I have some faith in the American justice system. I once saw a Ferrari with "Party Plates". My thoughts were if someone has the money to purchase a Ferrari, they surely should have the funds to buy their way out of a DUI but the charges stuck.
Personally my views related to DUI would be pretty far out and unorthodox, but i hope Mr. Pelosi faces some dire consequences.
DUI in and of itself is a victimless crime. So is speeding. I do not think in and of itself it should be punishable - if you can operate your vehicle in whatever condition and no-one is ever the wiser, fine.
Punishment for if others are harmed (or their property) or certainly killed (death penalty yourself) should be high enough that most would not risk it. Pelosi caused a crash so there you go.
I'd even argue that the same punishment should apply whether drunk or sober, as no accident is an accident, but that probably is even more "far out and unorthodox." We really need an entirely different approach to driving responsibility in my view - after all, it's actually the most dangerous thing most people ever do in their whole lives.
I'm curious if our "FO&U" match up or if you have totally different ideas.
I don't want to be that guy but I guess I have to.
It's the blood alcohol limits and the clear money grabbing scheme that's the issue. .08 is very easy to fail honestly. I'm okay with 0.0, 0 tolerance. Everyone thinks they're fine after a few beers. If it were zero tolerance I think that would dissuade much more.
I'd much prefer harsher penalties with regards to losing the license than putting people in debt.
Also I think they need to bring back the work license which allows you to go to work and back. If you mess up while driving on that, I'm okay with a ten year ban on having a driver's license.
CDL holders have to abide by 0 tolerance, so not really sure why everyone else can drive buzzed. Maybe, allow a slight amount for everyone to account only for mouthwash or anything like that which doesn't actually impair.
Well the thing there is, MADD has always been about prohibition, not preventing DUI. They got it down to .08 which most people can drive fine. .04 is next. Then .00.
So I can't agree with this as 2 beers with dinner should not get a DUI unless you are such a lightweight you crash anyway and that's when they can give you a DUI even though you weren't over the limit (.12 was at least legit IMO).
That is also enough to cause a measurable delay in reaction time for most people. I don't care if you are (or think you are) one of the few who can have a higher amount of BAC and still react the same. The law has to be applied equally. That means a single standard for everyone.
Work license applies in PA from what my friend told me. Her friend got a DUI and had a work license because there are so few public transport options in many areas.
But apparently the first no th you have regular breathalyzer tests show up at your house via cop, at any time and you have to be 100% sober or you get one installed in your car (which I'd prefer because drinking and NOT driving is 0 risk to other drivers.
DUI is Driving Under the Influence. There is nothing about reckless driving or anything else about it. It is simply having too high a BAC.
I'm not proud but a couple times I've been caught out/drank too much and was certainly DUI. I started driving and said "whoah I'd better stay sharp" and was very careful - no one the wiser. But if I'd gotten pulled over for whatever, I'd have been busted hard regardless.
You sound like someone how can't reason correctly but happily calls people shills without supporting logic.
Most 30 year old men can drive better while black out drunk than most 60 year old women can drive dead sober. Blood alcohol is an unconstitutional measure.
Where are you getting your stats? O are you just using anecdotes from comparing you and your old lady?
If you want to get wasted, stay at home and poison yourself without driving. No need to take others down with you.
If there are other bad drivers on the road, they shouldn't be allowed to drive either. It doesn't give you a free pass to just try and keep it between the ditches until you get home.
Its probably similar off of what you have said. I see it as usually a vivtimless crime used by corrupt governments to raise revenue.
My thoughts were, allowing people to test to get an endorsement up to like .12 BAC. Cause of an accident requires you to forfeit 10% earnings until other party is made whole. Cause of injury in accident equals jail time. Causing a death in accident, jail time plus 30% earning forfeiture to bereaved family for life.
This could be fine tuned more, but i think its pretty close to fair while not just being a revenue stream to governments.
I personally know people who were killed by a drunk driver. This fucker killed the father and daughter mere days before the daughter’s Sweet Sixteen birthday party which was all planned out by the mother who survived the crash (barely).
