if I had the unlimited power to do that, I would have realised that my knee-jerk reaction was just that, and I would have delayed action until saner thoughts came to mind.

some people just don't...

ah, hell, what's the use. I'm not even going to go into it, because *I* know that *you* know what I mean, and we *both* know that the one who *should* know won't know...

:argh:

I can't stand when people can't differentiate our true, real emotional knee-jerk responses, shared honestly, with who we really are in terms of action. Fuckers. Fuck them.

And there you have it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"And you damned well fucking better believe that no power on earth would prevent me from exacting vengeance that would make all previous atrocities in human history look like bedtime stories in comparison if somebody did that to my wife or daughter."

that my impulse control would be severely weakened if it were my family.

"I wanted to initiate a comprehensive nuclear air strike against all major arab and muslim cities, and follow it up with an engineered virus attack that would reduce the affected (and now immuno-deprived) populations to as close to zero as possible.

I wanted genocide. Total and complete.

I wanted to annihilate 10% of the earth's population in a single afternoon."

It is meaningless without the final quote:

"But even if I were president, and even if I had the unlimited power to do that, I would have realised that my knee-jerk reaction was just that, and I would have delayed action until saner thoughts came to mind."

So, if I were president, Haulocaust would not have occurred on 9/12/2001, or any subsequent day.

Personally, I would have gone into Afghanistan, but followed it up with sufficient ground forces and humanitarian aid to have it be useful, and I would not have wasted time with Iraq.

"But even if I were president, and even if I had the unlimited power to do that, I would have realised that my knee-jerk reaction was just that, and I would have delayed action until saner thoughts came to mind."

It's the rational application of the rule of law. Having anti-liberal thoughts doesn't preclude one from being a liberal. It's the action that follows that matters. This is a message board, not a legislature, understand? That means that people can vent if they need to. I'll be first in line to lock up anyone who goes after the dipshit drunk driver with a zippo and flammable liquid. But to be pissed off when finding out he ruined somebody's life because he's a selfish bastard? That's human, and that's what distinguishes us from our Freeper cousins. We don't act on our primal instincts.

there are days that drunk drivers really enrage me

That said, Ihave seen them do horrible things... (yep this is up there), but I also know that revenge is not what drives our society, but the rule of law

Go listen to Gore's speech, as what we have done in Iraq is actually quite worst than what he did.

We can take care of her, she can be treated and believe it or not, we can get her a future. There are kids out there who we have bombed that we cannot take care off

had a big story yesterday about her, with interviews with her and her father. Very, very sad.

That the person driving drunk turns out fine (physically speaking), and innocent person gets horribly injured. Why is it never the other way around?? She was such pretty girl too.... After all its only fair...... :(

It's terrible what has happened to her, either way.

Pcat, who has lost her happy thoughts for the night.

I would have been sad regardless.

they remain limp, so just kinda bounce around. The sober person, who's actually aware of what's happening, tenses up and/or has no preparation time, and doesn't bounce around - just gets destroyed a lot.

Plus, the drunk person probably realizes, right before impact, that something is gonna happen and is able to swerve the car enough to NOT effect them. Whereas the hapless victim has no real warning.

Drunk drivers, first offense, should lose their license forever. Fuck it. Being able to drive is not a right. If you're such a selfish asshole POS fuck that you'll drive when impaired, then you have no right to a car. And make the law so that not only can they not drive, they can't own a car, lease a car, or rent a car. And if they're caught driving after revocation, it's prison time.

I'm sick and goddamn tired of all the damage that these selfish, immature, uncivil, careless, filth fucks cause.

Either you act like a human being, or you spend your life like the pathetic, useless animal you are.

i have zero tolerance for drunk drivers they belong in prison all of them!...my sisters only son 15 year old (my beautiful nephew..... was decapitaed by a drunk driver....the drunk driver got a broke arm, served 0 time...

i hate them!

my sister died 8 years later of a broken heart :cry:

drunk drivers who do this to themselves? Perhaps it doesn't get any coverage, but these fuckers always seem to do it to someone else.

That being said, dousing him in gas and setting him on fire won't bring her normal life back. Rage ain't the answer (but you do have a point about the daughter/wife thing)

Too many people look upon drunk driving to be nothing more than either a youthful indiscretion or a harmless pecadillo. Also, too many people look upon driving as a "right" (though I guess health care is not). Permanent revocation of driver's liscences for drunk drivers and the death penalty for drunk drivers who kill would fix much of this problem.

Time to tell a story, gather around children.

Time for story time.

Many years ago as a medic, I was coming home from an all nighter

The accident happened almost in front of me. I knew we needed Medical, Fire and Police as soon as my mind registered it. I stopped the car... my car and got out, Radio in hand requesting dispatch for the units I needed, and rushing to my trunk to start oh Triage and medical care using the Advanced Trauma Kit in my trunk.

Once I approached the scene, which did not take much... this kid comes out of one of the wrecked cars, gun in hand. By the way, have you ever been told that when you see down the barrel of a gun, they look huge? They do... training took over and I kicked the gun away from this boy scout, breaking his wrist in the process. I took out the cuffs I always carried (shhh, did not have restrains sorry) and cufffed him to a car...

