A just sentence?

[Cuyo]

Easy. Made it a zero tolerance policy. One drink, that's the sentence.

I fully expected that from you. Everything's black and white.

A vehicle is no different from a gun. Both are weapons in the hands of certain people. I have zero tolerance towards people who kill others with either. Where's the gray? It's quite straightforward.

The same analysis applies to a gun. You shoot someone on purpose, is different than shooting them by accident. You shoot someone for no reason, is different than shooting them because they attacked you. We can argue about what level of assurance someone should give the government that they will responsible before allowing them to own a gun (eg, how much alcohol is permitted before driving), but once they have it, it's nothing but gray areas. That goes for the gun owner, whether he was legally supposed to have it or not, and the driver, whether he was 'Over the limit' or not. Every case is different.

I hear your analysis on 'Drunk drivers' all the time, but I never hear anyone say "25 years if you kill someone with an illegal gun, even if they shot at you first."

 

[California Girl]

I fully expected that from you. Everything's black and white.

A vehicle is no different from a gun. Both are weapons in the hands of certain people. I have zero tolerance towards people who kill others with either. Where's the gray? It's quite straightforward.

The same analysis applies to a gun. You shoot someone on purpose, is different than shooting them by accident. You shoot someone for no reason, is different than shooting them because they attacked you. We can argue about what level of assurance someone should give the government that they will responsible before allowing them to own a gun (eg, how much alcohol is permitted before driving), but once they have it, it's nothing but gray areas. That goes for the gun owner, whether he was legally supposed to have it or not, and the driver, whether he was 'Over the limit' or not. Every case is different.

I hear your analysis on 'Drunk drivers' all the time, but I never hear anyone say "25 years if you kill someone with an illegal gun, even if they shot at you first."

You do not 'accidentally' drink or do drugs. You do not 'accidentally' text while driving. Each is a deliberate choice. You choose, you kill someone, you go down for 25. Seems clear to me.

 

[Cuyo]

A vehicle is no different from a gun. Both are weapons in the hands of certain people. I have zero tolerance towards people who kill others with either. Where's the gray? It's quite straightforward.

The same analysis applies to a gun. You shoot someone on purpose, is different than shooting them by accident. You shoot someone for no reason, is different than shooting them because they attacked you. We can argue about what level of assurance someone should give the government that they will responsible before allowing them to own a gun (eg, how much alcohol is permitted before driving), but once they have it, it's nothing but gray areas. That goes for the gun owner, whether he was legally supposed to have it or not, and the driver, whether he was 'Over the limit' or not. Every case is different.

I hear your analysis on 'Drunk drivers' all the time, but I never hear anyone say "25 years if you kill someone with an illegal gun, even if they shot at you first."

You do not 'accidentally' drink or do drugs. You do not 'accidentally' text while driving. Each is a deliberate choice. You choose, you kill someone, you go down for 25. Seems clear to me.

You don't 'accidentally' acquire an illegal gun, either (drink and drive). Should you go down for 25 even if someone commits a crime against you (accident caused by other driver) while you're carrying one?

This is not that complicated. You're refusing to be subjective.

edit: And isn't it 4:00 AM where you are? What are you doing awake and arguing DUI laws with me?

 

[California Girl]

The same analysis applies to a gun. You shoot someone on purpose, is different than shooting them by accident. You shoot someone for no reason, is different than shooting them because they attacked you. We can argue about what level of assurance someone should give the government that they will responsible before allowing them to own a gun (eg, how much alcohol is permitted before driving), but once they have it, it's nothing but gray areas. That goes for the gun owner, whether he was legally supposed to have it or not, and the driver, whether he was 'Over the limit' or not. Every case is different.

I hear your analysis on 'Drunk drivers' all the time, but I never hear anyone say "25 years if you kill someone with an illegal gun, even if they shot at you first."

You do not 'accidentally' drink or do drugs. You do not 'accidentally' text while driving. Each is a deliberate choice. You choose, you kill someone, you go down for 25. Seems clear to me.

You don't 'accidentally' acquire an illegal gun, either (drink and drive). Should you go down for 25 even if someone commits a crime against you (accident caused by other driver) while you're carrying one?

This is not that complicated. You're refusing to be subjective.

edit: And isn't it 4:00 AM where you are? What are you doing awake and arguing DUI laws with me?

The topic is causing death with a car. Not guns. Perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word 'accident'. You do not accidentally kill someone when you drive drunk, or stoned.... you choose to drive, knowing that you are not competent to do so and knowing that your judgement is impaired. You CHOOSE. That is not an 'accident'. An accident is something you have no control over.

No, it is not 0400... and what I'm doing is not your business.

 

[editec]

My how times have changed.

I remember when drunk driving was a faux pas that about half the adult population did fairly commonly.

Collectively we killed about 20,000 people a year that way.

Now blowing a 0.06 is a crime against humanity but texting while driving is a modest fine at best.

