Society's Mixed Signals

[Tripper]

I got back at the arresting officer that night. I decided to let go in my pants in the back of the squad car just to piss him off. It worked. I was a mess but oh well I figured them having to bleach and clean out the back of their car was my little way of showing them what I thought of their decision to not let me walk the rest of the way and keep my keys.

 

OJ, in every post that you make the only thing that makes sense to me is that you are filled with rage. You blame everyone from the store clerk to the police for your situation when you knowingly broke a law for a second offense.

And in the end you end up sitting in your own feces. Very sad.

[Always Wrong]

Hey iowa, I feel for ya man. But we broke the law, reguardless of how rediculously critical the limit has been dropped to. For me, what made mine a felony was the fact that I had always sped down the drive to my house. I had received six speeding tickets and was never even tipsy. But that last time I'd had a beer.The property on both sides was mine, but the road was public. Even though anyone on it would have been easy to see as long as they had their headlights on.

 

I was doing over 100 mph as I was every time I drove down that road. No big deal to me, I just paid the fine and went on my way, hell, I was wealthy with no consience. But that along with blowing a .9 gave me a felony. That was what they were looking for.

 

These laws are made more and more critical to put the clamps on wealthy people who think they can just buy their way out of everything. I had it coming. It grounded me. Sure, it sucked, but I got over it.

 

As for the girl flying out of the car and breaking her neck, I am so sorry to hear about that. If she wasn't the driver, the driver should be in prison for murder for not making her wear her seatbelt if everything is going to be equally strict, and it is coming to that level very soon.

 

Just look at all the famous people who arent getting away with it anymore. They can surely afford a driver and choose to risk it anyway. They're paying the price.

 

Soon enough we won't have the right to bear arms. We won't have many of the liberty we started with. But that is the progression the society we live in is taking. Our constitution is a living constitution and is supposed to progress and change.

 

Communities like the one you speak of exist and are disbanded by the government for tax violations usually. So if you are going to take that route, be sure to dot your I's and cross your T's or it will be a short lived venture.

 

There is still homestead land available in Alaska. You have a specific period of time to build a home/cabin and you can stay. If you fail to show you can survive in the wilderness, they will make you leave. There are people there, doing that very thing as we speak.

 

Good luck, stay sober, it's just not worth it to drink, and you'll even feel better for it!

Put the beer companies out of business! lol

 

You can get a permit to drive for your job from the judge, really! Since you will be driving your own car, the driving record should have nothing to do with getting the job.

 

Calm down and take control of the situation. You can overcome this. Your anger can be turned into useful energy. Look on the bright side... noone t-boned you at the intersection! They would have blamed you for the accident! lol

[sb129]

Laws are enacted so that ALL members of society enjoy equal freedoms, protection and sanctions.

Now as I understand it, IJ, has had problems in the past with DUI, knew the law and the penalties yet still decided to drive... And when he gets busted crys foul?? Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!!!

 

Exactly.

 

 

Hey you think that the consequences that I am facing are nothing much? OWI 2nd offense is a serious deal here in Iowa. It costs a lot of money, and contains a lot of hardship..

 

So. Don't. Frickin. Drive. When. You. Have. Been. Drinking. (esp if you have a previous conviction. duh)

 

You see your basing all of what you know on the law as it exists...but in my world the law has yet to be drawn up.

 

Unfortunately for you, your world still exists within the boundaries of the US, where there are laws and rules and regulations, and you have to follow them or suffer the consequences. The law as it exists NOW is the only law that is relevant at this point in time. (and most likely for quite a long time in the future)

 

 

It doesn't matter how much you've had to drink. You shouldn't be behind the wheel. Stay home. Walk. Take a cab. But if you insist on getting behind the wheel, take responsibility for what happens as a result of it. Don't blame somebody who did what he felt was best.

 

For sure. I am appalled that you are going to intimidate this guy. That is just despicable behaviour- the lowest of the low.

 

1.1 (one point one) legal limit used to be 1.0 (one point zero) Hardly the type of dangerous drunk driver you would make me out to be.