He looked at me, reeking of alcohol and all that, and had the gall to tell me. "You can't do this, I'm an American Citizen." Well by then I was on to the car this kid crashed against, and I had to Triage a three year old as dead on the scene, mom as critical and dad as serious. Then I walked over to his pal and friend, who was also very drunk and PARALIZED.

Well when all was said and done, this boy and his friend faced a Mexican Judge... for murder in the third degree, the driver, driving under the influence, and threatening an Emergency Worker, as well as a fistful of other charges. They were found guilty, but at the sentencing phase I have yet to see a more incredible sentencing from any judge anywhere.

The boy I broke his hand, was given the max under mexican law, 40 years, at the time.... no, not concurrent, that is the max.

The other boy who was paralized, from the neck down... the judge said words to the followign effect. "There is nothing more I can do to you. As far as I am concerned you are now living a life sentence. I therefore declare you persona non grata in this country, and expell you." I was there, because I was not only a witness, but I really wanted to see what they were going to do to these boys.

The boy had to live with the shame that he killed a three year old... and that his friend was never going to walk. Yes there was real remorse that day...

Death penalty I don't think so, but then again I have always had a problem with the death penalty... except in one case... HIGH TREASON.

I've been in countries, or parts of countries, where drunk driving was basically encouraged. Sick. May drunk drivers kill themselves before they take out anyone else...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

should die.


Let me wallow in my knee-jerk reaction to that tragedy.

that's what passes for a liberal in Texas these days.

Dennis Miller, back when he was still funny, once observed:

"A Texas liberal is somebody who thinks that a prisoner getting death by injection should be laid out on a comfy mattress."

That being said, I'm just wallowing in my knee-jerk reaction to that story. Just let me spew bile for a few minutes, and then I'll be sane again.

I, too, was quite shaken when I saw the story yesterday on CNN.

But I have my own knee-jerk reaction to the desire to kill other people.

That boy's life is ruined, too. He did something really stupid, but 3 beers? Sad to say, a lot of people have done that. His outcome was tragic, but I don't want him dead. I feel sorry for everyone involved in this story.

In America, we don't pour gasoline on people and set them on fire for being stupid.

What grade are you in?

read my post down below, in which I give a more sober wish for what I hope happens to the guy who did this.

And by the time I finally finished, I was in the 25th grade (as i explained to a much younger cousin)...

In Soviet Russia, Alcohol drinks you!

You condone a "right" to drive drunk and cause all the damage one wants?

How is TXlib's statement making him a sick person? Or psychotic?

What an assholish comment.

Quoting Txlib "I hope somebody greets him with a jerrycan and a Zippo." I would expect something like this from El Drugbo, not a liberal.

Can you say you read that story without a trace of thirst for vengeance?

In more sober reflection, I hope the image of that girl, scarred, haunts him for the rest of his life. I hope he never sleeps a peaceful night, but instead, wakes soaked in his own sweat, fresh from horrifying nightmares about what he did. I hope that the memory and guilt of what he did sucks the joy out of any happy experience his life might bring him, as he remembers that he gets to live a life that he stole from somebody else.

makes others think before they drive drunk

That would be a far better outcome

And I am sure he will be hunted by what happened to her... it was his own hand that did it.

Now we need to remember we are a nation of laws, now read above the time I had the chance to take the law upon my own hands... instand saw a judge pass down an extremely wise decision....

That day I thought I was in front of Solomon in some ways

Post 20

People deserve severe punishment for wrongs they intend to commit. Where there is no intent, a person deserves no severe punishment.

What if the guy in question was an old meat eater, had a heart attack at the wheel and caused those injuries to the victim? Would you have gone nuts and screamed for him to be fried for eating meat all of his life?

You've got to look at culpability.

In any event, we don't roast people. We never have. We never will. That would violate the Eighth Amendment. I just can't believe you didn't know that.

If the old meat eater knew he had a heart condition that more meat would cause a problem with, then yes, he is culpable.

Anyone who doesn't think that alcohol will impair his or her ability to drive is an asshole, and if caught driving under the influence should lose his/her license. There is no excuse for it. None. Anyone with a brain that functions enough that they could get a license, has a brain that's functional enough to know that driving under the influence is illegal, wrong, ethically wrong, morally wrong, and dangerous.

Intention has NOTHING to do with it.

If someone has an accidental medical problem while driving and causes an accident, then fine.

But doing something that you KNOW is dangerous **IS** an intentional act, even if you aren't sitting at the bar saying, "Hey - I'm gonna have another beer than hidesouly scar some girl on the way home in a traffic accident."

Your argument is not only specious, it's bullshit.

In your old meat eater scenario, there's not a strong enough argument that meat-eating was a proximal cause to the heart attack that caused the accident.

At any rate, nobody expects to be impaired after eating a steak.

Pretty much everybody expects to be impaired after a few drinks. This kid made his choice when he drank with the intent of driving home that night, knowing full well he would be impaired. There's your culpability. Intent aggravates culpability but is not required for the culpability to be there regardless. Otherwise, personal responsibility goes straight to hell.

And I am full aware that my original wish for him would violate the 8th amendment. Do you not understand that one can voice a knee-jerk reaction, and have the impulse control not to go through with it?

and setting him on fire. That's really about all I need to know to pass judgment on you.

:evilgrin:

Quote: "And you damned well fucking better believe that no power on earth would prevent me from exacting vengeance that would make all previous atrocities in human history look like bedtime stories in comparison if somebody did that to my wife or daughter."

