# 60 minutes- NY drunk driving



## kingvjack (Mar 26, 2008)

Until you lose a loved one to a drunk driver who gets off with nothing.
So easily is one persons focus so narrow minded that you fail to see that taking the wheel after drinking is a criminal act that you choose to commit.
Murder is a just punishment, adding a vehicle as a weapon is also just as worthy


----------



## Protecsafari (Sep 21, 2007)

Demonizing alcohol because one does not drink does not justify it.

With such logic they can demonize any object and slap one with the most harsh of penalties, regardless of intent (or truth).

IMHO many people (especially liberals) refuse to put the blame on the people.....and why is that?

No need to answer-just something to ponder


----------



## Protecsafari (Sep 21, 2007)

kingvjack said:


> Until you lose a loved one to a drunk driver who gets off with nothing.
> So easily is one persons focus so narrow minded that you fail to see that taking the wheel after drinking is a criminal act that you choose to commit.
> Murder is a just punishment, adding a vehicle as a weapon is also just as worthy


No it is not. 

Don't let the sadness of loss or upset with an unjust legal system sucker you into thinking that way.

I have lost friends and family to drunk driving.

Dead is dead.

And if they called his crime something stupid and it carried a punishment worse than that of a murderer you'd be happy with just the murder rap?

Just punishments, by just classification.

Work to make death by drunk driving carry as harsh a punishment if you want.

And if you honestly feel it to be the same as murder, that is your choice.

But don't think such poor logic should be the basis for law.


----------



## kingvjack (Mar 26, 2008)

Protecsafari said:


> Demonizing alcohol because one does not drink does not justify it.
> 
> With such logic they can demonize any object and slap one with the most harsh of penalties, regardless of intent (or truth).
> 
> ...


I drink like a fish. 

What about charging someone with murder is refusing to place blame on the person at fault?

Your reply is oxymoronic, do you want people to be charged and pay for their crimes or do you want to just let dudes slide because your super cool like that?


----------



## Protecsafari (Sep 21, 2007)

They sooner or later will be saying that drinking makes one predisposed to murder- by dumping a gross negligence case/ manslaughter (*by nature of removing intent*), into the murder classification.


----------



## Protecsafari (Sep 21, 2007)

Just because you don't see the reason for legal distinction, that does not mean it isn't just.

Again, read my first post (put down your beer).

I have nothing against making "drunk driving resulting in death" carry a very harsh penalty, and maybe it could/should be as harsh as that of murder.

But the two crimes need to be kept separate in classification.

If you read just the one example I posted earlier you might see where such a legal perversion is headed.

And don't blow me that "if it saves one life" crap.

That's what the anti gunners push.

Laws only work on the predominately law abiding, as a punishment system, usually based on incrementation.

Some folks don't give a crap about the law, and in context with this thread, they will continue to drink and drive, regardless of it possibly carrying a murder charge.

By such rationalization, they are not murderers, until they screw up bad enough to cause death. 

And how many will drink and drive before getting caught? And then how many will do it, get caught repeatedly, yet not kill somebody?

Are they any less of a danger? No.

Understand that all punishments lesser than murder charge, do not stop them.

So the law would change to what? ....to try to stop a problem it was changed to supposedly stop?

See the decline?


----------



## Protecsafari (Sep 21, 2007)

If a murder charge carries a 20 yr penalty so be it.
If drinking and driving resulting in death carries a 20 yr penalty (same as murder) so be it.

Now for the sake of argument.....

lets say a car driver is barely at the legal limit and driving. It is dark and he's going the speed limit, light on, vehicle well maintained........and a kid on a motorcyle, who is drunk, who is not wearing a helmet, shoots out of a poorly lit alley and the car driver hits him and the kid dies.

The kid did not follow the rules of the road, was drunk himself, not wearing safety gear that could have minimized injury.

For the sake of this argument, lets say that there was nothing the car driver could do to avoid the accident, that physical and mental impairment by alcohol was not a factor.

By your emotionalist legal preference.........the car driver is guilty of murder.

