Ron Paul on the Aurora Shooting

[theaustinescorts]

No one who drives while intoxicated intends to harm anyone, and when they do it's an accident, but they've contributed to it through negligence.

It's time that we stop treating drunk drivers as though they were intentional criminals and get rid of these draconian DWI laws.

There's a difference between carelessness and malice, and this used to be the bedrock of law until the recent hysteria over drunk driving accidents. More accidents are caused by a lot of other forms of carelessness on the roads.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

It's time that we stop treating drunk drivers as though they were intentional criminals and get rid of these draconian DWI laws.

So if i get pulled over for going 40 in a 30 and the cop sees that i'm drunk as a skunk, he should just write me my ticket and send me on my way?

[Guest123018-4]

I replied.
Knowingly driving while intoxicated is accepting the consequences of your actions.
You may not intend to harm anyone but if you knowingly drive while intoxicated what happens as a result of your impairment is not an accident.
Do you normally drive 40 in a 30 or did you do it because you were impaired.
If you normally drive 40 in a 30 you have no respect for the law and being intoxicated at the same time just compounds your lawlessness.
As far as having a tail light out, once again you have shirked your responsibility to insure that your vehicle is functioning in the required manner for driving at night. In addition you have broken the law by driving under the influence. It is quite possible that if you drank less you may care more about the condition of your vehicle.

The punitive measures of DUI is a tool of society to attempt to change a behavior that is no longer acceptable in society. We have long ago determined that murder is a socailly unacceptable action regardless of how the murder is implemented.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

I replied.
Knowingly driving while intoxicated is accepting the consequences of your actions.

And if there are no consequences? I'm still considered to have committed a crime, yes?

If you normally drive 40 in a 30 you have no respect for the law and being intoxicated at the same time just compounds your lawlessness.

Yeah, ok, and you never drive over the speed limit.

The punitive measures of DUI is a tool of society to attempt to change a behavior that is no longer acceptable in society.

Exactly.

Anyone else wish to play? COG? Anyone?

Do you think there should be laws against driving while intoxicated? Yes or no?

[Submodo]

Originally Posted by WTF

The whole nation thinks it ok for government to control us, they just can't agree by which means. Will it be military control (the GOP) or civil control (the Dems)

Or multi-national corporate control (the GOP and the Dems.)

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Submodo

Or multi-national corporate control (the GOP and the Dems.)

Yep

[Submodo]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

No one who drives while intoxicated intends to harm anyone, and when they do it's an accident, but they've contributed to it through negligence.

It's time that we stop treating drunk drivers as though they were intentional criminals and get rid of these draconian DWI laws.

There's a difference between carelessness and malice, and this used to be the bedrock of law until the recent hysteria over drunk driving accidents. More accidents are caused by a lot of other forms of carelessness on the roads.

Drunk drivers ARE intentional criminals.

Is it a known fact that the probability of causing a collision increases if one is intoxicated?

If YES, then one who becomes intoxicated on purpose, is willfully engaging in behavior that they know will increase the probability of a collision. Their disregard of the increased risk is indeed a form of malice itself.

Same can be said for other "distractions" - texting, sex, sleeping...

[Guest123018-4]

I am extremely glad I am not you but if I were, I would do one of two things. Either quit drinking altogether or drink a whole lot more.

As far as obeying the speed limit; I do not speed in a 30mph zone; you will get a ticket. I did that once entirely by accident and a pesky policeman gave me a ticket. I was not paying attention to my speed AND failed to realize I was in a 30MPH zone. The fortunate thing is that in Texas we have some fairly good speed limits like 70MPH on most highways with some being as hig as 85MPH. I also wear my seatbelt. I no longer drnk and drive or drink then drive. The rare exception is two beers with dinner.

Do you know anyone personally that has killed somebody due to DUI? I do.
Do you know anyone that was killed as the result of a DUI? I do.

I am sure that your issues with alcoholism is not the ulterior motive of your posts. I am sure I can cite you all sorts of laws that are directly related to the attempt to stop DUIs by well meaning governments. Open container laws in many states is just one example. The fact is that almost all laws are designed to control the people and when it becomes difficult to do it with one law they create another and then another. It is like the term unauthorized use of a vehicle. You know when they catch the thief with the stolen car but he didn't steal it, he just was using it. See you did not actually catch him stealing it.

The idea that we need to change our culture of violence and that the best place to make those changes are in the home with two parents is nothing new. The slide of our society can be charted right along with the destruction of the family unit. the fact is that with a few exceptions strong family with two parents achieve better results in setting the moral course for children. Ron Paul gave some sage advice.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Ron Paul gave some sage advice.

Ron Paul's advice, while it sounds all nice and neat, is entirely ignorant because it speaks of a world that doesn't exist. Ron Paul needs some lessons on the realities of human nature.

I'm all for DWI laws. The stronger the better. The reason i asked the question, since you're the only one who seems willing to answer, is because according to what i read in the OP, Ron Paul would be against DWI laws. At least if he had any intellectual honesty.

If i drive drunk, nobody's harmed. Nobody. Until the moment when i crash into them. And since there are already laws on the books to address my crashing into someone, then a law designed to address nothing more than my additional likelihood of crashing into someone is just an infringement on my rights. At least according to Ron Paul and his flock.

