Homeless vs. KenA55

[KenA55]

The US numbers are (latest figures '08):
37,261 total car accident fatalities; 13,846 of those alcohol related (includes non-causal, any driver or non-occupant at .01 or higher, matters not whether the at-fault driver was zero); 11,773 alcohol-impaired, a driver at or above .08 (matters not whether the impaired driver was the at-fault driver).
You can get the state-by-state breakdown here:
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

MADD's target date for ignition interlock in all new vehicles sold in the US is 2013, they trip out and disable the car at around .02 and above, lower than legal limits for various liability reasons. Congress has given US automakers grants in the tens of millions range for the purpose of R&D to get this a factory standard installation.
http://interlockfacts.org/

I wonder if all of the dui statutory language surrounding being 'in control of' a non-running vehicle will be erased once these are on every vehicle; the rationale behind such language is that the accused was in a position where they could have driven at any time.

[homeless]

The US numbers are (latest figures '08):
37,261 total car accident fatalities; 13,846 of those alcohol related (includes non-causal, any driver or non-occupant at .01 or higher, matters not whether the at-fault driver was zero); 11,773 alcohol-impaired, a driver at or above .08 (matters not whether the impaired driver was the at-fault driver).
You can get the state-by-state breakdown here:
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

MADD's target date for ignition interlock in all new vehicles sold in the US is 2013, they trip out and disable the car at around .02 and above, lower than legal limits for various liability reasons. Congress has given US automakers grants in the tens of millions range for the purpose of R&D to get this a factory standard installation.
http://interlockfacts.org/

I wonder if all of the dui statutory language surrounding being 'in control of' a non-running vehicle will be erased once these are on every vehicle; the rationale behind such language is that the accused was in a position where they could have driven at any time.

I stand corrected. ONLY 11,000 plus per year. :rolleyes:

Ken, please do not start a conversation again trying to justify drunk driving.

[KenA55]

I won't do that on Patti's thread. Nor have I ever tried to justify drunk driving. I have, on the other hand, argued against the mass incarceration of my countrymen over victimless matters, social engineering masquerading as criminal offense. But since we're exchanging advice apparently-

Chris, please do not start another conversation trying to justify the mass-incarceration of Americans. Start another thread if you'd like to dance around this further.

[homeless]

Nor have I ever tried to justify drunk driving.

Chris, please do not start another conversation trying to justify the mass-incarceration of Americans.

Bulls*** you haven't, and you were about to go there again.

The second sentence quoted should tell everyone exactly where his mindset is on this. According to Ken, anyone who hasn't killed someone doesn't deserve to be imprisoned. Do not try and justify your personal failures but some sick rationale trying to justify drunk driving "if you're good at it".

Disgusting.

You'll play this against me standing up for this "on Pattis thread", but I will not let you take this discussion to this and tell me to go away.

My D1 career was ended by a drunk driver and many thousands die each year as a result of drunk driving. Nobody gets to play down the seriousness of drunk driving in front of me, ever.

I have never argued for mass incarceration. Weed smokers get out WAY before DUI types in my book.

Patti's kids evidently read and post from time to time here; it would be a good read for them prior to driving age.

[homeless]

Patti, I say to you, if this seems improper to you, my apologies. But as someone who had his life changed severely by a drunk driver, I won't let this start again with Ken, him attempting to justify drunk driving. There's simply no excuse for it. Grown men and women can choose to stay under .08 or choose to not drive of they head north of it. Only a child would complain they don't get to party hardy and drive free of consequences (as long as they don't hit someone). That's a child's argument I won't let occur in front of my eyes. I'm done with it if he lets it go. Again, no interest in fouling up your thread, as I'm sure you realize. Peace. ;)

[KenA55]

You're a complete ass, cub. Take it to another thread if you want to be that.

[homeless]

As requested

[homeless]

You're a complete ass, cub. Take it to another thread if you want to be that.

There's a thread for you now.

If someone who had a history of murder or child molesting or assaults tried to come on here and justify those they'd hear the same thing. Your claims defending drunk driving are infamous.

You have an amazing ability to try and turn DUI discussions into a soap box for attempting to justify your history of them.

Your interest in trying to silence me by suggesting you are on the high road with your attempts at such justifications is mind-bogglingly warped.

Attempts to defend DUI's does not get to trump defense of anti-DUI laws in my presence, ever.

[homeless]

We have very good friends who moved here from South Africa years ago. Their son, Michael, was a classmate of our Michael. About a year and a half ago, Michael was killed by a drunk driver. He, his girlfriend, and another couple were on their way to a school function when they were hit head on. Michael was just weeks shy of his 19th birthday. The travesty is that the young man who hit them had a previous DUI and has had another one since. To make it worse, the case is still working it's way through the court system and has not gone to trial yet. Our friends are having to continue to re-live this tragedy as it drags on.


A avoidable tragedy to some of us, Ruth. My sympathies.

[homeless]

You're a complete ass, cub.

This "cub" is 39. Don't talk down to me like I'm a naive child. I have no criminal record associated with this activity. How about you, Ken?

Everything else now on your thread.

[jaygray]

This could be titled "An unhealed wound thread."

Have you ever forgiven someone who hurt you really bad? Put it another way: have you taken out your wound on someone else who triggered you (wittingly or otherwise), as if he/she were the same original perp?

I have a conflict at work right now that I think is all about that. It's not the same scale as other people's wounds, admittedly. But it can be summed up as two festering, competing wounds, mine and his. Doesn't really matter how it started, but it's escalated to a point of raw hatred.

I know what I must do, which is to apologize, even if he's done some **itty things which I reported to HR. The point is to make peace, even if it's completely against my nature and limbic-brained fight-or-flight instinct. It goes against my program of standing up to a bully. It feels like the hardest thing I'll have to do in a long time, but it seems like the only way out: to step out of the victim/victimizer conundrum. I'm working my way up to it; I need to practice on a surrogate, anticipating all the vulgar venom I might get. It's not bending or being obsequious, it's making peace, owning my stuff, getting on with work and life, not giving my precious energy to a bully, no matter how much of a jackass he is.

Make sense?

[Zat0pek]

I think this thread is a good idea. You guys having a place to go at here will keep this debate from cropping up on other threads.

I'm not being facetious; this is a subject that both of you feel very passionate about and I think it needs its own thread.

[homeless]

Let's see who the ass is.

My credentials:


No drunk driving history. 2 beer limit strictly adhered to, knowing that I am fully responsible for my actions, that I always have the cab option (used frequently), and that the first drink starts the impairment.

No criminal record. No charges ever filed.

No attempts to ever justify criminal behavior I wished I could participate in.


You turn, Ken. Go.

[MoMoNoMo]

jaygray, yeah, it makes sense to me. painful as they are, don't let those workplace tensions get the better of you, especially in this economy. sometimes you've gotta bite your lip even when it feels like you're about to bite it off.

[homeless]

Jaygray. I simply refuse to allow anyone to come on as a convict (correct me if I'm wrong, Ken and I will apologize profusely), and try and backdoor their blatant disregard for illegal and potentially deadly behavior.

The fact that driver hit me makes me more sensitive, surely. But also more aware of the devastation.

Nobody would stand for someone convicted of murder or rape, coming on here and trying to explain why it should be legal in certain circumstances. I find it amazing this has been tolerated in the past.

