|
This is overly cynical. It's easy to forget when reading about the affluenza defense and now being on the run that he's not making these decisions. But no one likes admitting that how many people a drunk driver kills, or how many people they kill texting for that matter, is basically a roll of the dice. So they want the judge to treat him worse because his lawyer made a douchey defense and he got the poo poo luck on which car he hit while drunk. I looked for, but could not find, statistics on how the number of people in a car affects accident rates or the distribution of fatalities per accident. That might not be the right phrase, what % of accidents have quadruple fatalities?
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Dec 21, 2015 |
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Unfortunately, as with any manslaughter, I think that the more people you kill the more guilty you are. It's just a matter of how justice works in this country. And frankly I think that even if it's just a matter of chance, you still end four lives. Intent doesn't matter. And that loving defense is so insanely repugnant that the lawyer should be disbarred.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
I get what people are saying but I'm also not holding any sympathy for a spoiled rich kid who murdered two children, a good samaritan (in front of his children), a stranded motorist, and paralyzed one of his friends 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:And now he's fled the country after allegedly violating his parole. Does he deserve a third chance now? They don't call it a three strikes statute because you only get two chances, do they? Clearly whatever he does next will be equally as bad as killing 4 people, so they can just bust him for that 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Niton posted:They don't call it a three strikes statute because you only get two chances, do they? Clearly whatever he does next will be equally as bad as killing 4 people, so they can just bust him for that I don't think three strikes matters if you just don't give a gently caress about your probation and do the opposite of what you were commanded to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
No he's going to jail for this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I get what people are saying but I'm also not holding any sympathy for a spoiled rich kid who murdered two children, a good samaritan (in front of his children), a stranded motorist, and paralyzed one of his friends anyone who does hold sympathy for him is an idiot, and i'm not gonna read any of the previous posts so i can just pretend this post is a non-sequitiur instead of in response to someone
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
A car plowed into 40 people at Miss Universe today along with reports of a shooting inside the Planet Hollywood where everyone was trapped plus a suicide outside. Not a good day to be in Vegas, I guess. It's still locked down and things are still going on. Right-wing news is of course blaming Muslim terrorists for everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:I don't think three strikes matters if you just don't give a gently caress about your probation and do the opposite of what you were commanded to do. Oh he should totally serve his sentence now. But people were pissed at him getting off with probation. Nostalgia4Infinity posted:And now he's fled the country after allegedly violating his parole. Does he deserve a third chance now? Yes. After a couple years in prison. The 4 other people in the car is pure statistical bad luck on his part. He shouldn't be getting some extra punishment for that nor for the fact that his family is rich and douchey. Because that's what you want to punish him for, that's why you are posting about him and not every other drunk driver that got the same deal before him. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Naw I'm against drunk drivers who kill people getting probation in general. The fact that he murdered four people and is a douchey rich kid makes him getting probation even more outrageous. Nice assumption though! Nostalgia4Infinity fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This is overly cynical. It's easy to forget when reading about the affluenza defense and now being on the run that he's not making these decisions. But no one likes admitting that how many people a drunk driver kills, or how many people they kill texting for that matter, is basically a roll of the dice. So they want the judge to treat him worse because his lawyer made a douchey defense and he got the poo poo luck on which car he hit while drunk. I looked for, but could not find, statistics on how the number of people in a car affects accident rates or the distribution of fatalities per accident. That might not be the right phrase, what % of accidents have quadruple fatalities? I don't know but this wasn't an accident and he wasn't unlucky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:A car plowed into 40 people at Miss Universe today along with reports of a shooting inside the Planet Hollywood where everyone was trapped plus a suicide outside. Not a good day to be in Vegas, I guess. It's still locked down and things are still going on. Right-wing news is of course blaming Muslim terrorists for everything. If terrorists took out Vegas they'd be up a tick in my book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh he should totally serve his sentence now. But people were pissed at him getting off with probation. drunk drivers shouldn't get probation, i agree drunk drivers who murder people shouldn't get probation, and should be treated like any other murderer, another great idea dude