And I still stand by it. It's one thing to vent about my knee-jerk reaction upon reading about such a tragedy happening to somebody else.

But if somebody did that to my family, I don't know if I'd have the impulse control to stop at mere venting.

Although, the bit about making "all previous atrocities in human history look like bedtime stories in comparison" is just talking out of my ass... in reality, the worst I'd be able to do would be no more than to beat him to death with my bare hands.

who'd do that to a family member. In this case, it doesn't even qualify as totally unintentional because there's a link of cause-and-effect that the driver well knew. And he didn't even drink enough to plead total oblivion. I hope that he suffers the rest of his life.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Too late to delete it, but wanted to let you know that I know it shouldn't have gone in there.

Sorry.

My point in the rest of the post still stands, though.

punishment for Drunk Driving, not the death penalty, mind you

In that I agree with you

Here is a basic I would love to see

First Offense

Removal of Licence, and six months jail time (10K fine) Licence will be restored with an alcohol sniffer installed on order of the judge.

Second offense

Removal of licnece jail time for a year (50K Fine)

Third offense, Jail time for three years 250K fine)

Now these penalties do not include any damage to people or property mind you.

That kid should have been charged with involuntary attemped manslaugher... (with all the time that this implies) and assault with a deadly weapon.

If there is somebody dead on scene, Third degree, which is manslaghter that canot be pleaded down...

Look at the laws we have right now on the books. They make drinking and driving almost a game... and it does not matter what state.

But for this to change drinking and driving must become almost like smoking a social sin, insteand of a right of passage.

The problem with this is... I do not want to see this become like drug possesion, where we send people to jail for minor things... and bear in mind the actual charge is driving under the influence, and yes technically you could face the music if you drive with oh, cold medication on board.

Food for thought, huh?

got 7 years in prison and a 20k fine.

What's not mentioned here is that two other people were killed in the accident.

pretty light.

Unintentional or not he KILLED people, and it was HIS CHOICE to drive drunk that night.

40 years sounds more appropriate for him.

so we are talking of two counts of man slaughter, which is murder three in most states

Rule of law woudl require him to at least do fifteen.

Yep his life has been ruined but for gods sake he KILLED two people and assaulted a third wiht a deadly weapon!

This is not a knee jerk reaction, seen my share of horrors in the streets.

But seven years for two counts of manslaugher is a tad light, even if this is his first offense.

Proximate, not proximal.

Anyway, how do you know there was proximate cause in this case? The hunger for justice is clearly strong in you, and in the face of tragedy, you require evil. That way the world makes sense, right? For this poor girl to be so horribly scarred and its just something that happened, no fault or blame to be layed, that would be proof that the world just isn't just, its just random stuff that happens, and that is not a comfortable thought. So, if something bad happened, and you can pin the blame on some evil person, then maybe the world is just and orderly, and its just evil people who screw it up. Thats a better world, isn't it?

You won't recognize it, but this is a manifestation of the basic religious impulse. This emotional response is the source of all religious beleif, the need for justice and order.

But anyway, back to proximate cause. The fact that someone has consumed 3 beers does not establish that this person's impairment, if any, caused the accident. Some accidents involving impaired drivers are actually the other driver's fault. In other cases, you cannot say that the accident would not have happened but for the impairment. (but for cause is a prerequisite, before you go on to the philosophical question of proximate cause (you do know proximate cause is not a logical or scientific concept, it is a policy concept, it refers to where in the chain of causation we draw a pragmatic line cutting off liability)).

Yet your reaction, this desire for justice, this need for evil because evil is more comforting than sheer random chance as the answer to why bad things happen, has led most states to enact laws which say that it is presumed to be the drunk driver's fault regardless of who's fault it was. Thats right, in most states, a suicidal pedestrian can throw himself under your wheels, and if you are over .08 (isn't this level of intoxication rather arbitrary to impose such huge consequences on, anyway?)you are guilty of murder.

I am sorry, in my view, an intoxicated teenager is not the same as Charles Manson. No matter how horrifying or tragic the result. It is still an accident, even if you can attribute some cause to it.

Hey, suppose while you are wallowing in your emotions you take a drive, and your emotional state is such that it impairs you worse than 3 beers would, does that turn any accident you might get into into a murder? We are getting there, we have statutes now here in New Jersey that make you a murderer if you drive tired. I wonder when they are going to get to driving angry, or driving stupid?

What about people who are just kinda dumb and have slow reaction times, they might be worse drivers every day of their lives than a person with 3 beers in them. Are they all murderers?

Fact is, with 200 million vehicles rattling around, every now and then the course of one will intersect with another. Flesh fares poorly against steel in these situations. Its an inherent risk of our transportation system.

Sad, absolutely, the pictures of that girl are horrific, and they have certainly served their purpose of riling you up and making you agree with whateever additional restrictions of the safety police state that may be coming down the pike.

Anyway, wallowing in self righteous anger does not make one virtuous, it makes one Ashcroft, hey, we all do it, but its not something to be proud of or cultivate, don't you think?

Proximate, not proximal.

Thanks. I hate using the wrong word.

Anyway, how do you know there was proximate cause in this case? The hunger for justice is clearly strong in you, and in the face of tragedy, you require evil.

I saw nothing in the story that would lead me to believe it was anything other than his alcohol-impaired driving.