[wineturtle]

Patti, I say to you, if this seems improper to you, my apologies. But as someone who had his life changed severely by a drunk driver, I won't let this start again with Ken, him attempting to justify drunk driving. There's simply no excuse for it. Grown men and women can choose to stay under .08 or choose to not drive of they head north of it. Only a child would complain they don't get to party hardy and drive free of consequences (as long as they don't hit someone). That's a child's argument I won't let occur in front of my eyes. I'm done with it if he lets it go. Again, no interest in fouling up your thread, as I'm sure you realize. Peace. ;)

I won't do that on Patti's thread. Nor have I ever tried to justify drunk driving. I have, on the other hand, argued against the mass incarceration of my countrymen over victimless matters, social engineering masquerading as criminal offense. But since we're exchanging advice apparently-

Chris, please do not start another conversation trying to justify the mass-incarceration of Americans. Start another thread if you'd like to dance around this further.

Ruling by MAYOR WINETURTLE
Not on the patti thread.
We have a whole section called the Playground for this **** take it there.

Tom Hyland on the other hand feels attempting something as stupid as justifing the sociopathic behavior of drunk driving is folly and no intelligent person would join in the debate. A LL thread doing so would be a one post thread in my opinion most of us being grown up and all. But on the PG it might continue for ever and ever so with due respect to my alter not on the patti thread is fine but better on the LL than the PG.

[Zen Miler]

Jaygray. I simply refuse to allow anyone to come on as a convict (correct me if I'm wrong, Ken and I will apologize profusely), and try and backdoor their blatant disregard for illegal and potentially deadly behavior.

The fact that driver hit me makes me more sensitive, surely. But also more aware of the devastation.

Nobody would stand for someone convicted of murder or rape, coming on here and trying to explain why it should be legal in certain circumstances. I find it amazing this has been tolerated in the past.


This is so sad. In many ways I kind of looked up to Ken for his dedication to MN cross country. Is he incarcerated now?

Also, I am sorry for any pain you endured. It is devastating. Bad things do in fact happen to good people.

[homeless]

Tom Hyland on the other hand feels attempting something as stupid as justifing the sociopathic behavior of drunk driving is folly and no intelligent person would join in the debate. A LL thread doing so would be a one post thread in my opinion most of us being grown up and all. But on the PG it might continue for ever and ever so with due respect to my alter not on the patti thread is fine but better on the LL than the PG.

I'd agree Tom, but impossible to stand by after suffering at the whims of a drunk driver.

So I have at least moved this to a LL thread so people can justify dangerous criminal behavior there instead of here.

[homeless]

This is so sad. In many ways I kind of looked up to Ken for his dedication to MN cross country. Is he incarcerated now?

Also, I am sorry for any pain you endured. It is devastating. Bad things do in fact happen to good people.

No sir. I have simply asked if he has a criminal record associated with DUI's.

We'll leave it up to him to answer.

Getting consequences for drunk driving is never "bad things happening to good people".

[jaygray]

Jaygray. I simply refuse to allow anyone to come on as a convict (correct me if I'm wrong, Ken and I will apologize profusely), and try and backdoor their blatant disregard for illegal and potentially deadly behavior.

The fact that driver hit me makes me more sensitive, surely. But also more aware of the devastation.

Nobody would stand for someone convicted of murder or rape, coming on here and trying to explain why it should be legal in certain circumstances. I find it amazing this has been tolerated in the past.

This is kind of what I expect my colleague to say when I apologize. As with ZM, I'm sorry this happened to you. But exactly what did Ken do to you today?

[wineturtle]

Would a Global Mod move Chris and Kens comments to the other thread.
thank you.

[KenA55]

Moderator, please give this thread an appropriate title and remove my username from it.

Ken didn't do anything but post the correct figures on traffic fatalities, alcohol-related fatalities, and alcohol impaired fatalities when others raised the issue and posted some bad info. A bit more on the directions the nation is headed in that will in all likelihood make dwi a much more rare offense and ease corresponding incarceration levels through technological advances.

[KenA55]

Of course I do, Chris. We've had the conversation before as everybody knows. But back to my post, now atop this thread that seemed to set you off: What do you think of the move toward using technology to make it impossible (ok, not impossible but a lot harder - technological restraints can always be thwarted, where there is a will there soon comes a way) to get a dwi in the first place?

My take: It crosses an important line, people are supposed to be able to choose freely in a free society and from there suffer the consequences of their choices accordingly when they injure another through intent or negligence. I guess if I had to draw an analogy toward the extreme, you could imagine a society in a hypothetical future where freedom of choice in everything was removed entirely, peoples brains are now overridden with perhaps some sort of implanted chip, that simply shuts off any desire toward potentially dangerous or negative options as determined by our elected reps, as they arose. Now for me that would appear to be a remarkably safe existence, but not the universe of free will choices that this life was intended to provide.

What do you think? Or anyone else interested in chiming in for that matter? Is it a good trade-off, nobody can start their vehicle even after just a glass of wine, in trade for almost completely unimpaired driving universally?

Edit: unimpaired by alcohol that is; there are certainly a whole lot of other things and circumstances, self-administered and otherwise, that can impair a driver momentarily or longer.

[Zat0pek]

Of course I do, Chris. We've had the conversation before as everybody knows. But back to my post, now atop this thread that seemed to set you off: What do you think of the move toward using technology to make it impossible (ok, not impossible but a lot harder - technological restraints can always be thwarted, where there is a will there soon comes a way) to get a dwi in the first place?

My take: It crosses an important line, people are supposed to be able to choose freely in a free society and from there suffer the consequences of their choices accordingly when they injure another through intent or negligence. I guess if I had to draw an analogy toward the extreme, you could imagine a society in a hypothetical future where freedom of choice in everything was removed entirely, peoples brains are now overridden with perhaps some sort of implanted chip, that simply shuts off any desire toward potentially dangerous or negative options as determined by our elected reps, as they arose. Now for me that would appear to be a remarkably safe existence, but not the universe of free will choices that this life was intended to provide.

What do you think? Or anyone else interested in chiming in for that matter? Is it a good trade-off, nobody can start their vehicle even after just a glass of wine, in trade for almost completely unimpaired driving universally?

Edit: unimpaired by alcohol that is; there are certainly a whole lot of other things and circumstances, self-administered and otherwise, that can impair a driver momentarily or longer.

I'll chime in; I'm not crazy about the interlocks EXCEPT for those on probation/parole for DUI or drug-related offenses.

I've addressed this before and I will again. For literally hundreds of years, we and England (from whence most of our law and legal theory came) have chosen to criminalize behavior at a certain level of recklessness that poses a danger to others.

Getting loaded and driving a two-ton vehicle certainly meets that criteria. I see no loss of personal freedom in that situation. There are currently about 143,781,202 vehicles in the U.S. Driving is statistically one of the more dangerous activities in which we regularly engage. The data on the impact of impairment on driving is legion. We also have laws against "inattentive driving" (for those guys who like to shave in the car or gals who like to put on their makeup on the way to work) and coming rapidly in response to new technology are laws against texting and driving.

We also have many other laws regarding impairment and certain activities. For example, I am concealed carry permit holder. It is a misdemeanor if I drink while carrying and automatic revocation of my permit. Ditto many other activities.