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Drunk driving's not a big deal. Just drive slow everyone does it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:drunk drivers shouldn't get probation, i agree I genuinely don't think it should not matter, legally speaking, if someone dies or not when you are drunk driving. Generally I would favor raising the bar on all drunk driving to match that. However, I also believe that first time drunk drivers should be given some chance at reform before being thrown into the prison system. The judge felt the same way. Now they are going to throw the book at him, but that doesn't mean he can't do better later in life. Hopefully what comes next will be something that helps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:The 4 other people in the car is pure statistical bad luck on his part. Is it? Obviously there's a bit of chance in the situation occurring, but not all drunk driving is equal. A BAC above 0.08% is always a going to be illegal, but the fact is, not everyone is going to be impaired at these values, and there are different levels of impairment you can expect depending on how high your BAC is. Regardless of the details of the situation, I don't think it's that much of a reach to say that, on average, intoxicated drivers who are the most debilitated (i.e. the most dangerous) are going to be the most prone to killing others while driving. If this is the case, I don't think it's unreasonable to make an argument, with the aim of ensuring public safety, that if a drunk driver killed people, they should face a harsher sentence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Suckthemonkey posted:Is it? Obviously there's a bit of chance in the situation occurring, but not all drunk driving is equal. A BAC above 0.08% is always a going to be illegal, but the fact is, not everyone is going to be impaired at these values, and there are different levels of impairment you can expect depending on how high your BAC is. Regardless of the details of the situation, I don't think it's that much of a reach to say that, on average, intoxicated drivers who are the most debilitated (i.e. the most dangerous) are going to be the most prone to killing others while driving. If this is the case, I don't think it's unreasonable to make an argument, with the aim of ensuring public safety, that if a drunk driver killed people, they should face a harsher sentence. Then it sounds like your just grading drunkenness on a curve. I don't think that's a great way to do things either. I'd actually be pretty in favor of stricter alcohol laws, especially on the preventative end, but I'm not a big fan of one strikes for anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Suckthemonkey posted:Is it? Obviously there's a bit of chance in the situation occurring, but not all drunk driving is equal. A BAC above 0.08% is always a going to be illegal, but the fact is, not everyone is going to be impaired at these values, and there are different levels of impairment you can expect depending on how high your BAC is. Regardless of the details of the situation, I don't think it's that much of a reach to say that, on average, intoxicated drivers who are the most debilitated (i.e. the most dangerous) are going to be the most prone to killing others while driving. If this is the case, I don't think it's unreasonable to make an argument, with the aim of ensuring public safety, that if a drunk driver killed people, they should face a harsher sentence. There's an excessive DUI version out there, too, for D&D posters who get behind the wheel. Also a 0.08 is generally enough to tank your ability to multitask. Which is why drunk drivers swerve all over the place: they're focusing on their speed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Also a 0.08 is generally enough to tank your ability to multitask. Which is why drunk drivers swerve all over the place: they're focusing on their speed. [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Honestly there's a pretty big difference between being mentally incapacitated by an arbitrary alcohol content in your blood, and being drunk and driving like a yahoo because driving is fun. The latter is why DD accidents can be so bad and what DD laws are trying to tamp down on, the former is really high at least for germans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:A car plowed into 40 people at Miss Universe today along with reports of a shooting inside the Planet Hollywood where everyone was trapped plus a suicide outside. Not a good day to be in Vegas, I guess. It's still locked down and things are still going on. Right-wing news is of course blaming Muslim terrorists for everything. the local media is salivating at the thought of it being terrorism 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
DUI laws are too strict when I drive but not strict enough when someone else is driving. I am a much better drunk driver than anyone else on the road.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Drunk driving's not a big deal. Just drive slow everyone does it. Well every time there's an argument about speed limits it's established by consensus that people who drive slow are filthy shitbags and extremely unsafe. I suppose if they are drunk it's probably true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I genuinely don't think it should not matter, legally speaking, if someone dies or not when you are drunk driving. Generally I would favor raising the bar on all drunk driving to match that. However, I also believe that first time drunk drivers should be given some chance at reform before being thrown into the prison system. The judge felt the same way. Now they are going to throw the book at him, but that doesn't mean he can't do better later in life. Hopefully what comes next will be something that helps. This is the craziest loving thing I've ever read. So you are genuinely saying 'ok my house is a couple blocks over, I drove here already, gonna just real slow drive home and not do that dumb thing again' and 'well yea I hit a few people and killed them because I was drunk' should be treated the exact same in the law? Like, it's not hard to just say 'if you drive drunk you're going to jail' but even if you're going to say that first timers need lenience why on earth would you lump an idiot getting lucky and not hurting anyone