I don't generally require evil to be the cause of tragedy. Had he been sober, and driving reasonably, and simply lost control of his vehicle on a patch of gravel or wet pavement, I wouldn't feel any anger at him.

That way the world makes sense, right? For this poor girl to be so horribly scarred and its just something that happened, no fault or blame to be layed, that would be proof that the world just isn't just, its just random stuff that happens, and that is not a comfortable thought. So, if something bad happened, and you can pin the blame on some evil person, then maybe the world is just and orderly, and its just evil people who screw it up. Thats a better world, isn't it?

Most of the shit that happens is random. I wouldn't call this kid evil, per se. He was stupid and selfish, and in selfish stupidity committed an evil act.

You won't recognize it, but this is a manifestation of the basic religious impulse. This emotional response is the source of all religious beleif, the need for justice and order.

As you've described it I do recognise it.

I think, however, that you are assuming my foaming-at-the-mouth rant was a call to action, and not merely a foaming-at-the-mouth rant brought on by the shock of seeing something horrific and tragic.

in most states, a suicidal pedestrian can throw himself under your wheels, and if you are over .08 (isn't this level of intoxication rather arbitrary to impose such huge consequences on, anyway?)you are guilty of murder.

Do you personally know what 0.08 BAC feels like? When I was an undergrad, in my senior year, I participated in a study. The researchers gave us varying amounts of alcohol, measured our BAC, and gave us tests to measure our concentration, reaction time, etc.

I thought, and others in our group agreed, that the impairment was significant at about 0.04-0.05 BAC.

So yes, I do believe that a BAC of 0.08 represents proximate cause. I think juries should ask themselves (esp. in your example of a suicidal pedestrian) if a different outcome could reasonably have been expected had the driver been sober.

I am sorry, in my view, an intoxicated teenager is not the same as Charles Manson. No matter how horrifying or tragic the result. It is still an accident, even if you can attribute some cause to it.

Do you believe every crime is just an accident, and there's some exculpatory reason behind every criminal act?

There is a very high statistical connection between tighter DUI enforcement and highway fatalities. Don't you believe in personal responsibility? Should we just let everybody drive drunk?

If that isn't what you're implying, I would sure like to hear your alternative.

Hey, suppose while you are wallowing in your emotions you take a drive, and your emotional state is such that it impairs you worse than 3 beers would, does that turn any accident you might get into into a murder? We are getting there, we have statutes now here in New Jersey that make you a murderer if you drive tired. I wonder when they are going to get to driving angry, or driving stupid?

What about people who are just kinda dumb and have slow reaction times, they might be worse drivers every day of their lives than a person with 3 beers in them. Are they all murderers?

The problem with DWS (Driving While Stupid), DWT (Driving While Tired), DWA (Driving While Angry/Asshole) is that even if the statistical correlation with the underlying state and the propensity for causing an accident is high, it is just too hard to prove the underlying state existed, unless the state makes the threshold of evidence dangerously low. How does New Jersey define tired? Where is the threshold? What is the standard of evidence? Has anybody successfully been prosecuted under the law?

Sad, absolutely, the pictures of that girl are horrific, and they have certainly served their purpose of riling you up and making you agree with whateever additional restrictions of the safety police state that may be coming down the pike.

Yes, they riled me up, and made me shoot off my mouth. But although I don't seriously wish somebody to douse him in gasoline, I do think that 7 years for killing 2 people and ruining another person's life is way too light. But hey, you don't think driving drunk is a crime, so there's an unbridgeable chasm here.

Anyway, wallowing in self righteous anger does not make one virtuous, it makes one Ashcroft, hey, we all do it, but its not something to be proud of or cultivate, don't you think?

Wallowing temporarily in self-righteous anger does not make one Ashcroft; you yourself admit that we all do it, but we're all clearly not Ashcroft. Acting rashly while still wallowing in that self-righteous anger does.

Just what is the accident rate per mile driven for drunk drivers, as compared to sober drivers?

I have always wondered.

Is a drunk driver twice as likely to be in an accident? Four times? A thousand times?

Suppose its 100 times, it makes you 100 times more likely to have an accident. What is the actual risk factor? Does it mean that your one in 500,000 chance of having an accident any time you drive is now bumped up to one in 5,000?

basing the difference between blameless accident and murder on that statistical difference in probabilities is like saying that buying one lottery ticket is a gamble, but buying a hundred tickets is a prudent investment.

Thats why I have always thought that the analogy between driving drunk and pointing a loaded gun at someone to be complete bullshit. Demagogic crap.

If you take the actual objective data, I wonder, for example, if a drunk driver in a VW bug is more or less likely to kill someone than a sober SUV driver (because of the greatly increased likelihood that an suv, in a crash, will cause injury to the other driver).

How about that for a solution, drunks should only be allowed to drive lightweight, flimsy, and slow vehicles. In the end it could save far more lives than the ineffective deterrence effect of high penalties. (deterrence is very ineffective in a probability situation, where the likelihood of the harm the deterrent is designed to prevent is low. The Actor, in these cases usually young and exuberant, always just assumes it will never happen to me, I am invincible, I can drive).