 

I'm sorry that your friend hit that curb like a bad drunk driver. But I have quite a high tolerance and I was getting myself home just fine, with no problems. It is hard for incompetent people to comprehend that some people out there are really better at things than others. I can handle my vehicle just fine at 1.1 level. But hey useless to be arguing with you.

 

You COULD have an accident. You could have an accident if you are sober. There is a risk involved with driving- you are not infallible. The risks increase with increased alcohol levels, which is why there are laws regarding this.

 

If you did have an accident and injure someone, would you accept the laws then? Would you accept harrassment and intimidation from the injured persons family?

 

 

But I'm a zen master...I'm not your ordinary person. I have been up and down with the effects of alcohol for a long time and know its effects on my body very well.

 

Oh give me a break. Zen master= deluded.

My body reacts differently to alcohol in different situations. Esp if I have been eating (or not) etc etc...

 

I really have no sympathy. You got a job that requires you to have a license. You have a previous conviction for DUI. You are aware of the laws. You owe it to yourself to be extra-vigilant to keep that license so you can work. the cops would have booked anybody over the legal alcohol limit regardless of their job, so don't feel so picked on. Boo f-ing hoo.

[MakeLemonade]

iowa - I understand your anger. I do, I can see how you would see extreme unfairness in what happened to you. Sometimes an individual is just slapped by just the right set of circumstances and they end up standing in a pile of crap.

 

I also bet you probably were just fine to drive, would have make it home np I am sure. And frankly from my POV if you weren't stumbling, slurring or otherwise being belligerent that store owner really was an ignorant a$$ for calling you in.

 

Unfortunately, as Tripper said a bit of posts back (sorry I didn't quote), "Laws are enacted so that ALL members of society enjoy equal freedoms, protection and sanctions." This is precisely what makes what happened to you, ultimately, fair.

 

It's true and it's pretty clear, you have to abide by the rules or they will have you, own you. I make it a strict rule to keep the law out of my life, I don't want them there, I do nothing to get them there. I have a friend who has numerous DWI's, assualts on officers, they owned her for a long time because of it all.

 

So don't blame the cops, they HAD to come after you after the guy at the store called it in. They have to check those things out. That is their job. Also remember there are people driving around with .2-.3 BAC all the time and they don't get caught, or maybe they do - that is just the luck of the draw. There is a statistic I heard recently that for every 200 times or so you drink and drive you will get 1 DUI.

 

It is just a matter of whether you want to play those odds or not. I bet you won't drink and drive again when you do get your license back. And if you do, get some Altoids.

 

I hope you are able to accept what happened and find a way to survive (ie working) and keep yourself from falling back into a depression. It truly does suck what happened to you. But that is just the way the balls fell down this time around. How we handle adversity is a strong definer of who we are as people.

Edited February 15, 2008 by MakeLemonade

[iowajournal]

Make Lemonade empathy goes a long way with me. I like your take on this the best. I accept what you said. Why? Because you understood it for what it was. It was a crappy thing for that convenience store clerk to do. He was more than anything I'll bet bored working overnite shift and wanted some action that night. And yes I would be willing to bet my life I would have made it home fine that night. I have done it before. I am a careful driver, very careful driver.

 

I celebrate positive things that happen for me. I recently had a lot of attention due to my videography and it felt good that so many people were paying attention to me and wanting my services to videotape this band or that play etc. and then I got hired for that job and I thought wow...life is changing for me. And then I got hit. That kind of Casino atmosphere really pisses me off. When I lose money at a Casino...you bet I take it out on the Casinos. Because it gets me to thinking what a cheap carnival like society we live in. All these people telling me " Well you shouldn't have gambled at the Craps table now should you". I don't buy that Bull. Society is not entirely innocent. The onus doesn't entirely lay on the individuals back. How Society is designed and how the mechanism operates should have some bearing on how the end result should play out.

 

If an all night electric rail ran all night back and forth between the downtown of the larger city and the smaller town I live in the outcome could be different. If the transportation departments designed reflective borders on the roads outlining them better, people wouldn't have such a hard time finding out where the road is in the wintertime.