with this dipshit who actually killed people? Also no, the judge did not feel the same way, he felt that this was a special case, he literally said so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Then it sounds like your just grading drunkenness on a curve. I don't think that's a great way to do things either. I'd actually be pretty in favor of stricter alcohol laws, especially on the preventative end, but I'm not a big fan of one strikes for anything. One of the minority of D&D posters who is consistent between alcohol and gun control. Protip for light drunk driving: don't try to keep your course or you will swerve. Just get parallel between the lines on the highway and lightly rest your hands on the wheel so as to not micromanage it. Correct every once and a while as necessary. If you can't get going straight in the lane at all, you're not lightly drunk. Also: Luigi Thirty posted:DUI laws are too strict when I drive but not strict enough when someone else is driving. I am a much better drunk driver than anyone else on the road. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:17
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
There's a term for it and everything: light drunk driving. That sounds legit to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:One of the minority of D&D posters who is consistent between alcohol and gun control. Or you could not be a fuckwad and plan enough ahead to not put yourself in that position. Get help if you can't plan that out. Edit: I'm on my phone and linking stuffs annoying for sources so sorry. Here's some support: field sobriety tests involving funky stuff. It's all to distract you and see how well you perform multiple things at once. Like walk the line while counting to 30. Islam is the Lite Rock FM fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:There's a term for it and everything: light drunk driving. That sounds legit to me. http://buzzeddriving.adcouncil.org/
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Know who else justifies their drunk driving? That's right: boomers. Eat poo poo, you equivocating motherfuckers, that's how bad you are
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Or you could not be a fuckwad and plan enough ahead to not put yourself in that position. Get help if you can't plan that out. This. I can count the number of times I've driven when I shouldn't have on one hand and the last time it happened was 5 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Protip for light drunk driving Holy poo poo how about pro tip: call a loving cab or uber or a friend or literally anything other than deciding to risk murdering someone because you can't loving plan ahead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Protip for light drunk driving: If you're contemplating whether it's ok to do some "light drunk driving" you're too drunk to drive. I hope you enjoy paying the state thousands of dollars for the privilege of starting your car with a straw!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:If you're contemplating whether it's ok to do some "light drunk driving" you're too drunk to drive. Not all states make you get that. Should though, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh he should totally serve his sentence now. But people were pissed at him getting off with probation. So a drunk driver killing no one should be treated the same as a drunk driver killing ten people? What the gently caress is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
hope all you drunk drivers get pulled over and have your licenses suspended. I just want safety
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
Enkmar posted:hope all you drunk drivers get pulled over and have your licenses suspended. I just want safety And before some smartass chimes in about how driving is always dangerous: this is true, but there is no excuse for knowingly increasing the danger with completely avoidable risk factors like drunk driving or texting etc
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh he should totally serve his sentence now. But people were pissed at him getting off with probation. It should also be noted that he was speeding (duh), had Vallium in his system, blew a .24, and had just stolen two cases of beer for a Wal-Mart. I'd be OK with probation for an incident like the one I just mentioned, had it not ended with four people being killed. All of that plus the four deaths? Some harsher punishment would be nice. Nothing terrible, but some sort of jail time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:So a drunk driver killing no one should be treated the same as a drunk driver killing ten people? What the gently caress is wrong with you? I kinda get the idea behind this train of thought. I don't necessarily agree, but I think you can create a consistent code of laws that doesn't distinguish between reckless behavior that kills people and reckless behavior that, by luck, does not kill people. If I get mad at my TV, pull out a gun and open fire into the TV and apartment on the other side, it's only a matter of luck whether or not someone dies. Why should I get a break just because I happened to not kill anyone while behaving in an absurdly reckless manner?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Well if what Kalman is saying is true, then I guess I can't really hold her ruling against her on racial/economic grounds. But the kid remains an unrepentant piece of dog trash and deserves to go to jail for a super duper long time. Yep, if she's impartial handing it down I can't gold it against her. The Kid hosed up his second go, lay the law down and bury the motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I kinda get the idea behind this train of thought. I don't necessarily agree, but I think you can create a consistent code of laws that doesn't distinguish between reckless behavior that kills people and reckless behavior that, by luck, does not kill people. Didn't Kill Someone is the reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 08:30
|
|