And remember, there is a HUGE difference between freedom and license. I may be free to steal your car and drive it away but I don't have license to do that. The key line is the danger posed to others versus self. For example, I'm not a huge fan of helmet or seatbelt laws because the only victim there is me. I should be free to be a moron if I pose no risk to others.

[Joe Lanzalotto]

My take: It crosses an important line, people are supposed to be able to choose freely in a free society and from there suffer the consequences of their choices accordingly when they injure another through intent or negligence.

Ken, here is my take, like it or not. People are supposed to be able to choose freely in this country but I draw the line where you say that they (the choosers) have to suffer the consequences when they injure another. WHat gives them the right to "choose" to injure another? Did I miss a section of the Constitution or Bill of Rights?

With freedom comes responsibility. No one has the right to injure another nor should anyone be given enough rope to enable them in any way to permanently cause harm to another person. No one has that right. Period.

What happened to the acceptance of responsiblity for NOT harming another? I get the part that goes "I accept that if I injure another, I will suffer the consequences". How about the part that says "I accept that I do not have the right to harm another and in fact have a responsiblity to protect others from my own irresponsible actions"? Yeah, I got it; that's not in the Constitution either. I think that's in the book that comes from a higher authority (and no one can accuse me of being a holy roller from teh religious right).

[KenA55]

Joe, you holy roller you! ;)

I think Zat hit the nail on the head when he said "I may be free to steal your car and drive it away but I don't have license to do that."

Stack that up against your "No one has the right to injure another nor should anyone be given enough rope to enable them in any way to permanently cause harm to another person. No one has that right. Period."

Now unfortunately 'right' simply doesn't factor into the equation; and the enough rope business is another thing entirely. Short of that hypothetical behavioral chip, each of us has the option, the ability if you will, to permanently cause harm to others, every waking moment of our lives. Hell, I've even been prosecuted for supposedly causing harm in my sleep, though the jury didn't let the state get away with that one (a domestic prosecution back in the mid-nineties). With cars or without cars, with guns or without guns, with alcohol or without alcohol - its about ability and choice, and ability is always in play - Its not about right or rights.

[Joe Lanzalotto]

Joe, you holy roller you! ;)

I think Zat hit the nail on the head when he said "I may be free to steal your car and drive it away but I don't have license to do that."

Stack that up against your "No one has the right to injure another nor should anyone be given enough rope to enable them in any way to permanently cause harm to another person. No one has that right. Period."

Now unfortunately 'right' simply doesn't factor into the equation; and the enough rope business is another thing entirely. Short of that hypothetical behavioral chip, each of us has the option, the ability if you will, to permanently cause harm to others, every waking moment of our lives. Hell, I've even been prosecuted for supposedly causing harm in my sleep, though the jury didn't let the state get away with that one (a domestic prosecution back in the mid-nineties). With cars or without cars, with guns or without guns, with alcohol or without alcohol - its about ability and choice, and ability is always in play - Its not about right or rights.

I disagree entirely - it IS about rights.

Zat said it far more articulately than did I, but I think the two of us were essentially saying the same thing. Maybe not. If he thinks that citizens should have the right to do harm with guns, cars, tiddly winks, whatever, then he is as wrong as you are, IMO. I don't think he thinks that.

[KenA55]

I never said they had the right either, but am stressing that the ability exists always. That's why its always impossible to prevent people from being "given enough rope to enable them in any way to permanently cause harm to another person." One sort of rope or another is always there.

And that's really the heart of the issue I think - should we continue to write law aimed at taking more and more of the rope away, attacking ability rather than actuality? Should there be no limit to authoritarian nanny-state?

The founders of this country were pretty hopeful that would never be possible when they plugged a requirement into our constitution (repeatedly) for trial by jury. Trial by jury sharply limits the extent to which the state can impose social engineering on its citizens through criminal statute. Jury trail is a rigorous and often lengthy process that requires expense and many human beings' time and effort to bring a case to fruition.

Regardless of case outcomes, no state can possibly prosecute in mass numbers when trial by jury is a requirement. A state intent on using criminal law in mass manner to engineer social outcomes must find a way around our constitutional requirement for jury trail. If we are ever to hold that sort of thing in check, or better yet return toward the traditional concept of crime as victimization rather than a tool to shape social outcomes, one very sound way to accomplish that would be to require jury trial in all cases lacking a victim or deceased victim's loved ones to sign off on any plea arrangement or it must be rejected. Put another way - no victim, no conviction without an impaneled jury putting the stamp on the conviction.

[Joe Lanzalotto]

I never said they had the right either, but am stressing that the ability exists always. That's why its always impossible to prevent people from being "given enough rope to enable them in any way to permanently cause harm to another person." One sort of rope or another is always there.

And that's really the heart of the issue I think - should we continue to write law aimed at taking more and more of the rope away, attacking ability rather than actuality? Should there be no limit to authoritarian nanny-state?

The founders of this country were pretty hopeful that would never be possible when they plugged a requirement into our constitution (repeatedly) for trial by jury. Trial by jury sharply limits the extent to which the state can impose social engineering on its citizens through criminal statute. Jury trail is a rigorous and often lengthy process that requires expense and many human beings' time and effort to bring a case to fruition.

Regardless of case outcomes, no state can possibly prosecute in mass numbers when trial by jury is a requirement. A state intent on using criminal law in mass manner to engineer social outcomes must find a way around our constitutional requirement for jury trail. If we are ever to hold that sort of thing in check, or better yet return toward the traditional concept of crime as victimization rather than a tool to shape social outcomes, one very sound way to accomplish that would be to require jury trial in all cases lacking a victim or deceased victim's loved ones to sign off on any plea arrangement or it must be rejected. Put another way - no victim, no conviction without an impaneled jury putting the stamp on the conviction.

While I think that education is the best way to shape these outcomes (learn that it is WRONG to hurt or even endanger another), when that fails, as it has spectacularly in many cases, you do what you can through other legal means to stop the bad stuff from happening. This is not a matter of shaping social outcomes - what a nice sounding way of making seem as though commie liberals are again trying to undermine our society - this is a matter of stopping people from breaking serious laws and not only infringing ont he rights of others but killing them and their loved ones in the process.

For my money, you talk about all this in far too abtract and clinical terms. Have the job of going to a home and telling an 8 year old that his father and mother were killed by a drunk driver but don't worry kid, we're making sure that the law is not used to shape social outcomes. I wonder if that might grab you. It certainly would grab me.

[Zat0pek]

I disagree entirely - it IS about rights.

Zat said it far more articulately than did I, but I think the two of us were essentially saying the same thing. Maybe not. If he thinks that citizens should have the right to do harm with guns, cars, tiddly winks, whatever, then he is as wrong as you are, IMO. I don't think he thinks that.

Nope, we're saying the same thing.

As my high school government teacher used to say, "My freedom of movement ends where your nose begins."

There is a level of personal freedom that is so absolute that it becomes, essentially, narcissism. All rights have reasonable limitations, and those limitations are almost universally defined by the impact the exercise of that right has on others. Examples are legion, but here are a few:

My First Amendment right to freedom of speech does not extent to speech that creates risk of harm to others (the old "you can't cry FIRE! in a crowded movie theater.
My First Amendment right to freedom of religion does not extend to human sacrifice even if the person to be sacrificed gives informed consent to be sacrificed.
My First Amendment right to refuse certain medical treatment for my child due to religious beliefs does not extend to denying certain life-saving treatments.
My right to freedom of assembly does not allow me gather 10,000 people in the middle of the street without a permit and paying for the police necessary for crowd control.
My Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not extend to owning an RPG launcher or allowing those with certain convictions to own guns.In all these cases, the dividing line is the increased potential harm to others. People could get hurt stampeding out of the theater. The human sacrifice ends up dead, as does the child denied medical treatment. My crowd could incite an injury-inducing riot. My RPG laucher exceeds to scope of weapons anticipated by the Second Amendment, and the felon has show sufficient disregard for the law as to not be entrusted with a dangerous instrumentality.