You cannot imagine the horror and grief, I saw the mangled bloody van this family was in and the drunk driver walked away from the crash with no injuries. My views on drunk driving are VERY different from yours.
Tell that to the extended family of a local doctor, her husband, and three kids. ALL killed in a fiery crash when a drunk wrong-way driver hit them head-on on I-75 as they drove back to Michigan from Florida. Drunk as a fucking skunk and brutally ended five lives because he was too impaired to realize he’d gone down the off ramp.
That's not "DUI in and of itself." There are clearly victims. If you reread my reasoning, this driver should get the death penalty. (In fact, I would argue even without the UI part he should, but too many people think CRASHES are ACCIDENTS vs almost always having a cause (the only exception I would make would be true "act of God" type things like a tree fell in the road and knocked your car across the centerline), so that's gonna be a hard one to convince anyone....)
Would this guy getting severely (maximum) punished help the victims in this case? No. But just like other crime, a severe enough penalty would deter others. In my proposed system, this would have happened enough times already, this guy may well have never attempted driving while even 1/4 as drunk.
I'm really not sure what's so hard about this - it seems to be a very emotional topic and there also seems to be a misunderstanding about what constitutes a crime (having a victim) and not....
I have some faith in the American justice system. I once saw a Ferrari with "Party Plates". My thoughts were if someone has the money to purchase a Ferrari, they surely should have the funds to buy their way out of a DUI but the charges stuck.
Personally my views related to DUI would be pretty far out and unorthodox, but i hope Mr. Pelosi faces some dire consequences.
Consequences, Mrs Pelosi will probably cut him off from denture cleaning night.
DUI in and of itself is a victimless crime. So is speeding. I do not think in and of itself it should be punishable - if you can operate your vehicle in whatever condition and no-one is ever the wiser, fine.
Punishment for if others are harmed (or their property) or certainly killed (death penalty yourself) should be high enough that most would not risk it. Pelosi caused a crash so there you go.
I'd even argue that the same punishment should apply whether drunk or sober, as no accident is an accident, but that probably is even more "far out and unorthodox." We really need an entirely different approach to driving responsibility in my view - after all, it's actually the most dangerous thing most people ever do in their whole lives.
I'm curious if our "FO&U" match up or if you have totally different ideas.
DUI isnt a victimless crime. If you're driving wrecklessly enough to be pulled over, then you have the potential to cause a wreck.
Same with speeding IF its really a limit legitimately set for safety (and not just nice for speed traps).
People shouldn't have to be injured or dead before limits are enforced.
You actually sound more like a shill who'd shift the dui blame and then just remove driving privileges from everyone because "They are so dangerous".
I don't want to be that guy but I guess I have to.
It's the blood alcohol limits and the clear money grabbing scheme that's the issue. .08 is very easy to fail honestly. I'm okay with 0.0, 0 tolerance. Everyone thinks they're fine after a few beers. If it were zero tolerance I think that would dissuade much more.
I'd much prefer harsher penalties with regards to losing the license than putting people in debt.
Also I think they need to bring back the work license which allows you to go to work and back. If you mess up while driving on that, I'm okay with a ten year ban on having a driver's license.
CDL holders have to abide by 0 tolerance, so not really sure why everyone else can drive buzzed. Maybe, allow a slight amount for everyone to account only for mouthwash or anything like that which doesn't actually impair.
Well the thing there is, MADD has always been about prohibition, not preventing DUI. They got it down to .08 which most people can drive fine. .04 is next. Then .00.
So I can't agree with this as 2 beers with dinner should not get a DUI unless you are such a lightweight you crash anyway and that's when they can give you a DUI even though you weren't over the limit (.12 was at least legit IMO).
That is also enough to cause a measurable delay in reaction time for most people. I don't care if you are (or think you are) one of the few who can have a higher amount of BAC and still react the same. The law has to be applied equally. That means a single standard for everyone.
Work license applies in PA from what my friend told me. Her friend got a DUI and had a work license because there are so few public transport options in many areas.