 

You think its all me huh? I don't agree. But I'll tell you what. You put a person like me in power and I guarantee I will start fixing society to operate in a more fair, enlightened and better way.

 

For one all roads will have reflective borders outlining each lane so drivers will have no problem seeing the road in rain, sleet, ice, or snow.

[sb129]

you bet I take it out on the Casinos. Because it gets me to thinking what a cheap carnival like society we live in. All these people telling me " .

 

I am not against gambling at all- in fact, I quite like it on occasion, and mY fiance is a regular punter. But its not called "GAMBLING" for nothing. You have to be prepared to lose. If you can't handle that, then don't play.

 

 

You think its all me huh? I don't agree. But I'll tell you what. You put a person like me in power and I guarantee I will start fixing society to operate in a more fair, enlightened and better way.

.

 

Oh here we go. So run for office then. DO something about it instead of bleating on. Somebody else said that if you channelled your anger it would be more productive- they were right.

 

In the meantime, keep out of trouble. Nobody will vote for a president with too much of a criminal record.

 

 

I am empathetic to a point, and I am really sorry about what happened to your child. But if everyone who had bad shyte happen to them took the law into their own hands and blamed everyone else for their faults, the world would be even more of a disaster area than it already is.

[blind_otter]

iowajournal -

 

Saw this video and thought of you!

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wJlGutqFqfg

[marlena]

Wow, in my country, it's a given that after a certain hour, mostly everybody will be inebriated to a lesser or higher degree especially at weekends. People here enjoy drinking and are not automatically labelled alcoholics. It's a way of life. And well, if you're stopped, tough luck.

 

The storeowner was definitely a pr****! This type of snitching would never,ever have happened here.

 

We have a saying: Whatever you eat, whatever you drink and whatever you ar** grabs.

 

Amazingly, the crime rate is very low, hardly anyone is on anti-depressants or needs a shrink. Pretty much a happy, merry crowd of people, I'd say.

 

I truly believe that Americans tend to go overboard on certain things... making mountains out of molehills. And suddenly it becomes all the rage, another idiotic trend that the herds follow.

 

Oh, and nobody carries weapons!

 

IMO, there is something very rotten eating away at the foundation of American society.

 

This is not to say that I condone drunken driving. I don't. But there is such a thing as taking things a bit too far.

 

Mass hysteria is a sign of something not right at its core.

 

Another example. The "Cheaters" show. How ridiculous a TV series.

We don't even have an equivalent term in our language. People just have affairs and it happens or it doesn't happen. We don't publicize it on national TV and create cheap sensationalism over something so prevalent and natural. How classless, really.

 

End of rant.

Edited February 16, 2008 by marlena

[swansong519]

Minding one’s business is the only moral law. -

Frederic Bastiat

[marlena]

Minding one’s business is the only moral

 

My guiding principle in life.

 

Now, if only countries would adhere to the same principle!

[iowajournal]

Thanks Marlena for that post. Mountains out of molehills--exacta mundo.

The state (and a lot of people on this web board) is going to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

I will need to suffer for more than 2 more years my insurance man tells me. Jail, Loss of wages, hefty fines...sad...sad...sad.

 

And guess what? The same shi(t) is happening down at the sports bar night after night after night.

 

What has the state accomplished in the bigger scheme of things? Not a god damn thing. I know people drive drunk every night of the week.

 

Statistically accidents may be going down because people who drink and drive know how critical it is to stay extra alert. But it doesn't stop them from doing it. After all. How in the hell are you supposed to get home from a snowy icy climate when you live 7 miles away and its 2am in the morning.

 

Yassiou.

[iowajournal]

Strategy is what I need to concentrate on next. I'm exhausting the frustration phaze of this. Next comes doing something about it.

 

First I should outline my assertions, what I claim to be right:

 

1. Any action by a human that is to be designated as a crime must have tangible proof of a victim. Victim can take on the form of environment or nature (to include animals) or other humans.