And to answer your question, alcohol alone certainly does not establish cause. the "but for" test for causation requires you to answer the question "would the accident have occurred if the driver was sober." There are about a million different ways a drunk driver can be involved in an accident, yet the drunkenness played no role in the accident. You might not be aware, maybe I stated it unclearly, the statutes for vehicular homicide in most states say that it doesn't matter whose fault it is or whether the drunkeness played a role. In other words, if a drunk driver is stopped at a red light, and another driver slams into him from behind, if the at-fault driver dies, the law says the drunk driver is guilty. Nothing in that article tells you anything about whether or how this young man's 3 beers contributed to the accident.

I'm sure you could Google for the answers to your questions.

You might not be aware, maybe I stated it unclearly, the statutes for vehicular homicide in most states say that it doesn't matter whose fault it is or whether the drunkeness played a role. In other words, if a drunk driver is stopped at a red light, and another driver slams into him from behind, if the at-fault driver dies, the law says the drunk driver is guilty.

In this particular example, the law might state that the drunk driver is guilty of vehicular homicide, even though he was stopped, and was hit from behind. But it's the DA's call to prosecute or not. I believe that the likelihood of jury nullification if such a case was brought to trial would be very high. I certainly wouldn't vote to convict.

Far more likely, I believe, the DA would charge the drunk driver with simple DUI, unaggravated by any accident or death, and rule the actual cause of the accident to be the fault of the dead driver.

See, thats what I am going on about, you are saying that driving while tired or driving while dumb might be just as dangerous, but we can't prosecute because of the practical difficulty of proving it.

You are mixing up your law and your ethics here.

An act is either ethical or not, deserving of moral condemnation, or not, regardless of whether it would be dificult to prove or not.

The law, on the other hand, is not based on morality, and therefore frequently makes judgments based on practicality. And thats why we have the age old concepts of malum in se and malum prohibitum, the huge distinction between that which is bad in and of itself, and that which is bad simply because the law prohibits it, but which is not necessarily immoral or unethical.

So my point is, if a stupid person has statistically the same likelihood of getting in an accident as a person who has had three beers, is the stupid person also subject to the harsh moral condemnation implied in your proposed punishment of burning alive?

I truly beleive that alcohol is society's scapegoat. Random tragedy occurs, and it occurs for innumerable reasons. Whe it comes to auto accidents, it often occurs because of a failure of judgment or diminishment of capacity on someone's part. But Alcohol is one of those reasons, one of those failures, which is really easy to detect, easy to single out and punish. So we do so.

But the problem i have with this is that this punishment is not based on a rational analysis which compares the actual risks posed by the various behaviors and factors which affect auto safety, instead its just kinda knee-jerk. "There was alcohol, that must have caused it." I invited you to rate anger, stupidity and tiredness along drunkeness, so we could make a moral judgement as to which was worse and more deserving of condemnation, and which was less dangerous and thus less deserving of condemnation, and you flat out refused to do it, becaue it would be impractical, too difficult.

In the end, the fact is that if you use hurtling hunks of steel piloted by flawed humans as your transportation system, you are going to get a certain amount of tragedy. Nothing will stop it. Criminalizing imperfection will do no good, it will just make criminals of us all.

The New Jersey law says that you are guilty of driving while tired if you haven't slept in 24 hours, by the way.

See, thats what I am going on about, you are saying that driving while tired or driving while dumb might be just as dangerous, but we can't prosecute because of the practical difficulty of proving it.

I think it's dangerous to enact laws that are unenforceable unless the state accepts an absurdly low standard of evidence.

Driving while distracted, while tired, while road-enraged, while stupid, etc, may or may not be as dangerous as DUI. If some objective standard could be found to measure them, then it would be easier to make them prosecutable offences. If we found a way to measure some hormone or other chemical that builds up under sleep deprivation, then we might have then means to enforce DWT laws.

So my point is, if a stupid person has statistically the same likelihood of getting in an accident as a person who has had three beers, is the stupid person also subject to the harsh moral condemnation implied in your proposed punishment of burning alive?

If research proved conclusively that people who were stupid, based on some objective classification, were at least as likely as drunks to be involved in accidents, I think you'd see a call for legislation. However, it would be convoluted with arguments of rights, and equality, and fairness. More practically, driving is a requirement in our society, and that won't change until we have widespread public transportation. So I don't think those who are stupid would end up losing their licenses, if for no other justification than, "well, unlike drunk drivers, stupid drivers didn't choose to be stupid".

I truly beleive that alcohol is society's scapegoat. Random tragedy occurs, and it occurs for innumerable reasons. Whe it comes to auto accidents, it often occurs because of a failure of judgment or diminishment of capacity on someone's part. But Alcohol is one of those reasons, one of those failures, which is really easy to detect, easy to single out and punish. So we do so.

I see your logic, that if some other negligent cause is at least as likely as drunkenness to cause an accident, and we don't worry about or prosecute that, then we shouldn't worry about or prosecute drunk drivers. I use that logic when I fly: I don't worry about the risk of death from driving, and death while flying is far less likely, and therefore, I shouldn't worry about flying, either. But I also believe that one should control the factors leading to accidents that are currently controllable.

But the problem i have with this is that this punishment is not based on a rational analysis which compares the actual risks posed by the various behaviors and factors which affect auto safety, instead its just kinda knee-jerk. "There was alcohol, that must have caused it." I invited you to rate anger, stupidity and tiredness along drunkeness, so we could make a moral judgement as to which was worse and more deserving of condemnation, and which was less dangerous and thus less deserving of condemnation, and you flat out refused to do it, becaue it would be impractical, too difficult.