I can agree with Ken generally that government has encroached into to many areas where it doesn't belong but to assert that DUI laws fall into that category doesn't even come close to passing the giggle test (The Giggle Test: An argument, position or assertion so preposterous and devoid of fact or logic that it is impossible to make it without giggling.)

[patti]

***

[KenA55]

I've no problem with dui laws, Zat, if done properly. If I had my way such victimless crime (remember that if its not victimless, if someone's been hurt or had property damaged the key charge is no longer dui but rather CVO or CVH, both felonies) would get dealt with more often than not with regulatory penalties rather than criminal treatment, though even criminal treatment is supportable in my eyes as long as a great deal of discretion is applied. Limiting the criminal justice system through budgetary constriction or jury trial requirement in victimless cases is a very sure way to maximize the application of sound discretion, rather than today's low BAC limits, no-drop policies, non-driving arrests, and so on ad nauseam. How much ad-nauseam you see is certainly subjective, there are very large differences in the way and the quantity with which these things get handled both locality to locality as well as state to state.

I'd suggest if liberal application of discretion seems preposterous then we've been god-awful preposterous for most of our history not just with dui but with all manner of today's victimless prosecutions.

An additional result, for better or for worse, of such a victim sign-off requirement on plea arrangements would be that victims would possess veto power over such things rather than final decision-making resting solely in the hands of your profession and the accused.

[KenA55]

A few things before this goes further:

Let it be said that I have lost family to a drunk driver, a very drunk driver, and a very horrendous accident scene with the car literally impaled in the air on the tree it snapped after going airborne hitting a steep ditch embankment. The driver survived.

A few other things with regard to dui in general; most fatalities are caused by impaired drivers with no history of dui. So any preventative technology applied to only the repeaters does not go even halfway toward preventing the impaired fatalities.

While stricter dui enforcement and penalties have coincided with lowered fatality rates, even most strong advocates of that stricter treatment admit that studies of fatality rates on the non-impaired incidents indicate that increased seat belt usage and the advent of air bags are a greater factor in those lowered rates.

As Patti noted, loss of license rarely stops anyone from driving when the need arises.

[MoMoNoMo]

Nope, we're saying the same thing.

As my high school government teacher used to say, "My freedom of movement ends where your nose begins."

There is a level of personal freedom that is so absolute that it becomes, essentially, narcissism. All rights have reasonable limitations, and those limitations are almost universally defined by the impact the exercise of that right has on others. Examples are legion, but here are a few:
My First Amendment right to freedom of speech does not extent to speech that creates risk of harm to others (the old "you can't cry FIRE! in a crowded movie theater.
My First Amendment right to freedom of religion does not extend to human sacrifice even if the person to be sacrificed gives informed consent to be sacrificed.
My First Amendment right to refuse certain medical treatment for my child due to religious beliefs does not extend to denying certain life-saving treatments.
My right to freedom of assembly does not allow me gather 10,000 people in the middle of the street without a permit and paying for the police necessary for crowd control.
My Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not extend to owning an RPG launcher or allowing those with certain convictions to own guns.In all these cases, the dividing line is the increased potential harm to others. People could get hurt stampeding out of the theater. The human sacrifice ends up dead, as does the child denied medical treatment. My crowd could incite an injury-inducing riot. My RPG laucher exceeds to scope of weapons anticipated by the Second Amendment, and the felon has show sufficient disregard for the law as to not be entrusted with a dangerous instrumentality.

I can agree with Ken generally that government has encroached into to many areas where it doesn't belong but to assert that DUI laws fall into that category doesn't even come close to passing the giggle test (The Giggle Test: An argument, position or assertion so preposterous and devoid of fact or logic that it is impossible to make it without giggling.)

Agree with everything above; surprised, in fact, that Zat is willing to forgo any right to an RPG launcher! ;)

[homeless]

A few things before this goes further:

Let it be said that I have lost family to a drunk driver, a very drunk driver, and a very horrendous accident scene with the car literally impaled in the air on the tree it snapped after going airborne hitting a steep ditch embankment. The driver survived.

A few other things with regard to dui in general; most fatalities are caused by impaired drivers with no history of dui. So any preventative technology applied to only the repeaters does not go even halfway toward preventing the impaired fatalities.

While stricter dui enforcement and penalties have coincided with lowered fatality rates, even most strong advocates of that stricter treatment admit that studies of fatality rates on the non-impaired incidents indicate that increased seat belt usage and the advent of air bags are a greater factor in those lowered rates.

As Patti stated, loss of license rarely stops anyone from driving when the need arises.

Mod:

Thank you for moving this thread.

Patti:

Sorry this hit your thread, but I wasn't going to let this go unaddressed. Thank you for sharing your story. Both my blood grandfathers were alcoholics, both spent time behind the wheel while impaired.

Ken:

Truly sorry for your loss. It amazes me you would take this so cavalierly based on that loss. Don't know what that says about you.

It amazes me you will spend pages and pages and pages to try and find ways to put responsibility on luck, the failed judicial system (in your eyes), playing conspiracy theories and putting blame on anything else EXCEPT the driver. Except the person who chooses to be incredibly disrespectful of every other human out there.

You have a legal responsibility to NOT harm me.

I think you have probably made it clear to people for me why I speak so adamantly as soon as I see you post about all the flaws in DUI laws. Your attempts at justifying such deadly behavior are amazing.

A convict does NOT get to publicly preach about all the reasons his criminal actions are over-punished while in the presence of someone who suffered at the hands of such a criminal.

This is not an insult, but a fact: You are a criminal and a convict, no matter how you attempt to paint the situation. No matter how many words you type trying to argue things in obtuse, ethereal, philosophical manners. If you stay away from this topic, you won't have to acknowledge that. If you run to defend drunk driving, you are running headlong into a firestorm you deserve.

You are a bright man, but we too are bright individuals. Make no mistake- we understand your opinions. We just find them different shades of absurd. Just because you have some valid concerns and thoughts about prisons and the very flawed judicial system (you really do), does not mean you get to mix in such laws with impunity. We aren't that dense.

It just seems we have bit more concern for our fellow man than you do Ken.

[homeless]

I can agree with Ken generally that government has encroached into to many areas where it doesn't belong but to assert that DUI laws fall into that category doesn't even come close to passing the giggle test (The Giggle Test: An argument, position or assertion so preposterous and devoid of fact or logic that it is impossible to make it without giggling.)

Agree 100%

1) Our government encroaches way too much.

2) This doesn't pass the giggle test

3) I'll add it doesn't pass the 3rd grade test. Would a 3rd grader look at you and say "are you f***ing nuts?" if you tried to sell them on it.

[Kalaby]

I've mentioned this on other similar threads, but it's about time that we're starting to see the non-DWI driving stuff being taken more seriously. Whether that's the jackass weaving in and out of traffic going 90 mph or the dope that's texting or gabbing on the cell phone, the end result is the same; you are endangering everybody on the roads due to your behavior.