You have removed intent on the part of the driver, you have removed whatever negligent actions were commited by the motorcycle operator (even his intent).

What if the MC operator was on a suicide mission? And he just happened to target a driver who would be by legal definition, drunk?

Yes I understand this to be a weird hypothetical deal........but the aspects that make it up could happen, be more common, in part.


----------



## Protecsafari (Sep 21, 2007)

Again, I never said it was right to just "let dudes slide".

If they do then there may be some legal problems that need correction.

Making accidents (even those by gross negligence) the same as murder by classification, is not a correction.


----------



## Dchiefransom (Jan 16, 2006)

They have the laws on the books out here to charge a drunk driver with second degree murder. There is a certain set of circumstances that must be met for that charge to apply. They cannot charge a drunk driver with attempted murder. Death from a collsion has to occur. 
Ironically, a totally sober driver can make the exact same maneuver and kill someone, and never be charged, even though they were totally sober and more accountable for their driving than the drunk driver.
The reason they are not accidents is that the negligence is intentional. We need to start charging more drivers with criminal charges.


----------



## Protecsafari (Sep 21, 2007)

copy/snip

"They cannot charge a drunk driver with attempted murder."
..............

Not yet.

When (like the show) lawmakers leverage emotions (with media help) to justify a change in catagorization, rather than upping the penalty within current classification (or making a sub class within proper class) then they are opening up a lot of nasty options down the road.

If we adopt a "wait and see" attitude, when such garbage does occur, it's going to be too late.

What gets me, is how these laws (calling a drunk driver a murderer if death occurs) do nothing to save lives.

It doesn't in the case of the drunk driver, for the law to slap him with that penalty, he's already killed somebody.

And many drunk drivers kill themselves behind the wheel.

If they are irresponsible with their own lives, it's a good guess they will be with those of others. If they think they won't die, they probably think others won't either.

Then there's that whole deal of having done it repeatedly without being caught. Heck, those that get caught repeatedly still drive, no insurance/license and they still kill people.

The law only works on the predominately law abiding. 

Calling wrongful death by vehicle/alcohol combination is IMHO not going to help save lives. Locking the person up for a while may remove that individual threat from the roads, but that can be done without calling it murder.

Like I pointed out, I'm for a comparable sentence in time, for causing such tragedy, but I am not for the spin of classification, as I think that is a slippery slope.


----------



## Dchiefransom (Jan 16, 2006)

Would you be in favor of leveling the same charge at them as there would be for negligent use of a firearm?
What charge should be given for getting drunk and driving at over 100mph into the back of a car waiting at a red light?


----------



## Protecsafari (Sep 21, 2007)

What was their intent?

In the instances you cite, those I think would fall under the proper classification of wrongful death.

Now, what penalties there are under that classification? Maybe they, depending on some hard scale of neglect, could or should have penalties comparable to some levels of murder.

Intent has to be a factor.

Your "misuse of firearm" case..........how do we declare misuse?

Was the shot off an established range that met a certain level of construction for classification?

Was the shot a ricochet? Was the victim a trespasser and out of line of sight?

By not being on a "proper" range the shot could be argued as the result of some neglect, and with neglect only, and not intent, with the end result a death................it very well in today's liberal anti-gun legal system be trumped as a murder.

On your drunk at 100 MPH hitting a car at the light:

100MPH............does it really matter if the driver of the vehicle was drunk or not?

What if he was just being an arse?

What if he head ons the other car, sober, at the speedlimit, because he was texting and cross over the line, blew the light?

Dead is dead.

If by factor of alcohol, you are willing to call a gross act of negligence murder, what other items of gross neglect are you willing to demonize?

Cell phones? Lots of deaths associated with their use in vehicles.

What about vehicles themselves?

If you drive an SUV and somebody else drives an econobox, your vehicle in a true accident, or one where the econobox driver is at fault............if your vehicle kills the other...........are you a murderer?

Are you a murderer because you knowingly put others at risk for driving a more sturdy and larger vehicle? BTW over 50% of vehicle deaths are the result of intrusion.