 

(sorry for this interruption but I'm watching Larry King Live w/ Kathleen Turner on: Wow what a piggish creature she has become, and what in the hell is up with her voice? Slob I think she may be drunk or on pills)

 

more later...the pig is talking about her drunk problems...

[Tripper]

1. Any action by a human that is to be designated as a crime must have tangible proof of a victim. Victim can take on the form of environment or nature (to include animals) or other humans.

 

 

Huh?? I hope you're not thinking this is going to keep you out of jail.

That's like saying that you can walk around with a handgun and should you decide to pull it out and point it at someone, no crime is committed until you actually pull the trigger and shoot them. Even a near miss doesn't count.

 

You may want an alternate society, but the minute you have more than one person in that society there will be differences of opinion and hence rules. Otherwise it's anarchy.

 

And who is to say that in your case the punishment doesn't fit the crime?? That is your opinion. Many others have stated that as it is a second offense for you, you didn't learn your lesson and so you get what you deserve. Time to stop moaning, grow a pair and play the hand you've been dealt.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Tripper

[Always Wrong]

Minding one’s business is the only moral

My guiding principle in life.

Now, if only countries would adhere to the same principle!

I liked your post marlena. It reminded me of times past, before the moral many managed to take control of, and redefine the meaning of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I miss the late 60's and early 70's here in the USA.

blind_otters' video link says it all. "In my time, it wasn't a crime."

[witabix]

Iowa, I haven't read the whole thread, I wish to respond to the original one.

 

Are you asserting your own right to drink and drive? You do not have one.

 

Are you suggesting that Police cells be rated, as in Murderers in cell one, Rapists in cell two? (Actually I thought that when you are in a Police cell you haven't been convicted of anything but....)

 

Are you suggesting we VOTE for the police? Good Lord you would have Johnny Walker as Police Chief?

 

Drinking and driving is an idiots game. I LOVE to drink, and I do it regularly. If I find myself in a bar with my car outside, thats where it stays, I get a cab and come back next day. Regardless of cost or inconvenience. The Police do not make the law here. My society does, we employ the Police to keep our laws. We elect our Government to make our laws. You live in a democracy, thats how it works man!

[iowajournal]

Witabix...

 

No I am not asserting that we have the right to drink and drive.

 

What I am asserting is the consequences are not appropriate...the sentence...the judgment should be scaled according to what kind of damage you caused society. It should not be a blanket, one size fits all punishment.

 

Detterance would still remain because if you caused property damage, the consequences would be higher, if you caused injury to humans or death then the severity would escalate. The threat of punishment would still remain in people's mind and so this would deter them.

 

However, if I caused no problems, hurt nothing or no one, I dont believe I should have to go thru the intense hardship that a OWI 2nd offence brings. I would say 1 month without driving or 2 months...but 1 year? and then 2 more years of ignition lock and higher rates and probationary driving...meaning I cannot even get a failure to stop at stop sign and they will suspend my license.

 

I just talked to my friend who had a 2nd OWI and he said it is $5000 easily in fines and extra payments.

 

This is too severe.

 

-------------------------------

 

Now as for electing the police...yes I think the police should be elected by the community.

---------------------------------

 

Now as for jails and prisons. Yes I think prisoners should be at the minimal grouped according to offense. If I drink and drive but are otherwise non-violent I should not have to sit in the same cell with attempted murder or murder, or rape etc. The jails group them all together and then only separate them if a problem arises...but sometimes that is too late. Why would I want to risk getting HIV from some prisoner who doesn't care about life anymore?

 

The jails need to be re worked, as does so much else of society.

Edited February 18, 2008 by iowajournal

[witabix]

Witabix...

 

No I am not asserting that we have the right to drink and drive.

 

What I am asserting is the consequences are not appropriate...the sentence...the judgment should be scaled according to what kind of damage you caused society. It should not be a blanket, one size fits all punishment.

 

Detterance would still remain because if you caused property damage, the consequences would be higher, if you caused injury to humans or death then the severity would escalate. The threat of punishment would still remain in people's mind and so this would deter them.