MADD should be amended to Mothers Against Dangerous Driving.

[homeless]

I've mentioned this on other similar threads, but it's about time that we're starting to see the non-DWI driving stuff being taken more seriously. Whether that's the jackass weaving in and out of traffic going 90 mph or the dope that's texting or gabbing on the cell phone, the end result is the same; you are endangering everybody on the roads due to your behavior.

MADD should be amended to Mothers Against Dangerous Driving.

Agree completely.

But we need to up the seriousness of all dangerous driving to properly level things, not ease the consequences for drunk driving to get to level, as some would suggest.

[Kalaby]

But we need to up the seriousness of all dangerous driving to properly level things, not ease the consequences for drunk driving to get to level, as some would suggest.

Absolutely agree - bring the non-DWI stuff up to par with the DWI infractions.

[jaygray]

Where the law isn't enough of a deterrent, or if it encroaches too much on that area of personal liberty, I'm in favor of technology making it harder.

A car with a breathalyzer-starter would be an acceptable "barrier to entry", as it were, to me at least. Not completely foolproof, but if you're with somebody else, then it's more likely that the other person(s) will either a) fail the breathalyzer-starter as well, or b) not be stupid enough to let you drive if you fail it but they don't. I'd bet for the majority DUI-related fatalities, the driver was alone.

You can't make it impossible; just make it harder to kill people besides yourself.

[herr]

Nope, we're saying the same thing.

As my high school government teacher used to say, "My freedom of movement ends where your nose begins."

[snip]


In all these cases, the dividing line is the increased potential harm to others. People could get hurt stampeding out of the theater. The human sacrifice ends up dead, as does the child denied medical treatment. My crowd could incite an injury-inducing riot. My RPG laucher exceeds to scope of weapons anticipated by the Second Amendment, and the felon has show sufficient disregard for the law as to not be entrusted with a dangerous instrumentality.

I agree with this. But one should not kid oneself about how difficult it is to determine "harm"

Beyond the low hanging fruit enumerated by Zat, it becomes difficult to get general agreement about what harm is, or, in cases of competing harm, which consideration of harm takes precedence--the woman or the fetus, in cases of abortion, for eg.

Very sincere and extremely intelligent people vehemently disagree about how to determine harm in such cases.

In democratic societies, we make laws about what we regard harm to be through democratic procedure and deliberation.

All law limits freedom. A prohibition of murder limits the freedom of the person interested in committing murder.

In the US, limitations on freedom -- the promulgation of law-- are determined democratically-- through a popularly accountable and transparent legislative process.

Often the polity, in this manner, decides it wants to limit its freedom, and then changes its mind (eg the prohibition pf alcohol sale and consumption).

The only point here is that we constantly limit our freedom. We do this in order to live in society in an orderly and peaceful way. That is why we have law, that is why we have a state and that is why we have courts.

The question is not whether or not freedom should be limited. The question is what freedoms do we collectively want to limit and which ones not.

Preventing people from driving while intoxicated is a limitation on freedom that has gained democratic legitimacy. We think it is the right thing to do.

If the democratic process concludes that it wants to further limit the freedom of excessive consumers of alcohol--repeat abusers, chronic abusers, etc-- by requiring the attachment of electronic devices that prevent proven abusers from driving while intoxicated, that is legitimate--as long as the limitation on freedom (the law) was passed in a legitimate and accountable way.

Its also legitimate--even desirable-- to have discussion and challenge of such limitations on freedom through the political process and through the courts.

Me personally, I would rather have freedoms be limited in that way--through democratic process -- than through bureaucratic fiat--or through the arbitrary imposition of the will of the stronger over the will of the weaker.

[Zat0pek]

I've no problem with dui laws, Zat, if done properly. If I had my way such victimless crime (remember that if its not victimless, if someone's been hurt or had property damaged the key charge is no longer dui but rather CVO or CVH, both felonies) would get dealt with more often than not with regulatory penalties rather than criminal treatment, though even criminal treatment is supportable in my eyes as long as a great deal of discretion is applied. Limiting the criminal justice system through budgetary constriction or jury trial requirement in victimless cases is a very sure way to maximize the application of sound discretion, rather than today's low BAC limits, no-drop policies, non-driving arrests, and so on ad nauseam. How much ad-nauseam you see is certainly subjective, there are very large differences in the way and the quantity with which these things get handled both locality to locality as well as state to state.

I'd suggest if liberal application of discretion seems preposterous then we've been god-awful preposterous for most of our history not just with dui but with all manner of today's victimless prosecutions.

An additional result, for better or for worse, of such a victim sign-off requirement on plea arrangements would be that victims would possess veto power over such things rather than final decision-making resting solely in the hands of your profession and the accused.

The first broken link in this chain is insistence that DUI is a "victimless crime." I've always loved that term, victimless crime, because it's a wonderful oxymoron and it thoroughly exposes the agenda of those who use it. It is also a term that reveals a complete lack of even the most basic or elemental understanding of what is a crime.

Criminal conduct has NEVER, in our history, or England's, required an individual victim in order to make the conduct a crime. Criminal conduct is that conduct which society deems either so damaging or so harmful to society as a whole that it warrants criminal sanction. The victim of the crime is "merely" a witness to the crime. That's why criminal cases are styled "The State v. John Doe." It is the state (society) which is the victim, which is why it is the party to the case rather than the one directly effected by the crime. Only civil law requires actual damage or harm to an individual. Those cases are the ones where only the individuals (or corporations) affected are the parties to the case.

One can be criminally liable without causing actual harm to another but one cannot be civilly liable without causing actual harm to another. One can have a BAC of .15 and be driving home, hit a checkpoint, and go to jail but incur no civil liability because they have caused no damage to another. To talk about "victimless crimes" is to apply civil theory to criminal acts.

The simple truth and reality is that a victimless crime, by definition does not and can not exist. Never has, never will.

[homeless]

I've been thinking about why this bothers me so much, and I think last night it hit me.

Here we have a situation where an individual is so concerned about expressing ad naseum (in many complex ways) why the system is failed and the system should be changed; ostensibly wishing/hoping they could change society. The individual does everything possible to work towards that by convincing people of the need for change, of the system's ills (or they are knowingly simply blowing hot steam?).

Yet when they have the chance to simply not drink and drive; something that guarantees a betterment of society that they have complete individual control over; the place where they can make an individual difference, by not putting themselves on the road impaired...

They don't.

Talk for betterment, not action for betterment.

You wanna better society? Quit talking. Stop drinking and driving.

Done. Achieved. Every time.

Thanks for the betterment.

[Joe Lanzalotto]

Homeless, agreed but this IS a forum for people to express their thoughts and ideas and while I do not agree in any way with Ken, he has a right. I think his positioning of DUI as a victimless crime is an escaped element of the theater of the absurd but he has a right to put forth that position.

In this case, you have the majority on your side of the issue; in others it may not be so. In either case, it should be okay to express yourself here without the personal attacks and hateful invective.

Just my opinion. I hate Ken's position, I don't hate Ken. I might or might not if I knew him but cannot base my feeling about him from the limited information I get on here.

I can name two cases where I started out at WAR with individuals on Dyestat and am now good or better friends with the people. I learned that while they might have had positions with which I could not agree, it did not come close to comprising anywhere near their entire personality and soul.