I refused because I know far less about those factors, so it would have been pure speculation.

In the end, the fact is that if you use hurtling hunks of steel piloted by flawed humans as your transportation system, you are going to get a certain amount of tragedy. Nothing will stop it. Criminalizing imperfection will do no good, it will just make criminals of us all.

I don't think it's extreme at all to have as a legal requirement to drive that you be reasonably unimpaired. Certain types of impairment are better-understood, and currently have objective means of measurement. You control the negative factors that you can.

The New Jersey law says that you are guilty of driving while tired if you haven't slept in 24 hours, by the way.

Other than the defendant's admission, what evidence do they have? Have they prosecuted anybody under that law?

So if I go out tonight, knowing full well that I'm going to get too plastered and way too drunk to drive, and I don't bother to find someone to drive me home and kill somebody in the process, I didn't intend to do it and don't deserve punishment? No fucking way, you have a CHOICE when you get behind the wheel of a car drunk. If you hurt or kill someone as a result of that decision, it's no different than if you'd decided to take a loaded gun and shoot that person.

Just my two cents on the subject

Find yourself a large crowd, grab yerself a rifle, close yer eyes, and start lobbing shots. Any killings are intentional. Walk away scot free under Wizard's responsibility-free new legal system.

Or maybe one just pours poison in the city water supply. One isn't directly killing anyone, so there's no specific intent, it's all just "accidental" and "random chance".

We don't pour gasoline on people and set them on fire when they do something stupid. We don't even pour gasoline on people and set them on fire when they intentionally kill another human being.

When did you lose your perspective or education, if you ever had it?

This is most obviously a personal attack...and you've done it many times in this thread. You don't agree with TXLib. Fine. I don't either. But if you are "educated" and "have perspective," perhaps you can do it in a way that doesn't resort to name calling (with a condescending demeanor to boot).

of course the jerry can and zippo is not good.

But you could have simply poionted that out, instead of using a bunch of misleading bon mots.

So you've never read anything like that and had a knee jerk reaction to it. Never said anything that you would never actually DO in the heat of the moment? Give the guy a break already, geez

We are liberals. As much as I dislike organized religion, remember what Jesus said. Do onto other as you'd have done to you. Whatever happened to the notion of forgiveness?? It's upto that poor girl to find it in her heart to do that....

but it's ethically imperative for the rest of us, and for her, to make sure (as much "sure" as we are able, anyway) that shit like this doesn't happen again.

Forgicveness is important, yes - but so is being pragmatic and honest. People who are incapable of respecting the lives of others need to be limited as much as possible in their capacity to destroy lives. In my best theological understanding as a Christian professional, Jesus' ethic of "turn the other cheek" doesn't mean that anything goes. It means to forgive, yes, but it also means to make sure that the dangerous person can't be out there killing more.

There shouldn't be any punishment on our part. Forgiveness and punishment are two separate things. No he cannot simply walk away from this. And yes we should do everything to prevent such tragedies.

If your efforts to do the impossible (making sure there is no more badness in the world is assuredly a quixotic goal) result in greater harm than good, there is no ethical imperative. If the scheme of "justice" you envision, if the punishments you would impose, if the restrictions on liberty in the name of safety that you would impose, create more misery than they prevent, than they are not morally or ethically imperative.

Your sloppy use of that phrase, implying that disagreeing with you equates to immorality, I hope its inadvertant.

The fact is that we do things right now to prevent tragedies like this. We throw drunk drivers in prison for years, even though they never meant to hurt anyone. When you think about it, deterrence doesn't work with drunks. Hell, the whole reason we find fault with them is because they are impaired. Impaired people don't sit down and calculate the potential prison sentence they might receive before drinking that last beer.

What you are after is vengeance, not any utilitarian goal like deterrence, which might actually reduce the incidence of tragedies like this. Vengeance is not ethically imperative.

Impaired people don't sit down and calculate the potential prison sentence they might receive before drinking that last beer.

They need to make that decision before they go out drinking, and make sure they've got a plan to get home safely in advance.

Negligence and carelessness are harmful. Hiding behind lack of intent as a defense throws personal responsibility out the window.

Of your proposed remedy. Weigh the efficacy of the deterrence against the cost of a draconian punishment in other ways. My point is that saying its an ethical imperative to "do all we can" is an absurd statement, it begs the question of what ought to be done. It provides exactly zero support for your assertion that the answer is severe penalties.

And I am not "hiding behind the lack of intent" as a defense. You make it sound like I made up the idea that intent is a prerequisite for blameworthiness. Sorry, but that has been a bedrock principle of western ideas of ethics and justice for several thousand years.

I think she was on (God forgive me) Oprah last year sometime.

Eloquent speaker who's really put herself out there in the fight against drunk driving.

And a much more enlightened being than I -- if she's the one I'm thinking of (and I'm 99% certain she is), she has forgiven him.

The story still makes me want to cry -- but what a role model. If only I could be that... charitable.