 

However, if I caused no problems, hurt nothing or no one, I dont believe I should have to go thru the intense hardship that a OWI 2nd offence brings. I would say 1 month without driving or 2 months...but 1 year? and then 2 more years of ignition lock and higher rates and probationary driving...meaning I cannot even get a failure to stop at stop sign and they will suspend my license.

 

I just talked to my friend who had a 2nd OWI and he said it is $5000 easily in fines and extra payments.

 

This is too severe.

 

-------------------------------

 

Now as for electing the police...yes I think the police should be elected by the community.

---------------------------------

 

Now as for jails and prisons. Yes I think prisoners should be at the minimal grouped according to offense. If I drink and drive but are otherwise non-violent I should not have to sit in the same cell with attempted murder or murder, or rape etc. The jails group them all together and then only separate them if a problem arises...but sometimes that is too late. Why would I want to risk getting HIV from some prisoner who doesn't care about life anymore?

 

The jails need to be re worked, as does so much else of society.

 

 

Ok Iowa,

 

Thats cool, I get your view, and as always there is a but.

 

I have seen one friend die at the hands of a man that should not have been driving. I have read and seen the consequencea of duink drivers.

 

When you drive and are as drunk as I have been then you should be charged with attempted murder. Assault with a deadly weapon, really is as serious as drink driving, it is two tons of steel which can travel at 120mph, being organised by a monkey. Even if you don't hit anyone, walking down a street in America with a fully loaded 20 shot AA12 weapon, drunk or not, will get you arrested.

 

I do not understand what your argument is.

[Sheclectica]

Amen, witabix.

 

And no, that punishment is not too severe. I wonder if you'd be this nonchalant if you HAD killed someone.

[Kittiecat]

I do think to some extent the drunk driving laws are made more severe to help generate revenue, but the fact is the laws aren't going anywhere. Society is an ever-changing institution. Yeah, in the 70s my folks drank and drove and nobody ever got arrested but the times have changed. Far too many families have had to bury loved ones prematurely because someone was driving "carefully" home from the bar. It's just a fact of life; we don't enslave people anymore, women have the right to vote, and drunks do not belong behind the wheel.

 

IJ - it sounds to me like you have more consequences waiting for you if you continue on like this. I hope you take responsibility for your actions soon.

[iowajournal]

And I would rather have electric shocks to my testicles 3 nights a week for 3 months then to have to go thru losing my license for 1 year and paying all that money to the state...

 

Why can't we just beat the hell out of someone?

 

The prolonged agony of one year without driving is too severe. Why not short term severe rehabilitation as opposed to long term droning on?

[Tripper]

Why can't we just beat the hell out of someone?

 

Because that's against the law.

 

 

The prolonged agony of one year without driving is too severe. Why not short term severe rehabilitation as opposed to long term droning on?

 

You gotta be kidding?? How can you even pose such a question?? The penalty for your first offense didn't rehabilitate you. Be honest with yourself, do you think you've learned a lesson with your second offense??

[iowajournal]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Ok I hear your arguments...loaded weapon...not taking responsibility etc.

I believe driving while intoxicated is wrong. I have never said that it is not.

 

[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]My arguments are that:

 

1. Society sends mixed signals. Lots of advertising and availability for alcoholic products---yet if you use the product as intended you run the risk of getting into criminal liability. A sub argument of that is society seems ready and willing to market you and sell you on the product but less willing to make sure you are consuming the product carefully i.e. requiring breathalyzer equipment installed in liquor stores and bars and making blowing into them and passing them a requirement for purchase of drinks.

 

2. Law enforcement does not enforce the law evenly and consistently, when they could if they chose to. Enforcement is arbitrary and random most of the time...meaning an officer usually comes across a driver by chance on the road as opposed to staking out the bars where it is known that intoxicated people will be coming out and getting into vehicles. A sub argument of this is that if police really cared about stopping drunk driving their presence around bars would act as a deterrent force to prevent people from getting into their vehicles in the first place, and similarly if police were truly concerned with ending drunk driving they would be standing right outside bars or in bar parking lots and centering in on possible intoxicated drivers to administer breathalyzer and field sobriety tests before they get into the car. But as the gist of my argument suggests, police are not concerned with truly ending the problem, but rather gathering funds for the state.