[Kalaby]

I'll say this, if you live in the NYC area (particularly Manhattan) or other similar large urban centers, there is no reason to ever think about getting behind the wheel after you've knocked a few back. Mass transit and taxis make things nice in that regard and take the temptation to drive out of the equation (for most people).

[homeless]

Homeless, agreed but this IS a forum for people to express their thoughts and ideas and while I do not agree in any way with Ken, he has a right. I think his positioning of DUI as a victimless crime is an escaped element of the theater of the absurd but he has a right to put forth that position.

In this case, you have the majority on your side of the issue; in others it may not be so. In either case, it should be okay to express yourself here without the personal attacks and hateful invective.

Just my opinion. I hate Ken's position, I don't hate Ken. I might or might not if I knew him but cannot base my feeling about him from the limited information I get on here.

I can name two cases where I started out at WAR with individuals on Dyestat and am now good or better friends with the people. I learned that while they might have had positions with which I could not agree, it did not come close to comprising anywhere near their entire personality and soul.

Joe. I agree. Everything is opinions and shades of black and white on these threads. But when it comes to blatant disregard for life, I think strong retorts are justified. I know they are.

He has every right whatsoever to come on here and say whatever he wishes. But every time he does, he wants to suggest I'm an ass because I think it matters that he is nothing more than a convict to me who is parading around saying "the system screwed me". This conversation doesn't exist in a vacuum. I was the victim of a DUI once, and he was a DUI convict (at least once). If he wants to justify that criminal behavior in my presence like a high school kid would try and justify their actions, I won't let that happen without confronting it.

If we were discussing Castle Laws, and I said I have no problem putting a bullet in someone's chest if they cross my threahold uninvited, it might disturb some (not Zat ;) ). But if I actually killed a couple people in this manner, it would put a very real and somewhat sick spin on the conversation. I am NOT trying to compare Ken to a murderer; not at all.

Ken doesn't see drinking and driving as violent. I do. When I see such reckless disregard for life, I see it as no different than taking a firearm and firing it into the air. Ken says until harm is done there is no victim and no violence has been committed. In both DUI and firing into the air, I see violence and a serious crime.

When dealing with life and death issues, the ante is upped a bit. While contentious, I think he and I, and others have aptly and fairly made their points and will continue to do so.

I have no desire to silence him. But I will never allow him to bring this issue up attempting to shame me into silence or accusing me of being someone interested in filling the prisons.

[homeless]

without the personal attacks and hateful invective

If you suffered a violent crime, how would you feel if someone who was convicted of that same crime was on here trying to explain why the laws regarding the crime and "the system screwed him and screws plenty in this category?"

I know what your reaction would be.

I hear you, I do. But impossible to look the other way.

[Show'EmTheRopes]

dude youre talking about over a third of all accidents are alcohol related. that means theres over a 33% decrease if people dont drink and drive. i fail to see the justification.

[homeless]

dude youre talking about over a third of all accidents are alcohol related. that means theres over a 33% decrease if people dont drink or drive. i fail to see the justification.

Yup.

Ken will suggest many of those 33% would be dead without alcohol involved. Some would. Most wouldn't.

[Zat0pek]

Another thought, and then I'll leave this alone.

Sometimes when something bad happens to us, it's a wake up call. A simple example is a computer hard drive crash without a backup. All it takes is one time for you to lose years worth of work and you suddenly become a strong advocate for regular backups. You even warn others that they need to backup and tell your story about why. Maybe they listen, maybe they don't. This kind of response is healthy; it's a realization and appreciation of a risk with an appropriate response.

Another, more complex, example would be when someone is a victim of a violent crime. A number of healthy, prudent responses. You keep doors locked, lights on, pay more attention to your surroundings. Maybe the incident makes your realize that law enforcement simply can't help you in that situation and you need to take steps for your own self-defense (martial arts training, concealed carry, etc.)

But maybe that incident makes you bitter.

Maybe you are so angry about what was taken from you in that incident that you can never reach that point of forgiveness and release. Not forgetting, mind you, but letting go and accepting your fate.

Or maybe you were the alleged wrongdoer. Maybe you got fired or charged with a crime for doing something that, to your core, you believe wasn't wrong or that the consequence is grossly disproportionate to the conduct. There are two choices there also. Maybe you can set aside your self-righteousness and look at it from the other point of view and learn and grow from the experience. Or you can choose to cling to your self-righteousness and condemn those who accused or "wronged" you and attack and condemn everything associated with the accusation or condemnation.

We all have choices about how we respond to events in our lives. Sometimes, like the hell Patti went through with her father, we learn what not to do and choose a different path, refusing to allow our lives to be defined by those events. That response comes from the higher, best parts of our souls and characters. When we choose to cling to our bitterness and anger, that comes from the lowest, most self-centered, limbic parts of our souls and characters. Exercising the first improves us, elevates us and opens us to experience wonder and joy in our lives again on levels not otherwise possible. The second keeps mired in the lowest form of the human experience.

Mercy has been defined as giving something to someone who doesn't deserve it. Justice has been defined as rendering to someone that which they are owed or deserve. We all have to choose the applications of these two virtues, and they may often seem contradictory. But a closer inspection and deeper understanding will reveal that they are rarely, if ever, in actual conflict.

We just have to step outside of ourselves to see that.

[Show'EmTheRopes]

Another thought, and then I'll leave this alone.

Sometimes when something bad happens to us, it's a wake up call. A simple example is a computer hard drive crash without a backup. All it takes is one time for you to lose years worth of work and you suddenly become a strong advocate for regular backups. You even warn others that they need to backup and tell your story about why. Maybe they listen, maybe they don't. This kind of response is healthy; it's a realization and appreciation of a risk with an appropriate response.

Another, more complex, example would be when someone is a victim of a violent crime. A number of healthy, prudent responses. You keep doors locked, lights on, pay more attention to your surroundings. Maybe the incident makes your realize that law enforcement simply can't help you in that situation and you need to take steps for your own self-defense (martial arts training, concealed carry, etc.)

But maybe that incident makes you bitter.

Maybe you are so angry about what was taken from you in that incident that you can never reach that point of forgiveness and release. Not forgetting, mind you, but letting go and accepting your fate.

Or maybe you were the alleged wrongdoer. Maybe you got fired or charged with a crime for doing something that, to your core, you believe wasn't wrong or that the consequence is grossly disproportionate to the conduct. There are two choices there also. Maybe you can set aside your self-righteousness and look at it from the other point of view and learn and grow from the experience. Or you can choose to cling to your self-righteousness and condemn those who accused or "wronged" you and attack and condemn everything associated with the accusation or condemnation.

We all have choices about how we respond to events in our lives. Sometimes, like the hell Patti went through with her father, we learn what not to do and choose a different path, refusing to allow our lives to be defined by those events. That response comes from the higher, best parts of our souls and characters. When we choose to cling to our bitterness and anger, that comes from the lowest, most self-centered, limbic parts of our souls and characters. Exercising the first improves us, elevates us and opens us to experience wonder and joy in our lives again on levels not otherwise possible. The second keeps mired in the lowest form of the human experience.

Mercy has been defined as giving something to someone who doesn't deserve it. Justice has been defined as rendering to someone that which they are owed or deserve. We all have to choose the applications of these two virtues, and they may often seem contradictory. But a closer inspection and deeper understanding will reveal that they are rarely, if ever, in actual conflict.