But There Is Some Gray Area - Anyone That Has Ever Gone To A Bar And Had 2 Beers Has More Than Likely Driven Home Legally Drunk. You Don't See The Cops Arresting Everyone That Leaves A Bar, But Technically They Could. Drunk Driving Is Stupid, Senior Citizens That Are Obviously Incapable Of Driving Properly Is Asinine As Well - Don't Think The Story Would Have Got The Coverage If It Was An 85 Year Old Woman Doing The Driving However (Unless She Was Drunk).

this. Could you have. I was 18 and stupid. This man will live with this the rest of his life. That is punishment enough. Although I am sickened and horrified at the end result of such stupidity that I would hesitate to guess the majority of us have suffered from. :(

aside from the horror of what he did to that poor girl, he also KILLED TWO PEOPLE.

He shouldn't emerge from prison until he is an old man. Plus, by then, psychotic assholes such as myself who wish on him a jerrycan and a zippo will either have forgotten about him, or be too old to bother.

your father? This was a boy/man who did a horrid thing and will have to pay for it with horrid images for the rest of his life. I cannot condemn someone who did exactly what I was guilty of, only mine ended up less horribly. I was lucky. I agree with you TXlib, my gut reaction as a mom was mangle his face, but, in the end, he's already mangled whatever hopes he had of a productive life.

But I'm not now.

He didn't merely ruin this one girl's life. He also killed two people, and that has been glossed over in the story. Yes, he's mangled any hope for a productive life, but he now has no right, in my opinion, to a free life, either. I don't think seven years is enough for two murders, unintended or otherwise.

Now, if this were a pure accident, I'd agree with you. But it wasn't a pure accident; he choose to drive drunk.

happened to me and many others I am sure. Therefore, because I am the least little bit guilty of the same crime, I am unable to judge.

drunk. I've never driven a car after having one drink. I don't know why I'm the way I am but I won't even drive if my windshield is dirty. I'll clean it before I take off. I have a hypothesis about why I'm this way and I'll share it.

When I was 16 I was involved in a motorcycle wreck. I broke both pelvic bones, my tail bone and my neck. Thankfully my broken neck didn't result in paralysis. I believe that somehow or another my subconscious remembers the pain I went through as a result of this wreck and it manifests itself in me being extremely vigilant when I drive.

I can fully understand TxLib's reaction to this woman's story. It's not a large leap to imagine something like this happening to someone we love. I'm 5'0" and weigh 96 lbs. but if someone were to threaten my 27 year old son, I can feel the rage and what feels like power enough to tear the person hurting my son apart piece by piece. Would I do it? Could I do it? I sincerely doubt it but the feelings are there.

Want to know a real pisser? My brother-in-law has had 2 DUI's and has never spent a night in prison other than the time he spent waiting on my sister to bond him out of the Houston jail. He should have had a third but he elected to run from the cops and he ended up wrecking. The cops thought he wasn't going to live so they didn't instruct LifeFlight or the hospital to do a blood alcohol test. The extent of his injuries? A mild concussion and around 300 fire ant bites. His sentence? 120 hours of community service, a fine of 250.00 and a years probation.

Of course it cost my sister thousands of dollars to keep him out of jail but if you have the money you can get away with alot.

So many feelings.

Cruel and Unusual punishment ban out of the Constitution. Also, I noticed that he was driving an SUV. Perhaps SUVs should be treated like a different class of vehicle with different licensing requirements.

That having been said, I drove stinking drunk on a couple of occasions up until I was 24 or so. I was fortunate, never hit anybody, never even went off the road. I was driving a Fiat 850 then, barely bigger than a go cart.

I am now 44, in my teenage years, Drunk Driving wasn't much talked about, it seemed like a basic road hazard, kinda like hitting a deer, something you couldn't really do anything about.

However, after 20 years of hammering home the evils of Drunk Driving, it should be more severely punsihed.

This guy shouldn't get out of jail until he's 65 at least. And yes, if someone did this to my wife or children, it would take a HUGE effort to forgive and let the legal system take its course, but you have to do it, not because it's the law but rather because that's what's healthy for your soul.

This is a tragic, terrible story and the sensitive use of it on the original anti drink-drive site that you link to is very moving. I have personally written on DU about how angry drink-driving makes me and got many people agreeing with me.

However, is it really appropriate to hijack this topic in order to say this kind of thing, "I say douse the worm in gasoline, light him up, and extinguish him just in time, so he can live his life following in the footsteps of his victim"?

So, you want vigilante "justice" or "an eye for an eye"? Any idea what Jacqueline Saburido wants? No, neither do I, but my suspicion is that she wouldn't wish her fate on ANYBODY else in the world. And here's a clue: ' "Forgiveness," Ms. Saburido said, "is important for the soul, for my own soul, you know, to live in peace." '

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/auto/epaper/editions/friday/opinion_04a95b3b11a73135001d.html

Of COURSE drink driving makes me angry, but this kind of rant is an ugly plea for violence and IMHO has no place here, especially after our recent criticism of abuses in Iraq. Moreover, I find your misuse of the original site offensive - by all means post it and express your horror/sympathy/outrage, but the original site was a plea to avoid drink driving, whereas your comments are just baying for blood.

As I said many times, there is a huge difference between venting a knee-jerk response, and actually lacking the impulse control to avoid going out and doing it.

Reading that story drove me into a foaming-at-the-mouth rage, and I had to vent.

a written rant is very different from an impulsive oral one. If you rant aloud to a friend of colleague or family member then it's vented and gone in a minute.