Don't laugh...........there was a push to demonize SUV drivers for that very reason, and people tried to declare such owners, as knowing potential killers.

It's really quite simple: in cases of wrongful death, work with legislators to have the penalties increased for those on a set scale that exceed a certain proveable level of neglect.

That might take more work than simply getting a classification change, leveraging an emotional incident, with media help.

Remember, by classification change you still aren't stopping the problem, the idiots still do whatever they want to do, before they get caught or after. They will do so until they kill somebody, and then it's already too late.

It is feel good BS, that's what it is, this spin game of the NY lawyer, and it's gotten her more than her 15 minutes of fame.

Even if it got the drunk driver a just sentence time wise, really.............what parent would want their kid's death leveraged for such a political stunt?

The end here does not justify the means.


----------



## Zed (Nov 22, 2008)

My friend was killed by a drunk driver. he was drunk admitted to being high and got 18 months. you can imagine how I feel.


----------



## Protecsafari (Sep 21, 2007)

Probably better than I did when my unborn child was killed by attack and the person didn't serve a day in jail. 

There are problems with the system, there may be problems with penalties within the system.............work for smart changes, not stupid knee jerk reaction or politically correct/emotionally hyped ones.

Now, for the sake of error,the system will and should be geared such that innocent folks are to a higher % ensured of not being penalized.

In that, some guilty folks will go free, or receive lesser penalties.

I've been around the block, so know how $ and politics gets known offenders off with merely a slap on the wrist (if that).

Does the judge want a good loan for his huge house addition, does the DUI person have a family member on the credit union board of directors????

Yeah, that crap happens. 

Vote the crooked lawmakers and judges out. Lobby for penalty changes, there is strength in numbers!

But most people are stupid, and when you add the upset of loss, they just want to feel better.

Wrong is wrong, and making a "correction" by making another wrong, is not the way to do it.

Yet many would be happy with such.


----------



## Peter Pan (Jan 6, 2009)

If you get a DUI, state repos your car. I bet they would go down quick :mg:


----------



## Protecsafari (Sep 21, 2007)

Hope nobody ever borrows or steals your car.

BTW, wouldn't a drunk be safer, at less risk of being caught, if he drove a car that wasn't his (no prior convictions by virtue of a clean plate)?

I think this summer some 6 time DUI guy killed somebody semi-locally with a borrowed car.

Often family subsidizes the individual's behavior. 

Drunk, massive legal fees, no license (and probably no job)...........guess what?...........he lives at home, and his elderly mom's ride is a stealth mobile.


----------



## Dchiefransom (Jan 16, 2006)

Protecsafari said:


> What was their intent?
> 
> In the instances you cite, those I think would fall under the proper classification of wrongful death.
> 
> ...


I was referring to people that were found to be at fault in traffic collisions. 
For my example of the same penalties for firearm misuse, I was thinking along the lines of a person that fires a rifle into the air on New Year's Eve, and the bullet comes down and injures or kills someone. Give the drivers the same penalty. Wrongful death is a civil term, not a criminal term. Manslughter would apply here. That would seem to fit the definition better than murder. It's time we cracked down on drivers on our roads, and sent them to work camps instead of letting them walk out of the courtroom. White collar, blue collar, no collar, hand them a hoe and send them out into the fields. Oakland, Ca recently started stationing officers in courtrooms where traffic cases are heard. When someone had their license suspended, the police followed them out of the courthouse. When they got in their car to drive away, they were apprehended and the car was towed.


----------



## Dare Sportsman (Oct 27, 2008)

A case here in my area here on the Outer Banks of NC, 30 ish lady bar hopping all afternoon runs red light, hits car full of teenagers kills 4 of the 5 who were in car. She had prior dui convictions, she was convicted of 4 counts of 2nd degree murder and sentenced to 60 yrs in prison mandatory, no possibility of parole. This was a very emotional tragedy for this area, there was a lot of mixed feelings, how do you feel about a situation like this?


----------