I would argue it's entirely legitimate for a government to issue preemptive laws on society.

You seemed to agree, but your last post is such a mish-mosh that it's tough to tell.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by Submodo

Drunk drivers ARE intentional criminals.

Is it a known fact that the probability of causing a collision increases if one is intoxicated?

If YES, then one who becomes intoxicated on purpose, is willfully engaging in behavior that they know will increase the probability of a collision. Their disregard of the increased risk is indeed a form of malice itself.

Same can be said for other "distractions" - texting, sex, sleeping...

Driving while intoxicated is careless and negligent, but it's not malicious. No drunk person gets into their car thinking, "I'm gonna go out and hit somebody and cause as much damage as I can.."

Criminal law is supposed to be about protecting society from malicious intent, the "guilty mind," or mens rhea, of malfactors.

When someone causes an accident because they're drunk they should be held completely responsible under civil law. They should be found negligent, but not criminally culpable of a crime.

Throwing drunk drivers in prison for years and years acomplishes absolutely nothing, and degrades the law and all of society.

If someone drives drunk and causes no accident then what's the freakin problem?

Some people just like to complicate things and stir up turmoil, and even disturb the peace.

Crusaders, zealots, liberals, finger-pointers and the police who believe in them, result in a lot of disturbances of what would otherwise be a peaceful society.

As far as the deaths that result, that's terrible, but it doesn't help the harmed to claim that it was intentional when it wasn't. It doesn't help to make claims about intent that aren't really there. When you do that you're just getting angry and overlooking the truth, and the law should try to aproximate the truth.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

The punitive measures of DUI is a tool of society to attempt to change a behavior that is no longer acceptable in society. We have long ago determined that murder is a socailly unacceptable action regardless of how the murder is implemented.

This is the kind of idiocy I'm referring to.

The criminal law isn't "a tool" to just be used any way you want. It can only be used for criminal situations.

There are a million behaviors society might like to discourage, but unless there's a deliberate malicious intent, as in murder, then it doesn't belong in the criminal codes.

Otherwise we wind up with a society like the Nazis had. OMG did I say that?

Let me put it in another way...

Otherwise we end up with a society like they have in Saudi Arabia.

[ok that's better]

[Doove]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

When someone causes an accident because they're drunk they should be held completely responsible under civil law. They should be found negligent, but not criminally culpable of a crime.

Tell that to the dead person.

So i'll ask you again the question i posed to you that you ignored. If a cop pulls me over for speeding and sees that i'm so drunk that i can't even stand up straight, he should just give me my speeding ticket and send me on my way?

I shouldn't assume, but i will anyways. You're a Libertarian, right? If so, it's black/white attitudes like yours that turn people off to Libertarianism.

Though i'll give ya credit. I doubt you're the only one in here who feels the way you do, but at least you've got the guts to admit it.

[theaustinescorts]

I'm not a libertarian.

I'm merely pointing out the purpose of criminal law for all of history until the liberals changed it in the last few years with their insane SOCIAL ENGINEERING agenda.

People die from negligence and carelessness all the time, but it's not a crime unless it's caused by someone who actually meant to perpetrate the killing.

Getting angry about it won't help the cause of justice, and just degrades our republic and legal institutions.

If a policemen sees that you've been drinking he should observe your driving and when you've actually done something illegal while driving BECAUSE you were impared then he should cite you for the illegal and dangerous act, not for the state you are in.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

People die from negligence and carelessness all the time, but it's not a crime unless it's caused by someone who actually meant to perpetrate the killing.

Because most forms of carelessness and negligence are impossible to foresee, legislate against, and/or police.

If a policemen sees that you've been drinking he should observe your driving and when you've actually done something illegal while driving BECAUSE you were impared then he should cite you for the illegal and dangerous act, not for the state you are in.

And if my first act of dangerous driving is crossing a double yellow line and killing someone coming the other way? "Oh well", you say?

[Guest123018-4]

That is a little disingenuous.
You fail to recognize that you are in fact impaired when you drive drunk and that the impairment is likely the cause of the "accident"..
Big difference in my estimation.
NO you did not intend on having an accident but you failed to act on the fact that you were impaired. You made a choice to drive drunk. You may think that your abilities are the same when you are intoxicated but the fact is that they are.
W@ould you want to fly with a pilot that is intoxicated>
Sober, would you let an intoxicated person drive you.

I think you miss the point.
Should there be a law regulating the amount of alcohol in a single container. How about regulating the number of beers that can be sold to a 6 pack rather than a twelve pack or a case. How about regulating the amount of alcohol a business can sell in a day or how much they can sell to an individual. Since driving while intoxicated is the issue shouldnt we regulate the number of cars sold or how about how much fuel you can buy. Maybe we should make all vehicles "nerf" vehicles so that if you git somebody all that happens is a lille nerf.

You cant have a law for everything that could possibly happen anymore than you can completely change human nature. The fact remains that no matter what you do, there will always be the very few that will commit heinous crimes against society, and to punish the vast numbers that are not one of the few is an infringement on your liberty.