If you rant in writing and put it on a website then it stays there and gives people the impression that you've taken the time to write down your considered opinion.

I've read a lot of this post, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that DUers or casual browsers will scan through scores of posts to establish whether you've contradicted or toned down your initial comments later on.

As mentioned, if you don't genuinely believe the things you put in your initial post you should be concerned that people are basing their opinons of you on it.

Peace.

P.

It was late at night, I was suffering insomnia, and had nobody else to rant at.

Not justification, merely explanation.

and got shot down for it myself, so I suppose I'm on your side really.

Sometimes it is good to get things off your chest and DU is a good way to do it. Unfortunately there can be problems purely due to the medium of DU - i.e. you make a rant and it's still there a day later when you've calmed down and considered your opinion.

P.

...I've read the thread (up to this point so far) and I have had no problem following the tone of the thread.

I read the first post and thought it was irresponsible and out of place on DU.

I didn't realise that the new rule was that you have to double-check to make sure there isn't a semi-retraction somewhere else buried in there.

P.

You might have noticed it...

But DU isn't a book - I'm not obliged to read the entirety of everything on here before passing judgement.

My reply was to the initial comment and I think that it was fair and reasonable. I've now had correspondence with TXLib who's indicated (at least partially) that he/she didn't consider their own first post as being a reasonable, considered response to the story.

That way you'd have to blow into a tube to start the car. If your BAC is over the legal limit the car won't start.

I don't know how feasable that is, but it's something I'd propose if I were president.

this is just too horriffic for words.

Had that been one of my loved ones, dude would be a dead man walking

And as irresponsible as he was, it was accidental. If you want to "exact vengeance" over accidents, you become part of what's wrong with society in general.... But I'm sure you don't give a shit, and that's a shame.

1) If you'd read the thread, or even his first post, in entirety, you'd know that TXlib isn't actually condoning setting the guy on fire. He's merely ranting and expressing an emotional state.

2) It wasn't accidental. He chose to drink, and then chose to drive. IMO, there are no accidental drunk driving "accidents". They are not likely intentional - as in planned out, calculated, and executed - but they are not accidents.

to drive is decent public transit systems in every city.

Riding the subways and trains late on a weekend night in Japan can be pretty unpleasant, given all the drunks who are acting rowdy, passing out, and even puking on the floor. But they're there because Japan has severe laws against drunk driving, and I'm glad the drunks are on the train where they can only gross people out and not kill or maim them.

One thing I love about NYC - I can have a martini or beer or wine with dinner when dining out and not have to worry about "Am I gonna kill someone on the way home?" When I'm driving, I don't drink, unless I know I'm gonna be at the restaurant for a long time, then I might have a pre-dinner cocktail, but that's it.

The risk is too high to drink and drive. And decent public transportation would not only help keeping a large number of drunks off the road, it would also help in immeasurable other ways. :-)

I'd much rather have a drunk throw up on me on a train than slam into my car on the highway.

And he was drunk, which makes it most definitely NOT accidental... he didn't accidentally decide to drive that night.

If he had been sober, and just lost control of the vehicle on a wet road or something, then I totally agree with you.

He was drunk. He drove. He killed two people, and mutilated one other for life.

Do YOU think seven years and $20k is enough punishment?

I have no problem with people rational enough to QUALIFY their emotional responses as being EMOTIONAL.

I also don't think thoughtlessness is an accident. A habit, yes...an accident, no.

Having chaired numerous events for traumatically brain injured individuals, I find thoughtlessness to run rampant every time the subject of helmet safety comes up...and those mostly arguing against it are males right in this guy's age range.

forgiving and positive.

She blew me away.

Made me cry when I read it. Then it pissed me off, because it reminded me of this one drunk driving case where this white girl with an 'important' father jumped a median and killed this old black man. He was a firefighter and Vietnam vet. This was her second or third DD offense, the others having been swept under the rug. She got less than 2 years jail time and didn't even serve half of it. The only remaining thing she had to do was community service involving telling people about the evils of drunk driving. That was five years ago and it still sends me into a rage when I think about it. :grr:

IMO, this kid killed 2 and maimed another beyond recognition. Seven years in jail with possibility for parole is just not enough. While I don't recommend the gascan and Zippo arguement, I do think that a five-year stretch is a bit too lenient. Granted, this young lady forgave him (I read the article that linked to the web page), but the victim's forgiveness just doesn't warrant a slap on the wrists.

Cat on a tin roof, dogs in a pile
Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile

Going where the wind don't blow so strange
Maybe off on some high cold mountain range (note 1)
Lost one round but the price wasn't anything
A knife in the back and more of the same

Same old
Rat in a drain ditch, caught on a limb
You know better, but I know him

Like I told you, like I said
Steal your face right off your head

nt

I am really pissed at people like him. If anything like that ever happened to any of my friends or family, I'd seek revenge...even if it means doing the same thing to him/her as he/she did to my family/friends.

This is so terrible. :(

is because there are to many people with power, position, and/or money that drive drunk.

Perhaps more good can come of this than evil, though; if we forgive and use this as a lesson to others.

My brother was hit by a drunk driver, too. And before he died, he found the strength inside of himself to forgive her.

That's fucking horrible. Drunk Driving is completely unnecessary, irresponsible and just plain stupid. I support much harsher sentences for this completely avoidable crime. I'd rather have died than have to live like that.