 

3. If communities do not set up their infrastructure to include adequate public transportation at a reasonable cost, how can legislature expect citizens to transport themselves to their domiciles after having become intoxicated at an establishment 7 miles or more from their home? It is not realistic in the dead of winter to ask someone to sleep in their car when after all, the bars served them to the point of intoxication, and the alcohol molecules of the product they purchased are just impersonally processing within the bodies' of the host that consumed them.

 

4. Once drivers are caught, the punishment that is inflicted upon them by the State is disproportional many times in true terms of damage to the community. Granted there are extra charges available for a prosecutor should the driver cause property damage or injure or kill someone. But I feel the sentence of losing your driving privileges for one entire year serves no one any real good. A year is an awful long time to go without driving for one night of being over the legal limit, yet causing no harm to community in actual damages. My suggestion was that more acute punishment is better, so a person can truly take it like a man and then close the chapter and move on. Dealing with the situation for 3 or more years later, in terms of suspension, ignition lock, substance abuse classes, and higher insurance rates in a way is a violation of a citizen’s due process of law. Shouldn't we be able to have our punishment inflicted on us in a more expedient manner? Can't we ask the state to punish us in a more intense manner if it means we can learn the lesson but then get back to our jobs, families, freedoms to move about?

 

Time is what the state and the penal system relies on. They have ruled in most cases corporeal punishment to be inhumane, but again, I would gladly trade one year or more of driving hardship for 1 month of lashings, solitary confinement, shock torture, water boarding--Clockwork Orange style...whatever. Just get it over with so I can move on.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Edited February 20, 2008 by iowajournal
spelling

[Tripper]

not taking responsibility etc.

 

IJ, herein lies the very issue. Responsibility.

 

 

1. Society sends mixed signals. Lots of advertising and availability for alcoholic products---yet if you use the product as intended you run the risk of getting into criminal liability. A sub argument of that is society seems ready and willing to market you and sell you on the product but less willing to make sure you are consuming the product carefully i.e. requiring breathalyzer equipment installed in liquor stores and bars and making blowing into them and passing them a requirement for purchase of drinks.

And this is where the rubber hits the road. Using the product responsibly. Distillers, wineries and breweries do not promote the use of alcohol to the point of intoxication. Booze is a great social lubricant, however there will always be those that can't just have a drink or two and leave it at that. They will abuse it, get wasted and some will pass out, some will become obnoxious and some will think they are the best drivers in the world.

Laws are enacted to provide limits to behaviour so that responsible members of society are not at the mercy of irresponsible members. And they apply equally to all. They also are a warning... if you do something wrong/against the law , the penalty is thus....

Because of the freedoms we have in our society, the responsibility for "lawful" behaviour is on the individual. You have the right to break the law but if you get caught you're gonna pay...

 

 

2. Law enforcement does not enforce the law evenly and consistently, when they could if they chose to. Enforcement is arbitrary and random most of the time...meaning an officer usually comes across a driver by chance on the road as opposed to staking out the bars where it is known that intoxicated people will be coming out and getting into vehicles. A sub argument of this is that if police really cared about stopping drunk driving their presence around bars would act as a deterrent force to prevent people from getting into their vehicles in the first place, and similarly if police were truly concerned with ending drunk driving they would be standing right outside bars or in bar parking lots and centering in on possible intoxicated drivers to administer breathalyzer and field sobriety tests before they get into the car. But as the gist of my argument suggests, police are not concerned with truly ending the problem, but rather gathering funds for the state.

In our society, you are innocent until proven guilty. Having to take a breathalyser test when you come out of a bar smacks of a police state, whereby you have to prove your innocence first. The "innocent until guilty" premise is what places the onus on members of society to be responsible and act accordingly.

 

3. If communities do not set up their infrastructure to include adequate public transportation at a reasonable cost, how can legislature expect citizens to transport themselves to their domiciles after having become intoxicated at an establishment 7 miles or more from their home? It is not realistic in the dead of winter to ask someone to sleep in their car when after all, the bars served them to the point of intoxication, and the alcohol molecules of the product they purchased are just impersonally processing within the bodies' of the host that consumed them.