You know, it occurs to me that the whole automotive socieity was a bad idea for so many reasons.

Drunk driving being one of them, of course, but there's a whole host of economic and social reasons why having a society dependent on private cars and trucks is a foolish idea.

Too late to change that now, I guess.

 

[Cuyo]

You do not 'accidentally' drink or do drugs. You do not 'accidentally' text while driving. Each is a deliberate choice. You choose, you kill someone, you go down for 25. Seems clear to me.

You don't 'accidentally' acquire an illegal gun, either (drink and drive). Should you go down for 25 even if someone commits a crime against you (accident caused by other driver) while you're carrying one?

This is not that complicated. You're refusing to be subjective.

edit: And isn't it 4:00 AM where you are? What are you doing awake and arguing DUI laws with me?

The topic is causing death with a car. Not guns. Perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word 'accident'. You do not accidentally kill someone when you drive drunk, or stoned.... you choose to drive, knowing that you are not competent to do so and knowing that your judgement is impaired. You CHOOSE. That is not an 'accident'. An accident is something you have no control over.

No, it is not 0400... and what I'm doing is not your business.

You brought up the gun. Not me.

When there's a 'Drunk driver' involved in an accident that was CAUSED BY SOMEONE ELSE. What happens. The drunk driver was not visibly impaired, he was driving perfectly and someone else blew a red light, and that other, sober person got killed. You still got the 'Drunk driver' doing 25?

And don't be so sensitive, damn you can be crabby sometimes.

 

[California Girl]

You don't 'accidentally' acquire an illegal gun, either (drink and drive). Should you go down for 25 even if someone commits a crime against you (accident caused by other driver) while you're carrying one?

This is not that complicated. You're refusing to be subjective.

edit: And isn't it 4:00 AM where you are? What are you doing awake and arguing DUI laws with me?

The topic is causing death with a car. Not guns. Perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word 'accident'. You do not accidentally kill someone when you drive drunk, or stoned.... you choose to drive, knowing that you are not competent to do so and knowing that your judgement is impaired. You CHOOSE. That is not an 'accident'. An accident is something you have no control over.

No, it is not 0400... and what I'm doing is not your business.

You brought up the gun. Not me.

When there's a 'Drunk driver' involved in an accident that was CAUSED BY SOMEONE ELSE. What happens. The drunk driver was not visibly impaired, he was driving perfectly and someone else blew a red light, and that other, sober person got killed. You still got the 'Drunk driver' doing 25?

And don't be so sensitive, damn you can be crabby sometimes.

I don't give a shit who 'causes' what. Drinking and driving is tantamount to murder. It is a decision, not an accident.

I always bite when someone raises something that is not their business. You want to ask me about my private life, do it off the forum. Not hard.

 

[Cuyo]

The topic is causing death with a car. Not guns. Perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word 'accident'. You do not accidentally kill someone when you drive drunk, or stoned.... you choose to drive, knowing that you are not competent to do so and knowing that your judgement is impaired. You CHOOSE. That is not an 'accident'. An accident is something you have no control over.

No, it is not 0400... and what I'm doing is not your business.

You brought up the gun. Not me.

When there's a 'Drunk driver' involved in an accident that was CAUSED BY SOMEONE ELSE. What happens. The drunk driver was not visibly impaired, he was driving perfectly and someone else blew a red light, and that other, sober person got killed. You still got the 'Drunk driver' doing 25?

And don't be so sensitive, damn you can be crabby sometimes.

I don't give a shit who 'causes' what. Drinking and driving is tantamount to murder. It is a decision, not an accident.

I always bite when someone raises something that is not their business. You want to ask me about my private life, do it off the forum. Not hard.

Well, if you were king of the US, I think you just put more than half of the adult population in prison.

My position is that the act of "Drunk driving" never killed anyone. There's always an underlying offense. The threshold is too low, the demonization too great, and the reason for this is simply that it's easy to prove and it generates mucho revenue for municipalities.

Aggressive, reckless, and distracted driving is responsible for far more deaths than drinking. Drinking is merely a conduit for other destructive behaviours.

 

[editec]

There does seem to be a lot of people here who are big time into punishment, isn't there, Cuyo.

These are the kinds of people who, in other harsher times, fought for front row seats at public hangings.

They are tools to authoritarians.

What I find most amusing about this personality type is that they mostly claim to worship the cult of the individual, but then they pander obsequiously to draconian authority.

 

[California Girl]

There does seem to be a lot of people here who are big time into punishment, isn't there, Cuyo.

These are the kinds of people who, in other harsher times, fought for front row seats at public hangings.

They are tools to authoritarians.

What I find most amusing about this personality type is that they mostly claim to worship the cult of the individual, but then they pander obsequiously to draconian authority.

Or, maybe "they've" seen the impact of such abhorrent behavior up close and personal.

Making judgements about others is ok for you, but apparently, not acceptable for others.