We just have to step outside of ourselves to see that.

Homeless doesn't have an irrational view on the situation though. Taking a stance against something due to personal experience is a much more valid opinion than someone else arguing against it without a first hand experience. The person with the first hand experience gets the true effect of the situation within his/her regards. S/he can tell you things outside of what a tertiary opinion can. I've personally never had an association with a DUI, but I can see his side.

[wineturtle]

I'll say this, if you live in the NYC area (particularly Manhattan) or other similar large urban centers, there is no reason to ever think about getting behind the wheel after you've knocked a few back. Mass transit and taxis make things nice in that regard and take the temptation to drive out of the equation (for most people).

I`m living proof have not driven an inch since late 1968- blessed with gfs who enjoyed driving... I`ve visited the lower 47 from the co-pilots seat.

[Dyenimator]

Ken, what is your thought process before you drive under the influence?

[homeless]

Homeless doesn't have an irrational view on the situation though. Taking a stance against something due to personal experience is a much more valid opinion than someone else arguing against it without a first hand experience. The person with the first hand experience gets the true effect of the situation within his/her regards. S/he can tell you things outside of what a tertiary opinion can. I've personally never had an association with a DUI, but I can see his side.

Yeah. This is the view I'd hope for, and you hit it on the head.

Zat. I completely hear you and can see how you could mistake my feelings for clinging on. It's not that. I'm truly well over this and don't ever think about it...until I see or hear someone try and justify or minimize drunk driving. That's it. Nothing less, nothing more. When someone tries that, my experience is going to speak up and heavily.

Then it's compartmentalized, put back away in a healthy manner...and more than anything I'm seriously thankful it led to me going heavy into music at that moment in 1991, with athletics taken away for years.

Guess I owe the drunk driver a thank you card. :D

[homeless]

Ken, what is your thought process before you drive under the influence?

I suspect he doesn't anymore.

But trying to justify it as "not so bad or criminal until someone gets hurt" is incredibly irresponsible to me, especially on a site populated by high school and college kids.

Great example.

[Zat0pek]

Yeah. This is the view I'd hope for, and you hit it on the head.

Zat. I completely hear you and can see how you could mistake my feelings for clinging on. It's not that. I'm truly well over this and don't ever think about it...until I see or hear someone try and justify or minimize drunk driving. That's it. Nothing less, nothing more. When someone tries that, my experience is going to speak up and heavily.

Then it's compartmentalized, put back away in a healthy manner...and more than anything I'm seriously thankful it led to me going heavy into music at that moment in 1991, with athletics taken away for years.

Guess I owe the drunk driver a thank you card. :D

Nothing I said was aimed at you in particular; it was intended as general observations. If I'd meant you, I'd have named you.

Funny thing about your injury getting you heavy into music. I know another guy for whom disappointment in track led to some success in the music industry.

He was a javelin thrower at another school in my conference. He tells the story about how he just missed a NC qualifying mark at the conference meet in 1983 and he was laying on the high jump pit feeling very dejected. One of his teammates walked by and told him to snap out of it, that he really should be more focused on his music anyway. They guy took the advice to heart and did quite well for himself.

In fact, you may have heard of him. He went to Oklahoma State. His name was . . . Garth Brooks.

[homeless]

Just making sure you weren't worried for my sanity. ;)

Garth seems to be a good guy. Country not my thing, but he's palatable.

What did he throw? Anyone know?

[wineturtle]

http://www.strengthtech.com/photos/garthp/throw.jpg

more> http://www.strengthtech.com/photos/garthp/garthp.htm


This Q came up on T&FN a while back it is still unanswered .

[homeless]

http://www.strengthtech.com/photos/garthp/throw.jpg

more> http://www.strengthtech.com/photos/garthp/garthp.htm


This Q came up on T&FN a while back it is still unanswered .

Very cool.

I like the label "celebration". Clueless. It's called "explosion/release".

[Joe Lanzalotto]

If you suffered a violent crime, how would you feel if someone who was convicted of that same crime was on here trying to explain why the laws regarding the crime and "the system screwed him and screws plenty in this category?"

I know what your reaction would be.

I hear you, I do. But impossible to look the other way.

Let's be honest, my friend. If that were not Ken at the other end of this you would not be so nasty about this. And if it were not you, Ken probably would not be.

Aren't you just a teensy bit concerned sometimes (not in this case; as Zat said, this one doesn't pass the giggle test) that when you react to Ken that way people don't take your position as seriously because they think "oh, it's just Homeless and Ken fighting again"?

[Dyenimator]

I don't take this argument seriously because I don't think Ken can justify his reasons for drinking and driving.

[homeless]

Let's be honest, my friend. If that were not Ken at the other end of this you would not be so nasty about this. And if it were not you, Ken probably would not be.

Aren't you just a teensy bit concerned sometimes (not in this case; as Zat said, this one doesn't pass the giggle test) that when you react to Ken that way people don't take your position as seriously because they think "oh, it's just Homeless and Ken fighting again"?

You know I listen to you objectively both privately and publicly, because of my love and respect for you.

On this, no.

I have no issues (from my end) with Ken, except for this. When Dyestat was dying and I scrambled to get emails in case it went down before we could notify the LL troops, I contacted him as well. If I hated Ken, I would have skipped contacting him.

If people can't see the absurdity of defending drunk driving, and criticizing drunk driving laws, in any way shape or form, I don't know what to say.

I don't hate Ken, but his attitude regarding this, especially in front of people who have suffered at the hands of such criminals, and in front of kids here as well.

When someone does something like drunk driving, I would NOT hold this against them forever. But I still hold this against Ken, because if his attitude is that he should be able to do so, it's ALMOST as bad as doing it again. He's learned nothing. He doesn't see it as dangerous until someone is killed. Disgusting. DISGUSTING and childish beyond belief. If nothing else, it's a smack in the face to those of us who have suffered at the hands of such a criminal.

Again, a criminal. Doing an incredibly dangerous crime. Then attempting to downplay it to grown-assed adults.

Anyone comes on here and does that, they here the same. If there is ANY reason I'm stronger with Ken right off the bat...it's because I KNOW he has a DUI history. I do give him credit for being man enough to admit it.

Love you, Joe. ;)

[KenA55]

Chris, I don't ever defend drunk driving, criticizing drunk driving laws and their application on the other hand is highly justifiable in an era where so much of that is getting applied to those who were neither drunk nor driving.

Where we have difficulty in maintaining a reasonably civil discourse on the issues comes from straying from the issues into the realm of emotional baggage from the past. While I do have a great deal of understanding regarding that I'd certainly prefer a civil discussion, but when you stray from the issues presented and start labeling things as childish or start issuing directives 'not to go there' that's when I'll match your irrationality play for play, though I'll not initiate it or escalate it beyond whatever levels you set. And I'll remind you again that when I was still a bit wet behind the ears at the ripe young age of 39 (note counter-play to 'childish beyond belief') I'd never had any run-ins with the law resulting in any criminal convictions.

