Never said so.
And what happened to those persons?
I expect people to treat their weapons (or dangerous equipment whether it be a gun, car, bow and arrow, backhoe or knife) with the highest degree of respect to avoid accidents. Even if everybody does that, accidents will still happen, but all of us has to do our best to minimize the number.
That would still be a deliberate action, you could just as well let the phone be in your pocket and all would be swell.
You seem to be saying that because it is possible to unintentionally drive drunk, we should assume that anyone who is drunk and in the vicinity of their car will do so and convict them pre-crime.
It is equally possible that I will unintentionally shoot someone with my gun. My finger slipped. I dropped it and it went off. I forgot to put it away and a kid got it and shot his friend. None of these scenarios involve “deliberate action” on my part yet if they happen, I will be charged with criminal negligence.
You, however, are suggesting that merely owning the gun means that I could potentially unintentionally do something dumb with it that will get someone shot, and therefore I should be convicted right now of criminal negligence.
Put another way, I own a car. I could potentially fail to check my blind spot before merging, and ram into someone, sending them into the guard rail and injuring them. I should therefore be charged and convicted of negligent driving, because I might at some point in the future drive negligently.
That’s absurd. It’s a perversion of the very concept of justice.
Sir, I’ll stop here. You are turning what I have written so far 180 degrees around so I can’t even recognize it or figure out if You are responding to me or somebody else.
I’m by far not perfect in the english language, but I don’t think that I’m THAT bad.
Have a nice day.
No, I’m not. You’re saying we should convict people of drunk driving before they drive drunk. I’m pointing out that by that logic, we should convict a lot more people of a lot more crimes before they commit them. You just seem to be unwilling to admit that calling for convicting people of drunk driving when they have not driven drunk is convicting them of a crime that they have not committed.
It is not any lack of English proficiency that I am objecting to, rather the lack of logic.
You made good points, astrix. Perhaps if it were impounded subject to confiscation upon conviction on the second offense. The first offense should be a wake up call to anyone thinking of letting him/her use their car. If his/her buddies ignore it, than it’d be fair for them to lose the vehicle.
If we keep doin’ what we’re doin’, we’re gonna keep gettin’ what we’re gettin’. And what we’re gettin’ is drunks continuing to endanger all of us for years on end after several DUI convictions. We gotta take their cars away!
You just ask a passenger or friend or relative. It’s happened in NM.
I actually agree with @shadowfax A person tries to do the right thing and is punished for it. A little common sense. In Minnesota if you only had bars with public transportation, there wouldn’t be any bars outside of the main metro areas. There are not buses, trains, or sometimes even taxis in lots of areas. Like I’ve said before though that includes the guy on a horse, riding lawn mower, and that poor sucker in Duluth driving his easy chair that got confiscated. Yes I understand, but if they are not creating a hazard, just leave the poor folks alone. Back in the day around here, the police would just give the guy a ride home and he could pick up his car the next day. Accomplishes the same thing.
The first rule in firearms is that they are always loaded. No such thing as an unloaded weapon. You never never point it where it shouldn’t be pointed in case it goes off. One brand has been famous for discharging while it was on safe and there is at least one person serving time for it. Next rule is always insure you have a view of what you are shooting at and a back drop. We learned all this in an 8th grade gun safety course. I can’t help it there are so many stupid people now but I shouldn’t be penalized because stupid people keep having a bunch of more stupid people. No? Finally though the Supreme Court at least determined that a BB gun is no longer a firearm so I can use it in the city limits without being arrested. Now if we can have some common sense about what is a motor vehicle and what is not that would be helpful. Lawn chair, no. Horse, no. Lawn mower, no. Go Kart, ahhh, I don’t know.
First a disclaimer. I am not, nor ever have been a lawyer.
From what I just read in the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code, all of the above plus bicycles, mopeds, and motorized skateboards, can be considered motor vehicles if they are operated between the boundary lines of any public roadway.
I think the common sense has to go both ways, though. No, I don’t think lawn tractors should be considered motor vehicles, however as such they should not be driven on the roads, and if they are so driven by someone who is drunk, penalties should apply because a drunk idiot on a lawn tractor can still cause wrecks.
Obviously in the interest of a common sense approach, such things should be more heavily regulated in more densely-populated areas. If you want to putt down to the hardware store on your lawn tractor in a tiny town in rural farm country, well, that’s probably not going to hurt anyone. If you want to drive down a busy boulevard in downtown Boston, then that’s quite another matter.
I have a problem with this too…I can’t see how charging and convicting someone for going to grab something out of the car when the car was never even turned on can be considered a good idea. Losing your license and everything else that goes along with a DUI conviction is damn serious business, even if not as much as a human life. Why are we convicting people who haven’t even turned the damn car on?
So there is no reason to mandate such an easily defeated “safety” device, no?
So that’s the end of that discussion? Probably not.
This was demonstrated in a movie. I think it was “The 40 Year Old Virgin”.
Responding to the OP. That quaote you had represents the typical drunken alcoholic attitude in this country. Me first, devil may care, not my fault.
The only way we will ever cut down on DUI deaths is to start treating it as a serious crime. Mandatory jail time for a first time offender, take away their vehicles.
You kill someone while driving drunk, minimum 40 year sentence.
but many of the drunk drivers on this board will cry… But. but rick. but rick. Thats toooooo harsh!!! wahhh
I don’t drink except for one glass of wine a month so I’m not one of those drunk drivers on this board. But the question that always runs through my mind when people are so adamant about the behavior of others is why is it your problem? Why is it your job to police others? Isn’t it like being a vigilante? Like the guy that drives 55 in the left lane to enforce the speed limit. So you appoint yourself to be the one to cure the diseases of society? It just really is not your job. Run for office or become a highway patrol. Always interesting though how some just have to be involved in what everyone else does.
I wrote ironically.
The article claimed that most fatalities happened the first time a driver was caught driving drunk. Drunk people aren’t thinking about the consequences of their actions, not what will happen in 20 minutes, not what will happen in 20 years. I had never heard of the Driver Alcohol Detection System. That seems more likely to decrease fatalities.
Do you know who they are?
I’d be surprised if there are any on this board actually.
There is no public transportation in my fairly small town. I’m not sure if Uber is available. There are several bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. I am not aware of any serious drunk driving problems. Lawnmowers, motorized easy chairs, and ATVs are not legal on public streets, roads, or highways. Horses are. With the exception of interstates (along with bicycles and pedestrians). The nearest interstate to my town is 16 miles away. Horses have right of way over motor vehicles by state law. DUI is operating a vehicle (bicycles are vehicles and required to obey the same laws as motor vehicles although far too many cyclists rarely do) while intoxicated. DUI riding a horse? Give me a break (unless the horse is also intoxicated)! I also completed the NRA hunter safety course when I was 13 years old. It was actually a refresher of what my Father had already taught me.
Because when the drunk driver slams into my car and kills my wife, it’s my problem, and I’m able to understand the consequences thereof before it happens and want to reduce the chances of it happening.
It really kind of boggles my mind how people can look at an activity that is a clear and present danger to the public and wonder why the public would want something to be done about it.
I think its because some people are drunk driving enthusiasts. They will never admit they are drunk. Many say they drive better after drinking. Then they wipe out a family and find every excuse in the book why it was an accident.
I am always amazed how many drunk driving apologists are out there.
A guy out here defended himself by claiming that he was a competent drunk driver. The judge didn’t go for it.