daf What I'm about to write here will be highly controversial. I'm sorry for that. I do not believe that people should drink and drive. It's just stupid and risky.

My heart goes out to anyone who has lost a loved one to the carelessness of a drunk driver. I believe strongly that such idiots should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law..for vehicular homicide. Not drunk driving.

That said..here's what I have to share:

We give a lot of lip service to the word "freedom" in this country. We claim we love it, we claim we cherish it, we claim that it is the cornerstone of our society. And yet, time and again, we prove through legislation what a bunch of B.S. that is.

Anyone who truly cherishes freedom also understands that risk is part of the package that comes with living in a free society.

And let's talk about the actual risks involved for a moment:

Did you know that less than 1% of our population dies every year?
(It was around 0.79% in 2004 and 0.83% in 2005.)

That's from all causes, including: Heart disease, cancer, stroke, lung ailments, diabetes,Alzheimer's, flu, auto accidents, kidney failure, infections, suicide, liver disease, hypertension, accidental poisoning, falling, Parkinson's, homicide, pneumonia, newborn deaths and HIV.

If you don't believe me, check with the Center For Disease Control.

You'll find that less than one third of all deaths in this country are people under the age of 65. The vast majority of deaths that occur in this country occur among the elderly. And those only amount to about 2/3 of 1% of our population.

It is for this reason that I don't buy any of the arguments in favor of regulations designed to protect us from risk at the cost of our liberties. That includes regulations related to drunk driving.

Statistically, the vast majority of drunk drivers make it home without hitting anyone.

It's not a crime to be an idiot. It is a crime to damage property or injure another.

But see, we don't care about freedom as much as we say we do. And it should be obvious at this point in my little spiel, that we're nowhere near as brave as we claim to be here in the "Home of the Brave."

It's not that drunk driving and other risky behaviors are sterling examples of how we should avail ourselves of American liberty; it's just that regulating any sort of risky behavior opens the door to more regulations aimed at other behaviors.

And as the statistics show, these regulations are in the name of less than 1% of our population, 2/3 of whom are over the age of 65.

These regulations aren't designed to protect us from anything. They are designed to allow the government to profit off of risky acts that statistically wouldn't have resulted in any injury at all..to anyone.

Grieve for the dead, but do not impose that grief upon the living.

In my opinion, we should be free to live our lives as we see fit, for as long as we do not harm another or damage another's property.

And if a cop is going to pull over a suspected drunk driver, it had better be to offer him a ride home...

Regards and happy motoring.
WTF are you smoking? so, i should also, be able to randomly fire off my guns in the city or drop heavy objects off of high-rise rooftops with no consequence, eh? cool.

I'd agree with you if the only people at risk were the idiots who did it, but you're arguing from the same line of logic that people use to claim that the war in Iraq is a success based on all of the people, buildings and cars that ARE NOT blown up
dafremen Sounds like your logic is based on fear. Is that true? 080530
daf *Sigh*

I suppose that was rather vague. Let me elaborate:

If a person shoots their gun in the air, or throws heavy things off of buildings..they run the risk of hurting someone, killing someone or damaging someone's property.

All of these are crimes. With these crimes come consequences.

Now..knowing that the risky act of firing your gun into the air comes with consequences..most folks that might be inclined to such acts...won't engage in them.

And in fact, most people wouldn't engage in those activities anyhow...because they wouldn't want to hurt anyone. That's a fact.

Every day..we log 10s of millions of miles in these 1 - 2 ton death machines called automobiles...allll over the world. You don't see people randomly killing folks...by say...driving onto sidewalks in the middle of a crowded downtown area. It happens...but VERY VERY rarely. So rarely that it makes the news NATIONWIDE..sometimes WORLDWIDE when it happens.

That in itself is practically proof of the overall benign intentions of people
in society.

Your extreme scenario is based in an irrational fear that's been planted in your head that the world is full of psychotic, crazed people.

Statistically that simply IS NOT TRUE.