Now Dynimator, if you see any argument from me here in the way of an effort to 'justify his reasons for drinking and driving' its news to me, and I'd invite you to re-read the thread and point it out. Moderator skills should include a certain level of comprehension and retention. But since you didn't say 'drunk driving' but rather drinking and driving that is part of the issue where very reasonable people just don't see eye-to-eye, and for that reason no state has yet to enact legislation automatically authorizing prosecution at zero tolerance levels, though there are lower levels yet for commercial drivers and there is zero tolerance statute for minors. The MADD-endorsed effort to ultimately get interlock on all vehicles on the other hand is such a zero-tolerance effort, and one that could make it happen across the country through technology rather than enactment of state statute.

Zat, as to the self-righteousness possibilities I do need to state in my defense that I was a very vocal and active advocate, a local gadfly if you will, against the advance of authoritarian statism long, long before I had any run-ins with law enforcement, dating back to the eighties when Reagan's war on drugs really got the ball rolling in the direction of a strong shift in govt spending priorities towards mass-prosecution of victimless crime and way from the more positive endeavors we used to assign much higher proportional priority. And again, how much of that we see is something that varies very widely, here in MN higher ed for example used to get 15% of the state general fund and public safety/judiciary got about 2% in those Reagan years; today the figures are 9% and 6% respectively which may seem like a modest shift but it is a shift involving billions of dollars biennially. It goes without saying that many younger voters here are not familiar with the earlier priorities because they were yet to be born; it can be said as well that many that are of more mature age are completely oblivious to the change as they've never kept a finger on the pulse of these budgetary changes and the changes were implemented in incremental manner across a couple decades.

To further exacerbate that shift, on the more local levels all K-12 general ed dollars were stripped from the property tax revenue pie about 10 years ago and those responsibilities are now entirely the state's; counties, municipalities, & townships experienced a very nice windfall as a result, they now get all of that money and today operate with budgets very much larger than what growth due to inflation and population can justify. County govt saw the lion's share of the windfall, and much of our health and human services delivery is done through those county budgets. So a compassionate observation might be that at least those counties are in much better shape to deal with the disadvantaged than they used to be, in these tough economic times. Not the case. Looking back over MN county expenditure tables by category dating back to about the time I graduated from hs in the early seventies, and despite the fact that those 87 counties' revenues have grown sixteen-fold in that time frame when pop growth and inflation can only justify just under a nine-fold increase - H&HS expenditures have only grown just under seven-fold. Public safety on the other hand - jails sheriff's dept expenditures - has seen a 55-fold increase in that time frame. Priorities have shifted even more drastically on the local expenditure level than they have on the state expenditure level.

[Dyenimator]

Don't give me the moderator skills line. You've driven drunk, haven't you? Then you certainly went through the process of reasoning that led you to believe that was the correct option. Drinking and driving, driving drunk, impaired, intoxicated, buzzed, yeah yeah yeah. You can call it different names and say you were one or the other, but in the end it's still too much of a risk in comparison to taking a cab or asking for a designated driver.

Look, the laws or incarceration rates really don't matter. It's that you're doing the darn thing.

[KenA55]

Very presumptive post, Dyenimator.

Though I fully support your right to express your opinions as you please and would never presume to tell you what you're doing, when I've never met you and have no idea what you're doing; nor would I presume to tell you what you may or may not 'give me' in the way of a post.

But here's a return suggestion for you: Choose to never drink, driving or not. Post your phone number as a sober-cab option at no less than three local pubs and make sure that every regular there is fully aware that you will come get them if at all possible, and that there is never a mandatory charge though you will accept gas money if they have it. Show up when called and make good on that at least 3 times a week.

Now that was pretty presumptive of me to assume that you weren't already doing all of that, wasn't it. I'm pretty sure that all of that does apply to you; so I'll assume unless you tell me differently that you are pontificating from a foundation that matches mine.

[homeless]

But here's a return suggestion for you: Choose to never drink, driving or not. Post your phone number as a sober-cab option at no less than three local pubs and make sure that every regular there is fully aware that you will come get them if at all possible, and that there is never a mandatory charge though you will accept gas money if they have it. Show up when called and make good on that at least 3 times a week.


WOW! New excuses. The "not always a driver available" excuse is a new one. Creative, if not compelling.

See Ken, adults plan ahead. They don't cry "oh my, I got drunk and don't have a driver". They make sure they have a driver or cab fare or they don't get intoxicated. It's the adult way to handle things. By adult I mean someone who accepts responsibility for his/her actions, rather than walking blindly through life hoping things will just work out, or the Gods will just smile upon them when they engage in dangerous behavior. That's how adults work.

I teach 9th graders who take more responsibility for their behaviors.

Additionally, I've bartended, and I've worked in restaurants serving alcohol for 15 years in the summers. I don't know one place, that if someone said to the bartender "I'm drunk and I need a cab", the bar wouldn't call for the cab, and pay for the cab, no matter the cost. I'd pay out of my pocket as the bartender.

[homeless]

After reading your post, I now understand. Paraphrased - We would have the money for our schools if we simply upped the BAC level and only prosecuted people when they actually kill someone drunk driving. K.

You and I don't disagree on what defines drunk driving, Ken. You and every damned state in the union disagree. You would allow far beyond what every state allows, as long as nothing gets killed, yet.

If you try and suggest that because you at 39 hadn't gotten a DUI yet, and that "my day will come" too, you are loopy. But if it ever does, what I'll never do is try and justify it in any way, shape or form.

To use a phrase you just did- the more you type, the more you show that at your current age, you are still quite "wet behind the ears".

[homeless]

when you stray from the issues presented

This is what you keep going back to, as if you are presenting something that should create some epiphany in all of us. Suggesting I or we are too dense or stubborn or evasive to listen to your compelling, insightful thoughts on the matter. :rolleyes:

Here is the matter at hand, and nothing else:

Only a child would spend so much energy talking in circles, creating links to education spending, etc. to justify drinking and driving.

Adult - Accepts responsibility for their behaviors.

Child - Avoidance of responsibility for their behaviors.

Age matters not.

[Dyenimator]

Ken, I know you'll drink and drive because I've read your posts that say so. I'm not presuming or assuming anything.

Even if I am in the wrong and I was presumptive, you still haven't given us reasons for drinking and driving.

I will be drinking tonight. I'm walking to the party and walking home. I think that's responsible enough.

Why would I post my # at bars? That's just plain dangerous. There are taxis for a reason. I wouldn't wish to be a taxi driver.

[KenA55]

I'm convinced that you do listen, Chris, because you respond. What you choose to absorb or reject is for you to decide.

Most places don't have taxi service in the area, Dyen. Those services are for the most part clustered into the more densely populated metro areas.

[homeless]

What you choose to absorb or reject is for you to decide.

I think this tone is what blows a lot of people away.

It's as if I'm the one who has engaged in and attempted to justify anti-social, dangerous, criminal behavior and I'm the one that needs a talking to.

:rolleyes:

[MoMoNoMo]

You guys think this thread is accomplishing anything at this point? Is there anything more to say to each other?

Just asking.

[KenA55]

Chris, there is no tone there, just the observation that in any political policy, social policy, or religious discussion there will always be differences in viewpoint or opinions, and civil discourse means people are free to express their points of view without insult or expectation that others will necessarily agree.

So when I suggest in the line you quoted that I have no expectations of or need of changing your mind, that's not saying you need a talking-to, rather it's a simple and straightforward acknowledgment that your judgments are your own to make. Or to put it another way, to each his own epiphany.

[homeless]

You guys think this thread is accomplishing anything at this point? Is there anything more to say to each other?

Well put. Nope. ;)