If you have the money to go to a bar and get wasted, then you should have the money to get a cab ride for 7 miles. The community doesn't twist your arm to get loaded... that's your choice...

4. Once drivers are caught, the punishment that is inflicted upon them by the State is disproportional many times in true terms of damage to the community. Granted there are extra charges available for a prosecutor should the driver cause property damage or injure or kill someone. But I feel the sentence of losing your driving privileges for one entire year serves no one any real good. A year is an awful long time to go without driving for one night of being over the legal limit, yet causing no harm to community in actual damages. My suggestion was that more acute punishment is better, so a person can truly take it like a man and then close the chapter and move on. Dealing with the situation for 3 or more years later, in terms of suspension, ignition lock, substance abuse classes, and higher insurance rates in a way is a violation of a citizen’s due process of law. Shouldn't we be able to have our punishment inflicted on us in a more expedient manner? Can't we ask the state to punish us in a more intense manner if it means we can learn the lesson but then get back to our jobs, families, freedoms to move about?

Ten years ago, a coworker of mine received a call that his son was in a car accident. We rushed to the scene to find out he had been hit by a drunk driver. The son's car caught fire and he was trapped, screaming while burning to death. By the time we arrived the fire was out but my coworkers sons body was still in the car, burnt beyond recognition. I will remember that sight until my dying day.

The drunk driver walked away from the accident with nary a scratch. The victim left behind a young wife and 3 kids.

One life taken, four others affected. What should have been the punishment for this?? Loss of license and a couple of years in jail didn't seem to fit the crime.

The point is, is that the idea of a stiff penalty should be a deterrent. However for those that have drinking problems or act irresponsibly it isn't. You are a case in point. Second offense now pending...

 

Time is what the state and the penal system relies on. They have ruled in most cases corporeal punishment to be inhumane, but again, I would gladly trade one year or more of driving hardship for 1 month of lashings, solitary confinement, shock torture, water boarding--Clockwork Orange style...whatever. Just get it over with so I can move on.

Until the first jolt of 600 volts hits your testicles...

 

One things for certain, if we stood drunk drivers against a wall and executed them, there would be less drunk drivers around. Unfortunately or rather fortunately we are a society that is not a police state... Because of the many liberties we are granted, you have the right to go to hell in your own way....

[iowajournal]

 

One things for certain, if we stood drunk drivers against a wall and executed them, there would be less drunk drivers around. Unfortunately or rather fortunately we are a society that is not a police state... Because of the many liberties we are granted, you have the right to go to hell in your own way....

 

You are justifiably angry about what affected you and your friends son. But quotes like this are not within the realm of justice. You could not be on a jury because your passions run too high.

 

I disagree with the innocent until proven guilty / police state analogy you brought up in reference to my suggestion police should breathalyze you at the door of the bar.

 

Look alcohol is the one consumer product you can purchase legally that's use can cause illegal results. Because 50% of users can responsibly use, (if there is such a thing) those that are adversely affected should not be left out in the cold by the state and made to suffer.

 

The product is obviously controversial and has caused significant enough damage in society to warrant extra attention by law enforcement.

 

It is clear in Iowa that if you blow a .08 you are publicly intoxicated whether you are driving or not...this amount if you are in public is illegal.

The state looks for probable cause or reason to believe that a crime is being committed somewhere before they can intervene. Well at bars each and every night across America it is safe to say there is probable cause occuring almost every hour the establishment is open.

 

My mother had some wine last night... I asked her today if she thought she could tell me what her BAC (blood alcohol content) was at the time. She told me she had no idea. And this is the truth. We do not know accurately where we are within the BAC realm and rely on guesswork to calculate where we think we may be and whether we are legal to drive.

 

This places unfair burden on the consumer.

 

(have to go....more later)

[Arch]

In a free country you have to accept that people make bad decisions, but the effects of those bad decisions are less significant then the loss of freedom it would be required to prevent them.