But apparently the first no th you have regular breathalyzer tests show up at your house via cop, at any time and you have to be 100% sober or you get one installed in your car (which I'd prefer because drinking and NOT driving is 0 risk to other drivers.
DUI is Driving Under the Influence. There is nothing about reckless driving or anything else about it. It is simply having too high a BAC.
I'm not proud but a couple times I've been caught out/drank too much and was certainly DUI. I started driving and said "whoah I'd better stay sharp" and was very careful - no one the wiser. But if I'd gotten pulled over for whatever, I'd have been busted hard regardless.
You sound like someone how can't reason correctly but happily calls people shills without supporting logic.
Why’d you get pulled over? Don’t tell me they just felt like messing with you.
Well, then maybe you're just a narcissistic alcoholic instead of a shill.
In a polite society we must all obey rules.
How about unconstitutional "rules?"
Most 30 year old men can drive better while black out drunk than most 60 year old women can drive dead sober. Blood alcohol is an unconstitutional measure.
And the first thing to go with alcohol is judgement!
Where are you getting your stats? O are you just using anecdotes from comparing you and your old lady?
If you want to get wasted, stay at home and poison yourself without driving. No need to take others down with you.
If there are other bad drivers on the road, they shouldn't be allowed to drive either. It doesn't give you a free pass to just try and keep it between the ditches until you get home.
Its probably similar off of what you have said. I see it as usually a vivtimless crime used by corrupt governments to raise revenue.
My thoughts were, allowing people to test to get an endorsement up to like .12 BAC. Cause of an accident requires you to forfeit 10% earnings until other party is made whole. Cause of injury in accident equals jail time. Causing a death in accident, jail time plus 30% earning forfeiture to bereaved family for life.
This could be fine tuned more, but i think its pretty close to fair while not just being a revenue stream to governments.
Taxation is already theft, you want the government to be able to take more?
Perhaps I was not clear, by this I meant if you DO get ONE DUI you are SO FUCT including you won't be driving for a long while.
Edit: Have you not noticed that CURRENT setup/penalties easily allow your scenario?
Is this what the person Pelosi hit (T-Boned) while driving under the influence that night? I'm sure they were a victim. Just sayin'
Edit: Just sayin'.
I personally know people who were killed by a drunk driver. This fucker killed the father and daughter mere days before the daughter’s Sweet Sixteen birthday party which was all planned out by the mother who survived the crash (barely).
You cannot imagine the horror and grief, I saw the mangled bloody van this family was in and the drunk driver walked away from the crash with no injuries. My views on drunk driving are VERY different from yours.
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/88877827/sarah-surprise_marie-barkus
Then there were VICTIMS. I don't know how many times I have to explain this.
Tell that to the extended family of a local doctor, her husband, and three kids. ALL killed in a fiery crash when a drunk wrong-way driver hit them head-on on I-75 as they drove back to Michigan from Florida. Drunk as a fucking skunk and brutally ended five lives because he was too impaired to realize he’d gone down the off ramp.
That's not "DUI in and of itself." There are clearly victims. If you reread my reasoning, this driver should get the death penalty. (In fact, I would argue even without the UI part he should, but too many people think CRASHES are ACCIDENTS vs almost always having a cause (the only exception I would make would be true "act of God" type things like a tree fell in the road and knocked your car across the centerline), so that's gonna be a hard one to convince anyone....)
Would this guy getting severely (maximum) punished help the victims in this case? No. But just like other crime, a severe enough penalty would deter others. In my proposed system, this would have happened enough times already, this guy may well have never attempted driving while even 1/4 as drunk.
I'm really not sure what's so hard about this - it seems to be a very emotional topic and there also seems to be a misunderstanding about what constitutes a crime (having a victim) and not....
Slipping on ice or hydroplaning on water is intentional? Having to swerve to avoid debris on the road is an intentional malicious act?
Pepe your comments is gay, so you are saying some one should get away with it if they luck out and dont hurt anyone? stfu