I've never found it 'amusing' that personal responsibility, according to some, includes the right to kill other people through your own pathetic behavior.

 

[California Girl]

You brought up the gun. Not me.

When there's a 'Drunk driver' involved in an accident that was CAUSED BY SOMEONE ELSE. What happens. The drunk driver was not visibly impaired, he was driving perfectly and someone else blew a red light, and that other, sober person got killed. You still got the 'Drunk driver' doing 25?

And don't be so sensitive, damn you can be crabby sometimes.

I don't give a shit who 'causes' what. Drinking and driving is tantamount to murder. It is a decision, not an accident.

I always bite when someone raises something that is not their business. You want to ask me about my private life, do it off the forum. Not hard.

Well, if you were king of the US, I think you just put more than half of the adult population in prison.

My position is that the act of "Drunk driving" never killed anyone. There's always an underlying offense. The threshold is too low, the demonization too great, and the reason for this is simply that it's easy to prove and it generates mucho revenue for municipalities.

Aggressive, reckless, and distracted driving is responsible for far more deaths than drinking. Drinking is merely a conduit for other destructive behaviours.

Bullshit. Drinking impairs judgement. You choose to do it, you should suffer the consequences of your choices. I'm a believer in individual responsibility. Take responsibility for your actions. When those actions impact on me, it's my business. And I support 25 years no parole.

 

[Ravi]

No, the sad part is this kind of sentence is not the norm.

Yep he got more time than most cold blooder intentional murders.

Life without parole for killing someone while texting.

What about killing someone while exceeding the speed limit?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Yep he got more time than most cold blooder intentional murders.

Life without parole for killing someone while texting.

What about killing someone while exceeding the speed limit?

Depends, the act of driving does not require texting drinking or doing drugs , speed is an element of the act of driving.

 

[goldcatt]

Life without parole for killing someone while texting.

What about killing someone while exceeding the speed limit?

Depends, the act of driving does not require texting drinking or doing drugs , speed is an element of the act of driving.

That's a question of degree. Are we talking 5 mph over? 10? Or 50?

You get into the question of degree and where that degree falls on the scale between innocent negligence or even a faulty speedometer or LE equipment to recklessness and utter disregard for human life.

When one makes the choice to drive after drinking, or stoned, or even on certain prescription drugs that carry a clear warning they may impair driving, or while texting, they know what they're doing and make the choice to be reckless in my estimation. There's no question of mental state.

 

[Ravi]

Life without parole for killing someone while texting.

What about killing someone while exceeding the speed limit?

Depends, the act of driving does not require texting drinking or doing drugs , speed is an element of the act of driving.

That isn't required unless as a defensive act. For instance, I once had to speed to avoid a head on collision with a dump truck flying across the median strip at me.

Usually speeding is unrelated to defense.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

What about killing someone while exceeding the speed limit?

Depends, the act of driving does not require texting drinking or doing drugs , speed is an element of the act of driving.

That isn't required unless as a defensive act. For instance, I once had to speed to avoid a head on collision with a dump truck flying across the median strip at me.

Usually speeding is unrelated to defense.

Speed is an element of driving , otherwise it would be called parking.

 

[Ravi]

Depends, the act of driving does not require texting drinking or doing drugs , speed is an element of the act of driving.

That isn't required unless as a defensive act. For instance, I once had to speed to avoid a head on collision with a dump truck flying across the median strip at me.

Usually speeding is unrelated to defense.

Speed is an element of driving , otherwise it would be called parking.

You seem to be saying one reckless behavior should be punished more than another...

I am torn on your op. My fil was killed by a drunk driver and I thought the sentence seemed too light. But this one seems too steep.

 

[signelect]

Our justice system has never been fair. Like some of you said sport figures don't get this amount of jail time for similar offenses. If he had run over the plumber it wouldn't have been 51 years. We let it happen.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Speeding may be a momentary and reasonable act or a chronic abuse, or accidental ,When you are drunk you are drunk for some time and it is not an accident.
How many times drunk was he ? He was a professional recalcitrant drunk, you cant do that with out putting in time practicing.

His blood-alcohol content was more than twice the legal limit more than two hours after the crash.

Gallo was on probation at the time for an earlier drunk driving conviction.

 

[California Girl]

That isn't required unless as a defensive act. For instance, I once had to speed to avoid a head on collision with a dump truck flying across the median strip at me.

Usually speeding is unrelated to defense.

Speed is an element of driving , otherwise it would be called parking.

You seem to be saying one reckless behavior should be punished more than another...

I am torn on your op. My fil was killed by a drunk driver and I thought the sentence seemed too light. But this one seems too steep.

If it makes a few people stop driving drunk, it's worth it. That's why I support substantial sentences for DUIs. Like you, for me it's personal too. If harsh sentences reduce the number of families that suffer the loss of a loved one, it's worth it, to me.