Crazed lunatics are out there. But they aren't as common as you've apparently been led to believe.
dafremen By the way...tens of millions should be 100s of millions. 080530
  what i'm saying is that regardless of statistical probability, all 3 (random gunfire, object pitching or drunk driving) are all willful acts in which the person undertaking the act is not the only one at risk, the logic -such as it is- runs both ways if you say punishing this variety of stupidity puts us on a slippery slope towards some dire totalitarian future, i say letting one variety of potentially dangerous idiocy slide might well lead to letting more varieties of weapons-grade fucknuttery slide too. and i consider myself as having a rather libertarian bent

And seriously, what are you smoking? Does it grow well in dry climates?

What on earth, other than some latent masochism or some really good drugs could drive someone to initiate such a smugly asinine argument driven by shaky statitics and crass rationalizations unless you deliberately wanted to have both your argument and your character impugned? You want to get verbally bashed so that you can cry about how misunderstood you are, it gives you that rising, swelling feeling in your sack that somehow reinforces your own belief in how right you are

Dude, beyond this point i'm out...i am not going to feed your martyr complex any further.
dafremen Now you're just goading. Tsk tsk.

Are YOU trying to amuse me...(I'm gunna guess here..)zeke?

Well you're doing a bang up job. ; )

(Calling statistics that are listed at the Center For Disease Control shakey when you'd quote them in a heartbeat if they supported YOUR position. Shaddap you silly politician.. who has patience for wanna be intellectuals who don't think?)

(Now...the rest of this is for the occasional soul who might happen across these pages. Aaaand so you'll keep yanking your own pull starter..)

Let's assume for a second that the American people are just going to go apeshit and start drinking and driving.

What do you think the reaction of people is going to be?

Well of course..the same it's always been. To get the word out (as per the 1st Amendment) and inform people of the danger.

And guess what? As people think about it..a percentage of them decide they don't like that behavior..and engage in conversation with friends and family about it. Pressure is applied..through loved ones and friends. And is also perceived by those engaging in those acts during conversations negative to that behavior.

If the behavior ISN'T seen as all that harmful (ie. [well hell let's tell you what I'd be smoking if I had any..]Marijuana consumption) then the behavior would be tolerated and only those individuals who were inclined to perform those acts...would. But they could.

This has happened to several trends in the U.S that were NOT outlawed. Smoking is a decent example. It has cutback sharply due to media campaigns, employer pressure and other social influences.

That's called a society. We associate with one another and form a basic common opinion that creates perceived and real pressures and incentives. We do NOT create an all governing body that imposes the will of a few on the behaviors of others.

Laws should provide for acts that do harm to others..ACTUALLY DO HARM...but not for behaviors that COULD do harm.

That's absurd. That's like saying that free people need to be told what to do.

How can we call ourselves free in such a society? When does the loss of liberty end? When does the finger pointing and fear-mongering and emotional rhetoric..(such as both of your replies have resorted to)..end?

There is no epidemic of crime. It's worse than it was...but it was never really that bad comparatively.

There are no great hordes of people dying at the hands of others.

There is a very normal...very reasonable death rate (less than 1% per year as per http://www.cdc.gov)..and there are fairly reasonable people with pretty good hearts..turning into psychotics like you because they are being fed the fear and paranoia shit that you're spouting.

And it's threatening to get worse with you acting as a Public Address speaker for that paranoia.

(It never fails to amaze me how the same people that usually blame overpopulation on many of society's ills..are shaking in their boots to reduce risk..and deaths.)

Anyho0...there is a beautiful rain storm outside tonight.

Might be back for a bit more show later.

You may flap your gums now.
birdmad my two cents, daf...

nobody has missed seeing or otherwise experiencing this side of you.
dafremen fair enough.

i didn't miss the re-introduction of peer_pressure (ie. nobody, we, around here..you know...speaking for everyone all at once like that) as a social engineering tool.

you know how i feel about free_speech..

and you know i dont mind doing this stuff any more than doing any of my other stuff.

let it go..let me be..and all is well. (all is well for me regardless. this is as much an outlet for exercising my brain as any of the others. the energy gets me a little ornery than usual, but it's good to experience different frames of mind and explore your moods when you're a writer.)

im only a shitraker if it seems like it'll be funny or otherwise entertaining. i dont need it to be acceptable to anyone...and i certainly dont have a whole hell of a lot of empathy for folks that think that the way to respond to negative energy is by throwing more negative energy at it.

in fact, they are half of the problem with this world..and i have to live in it.

so fuck em if they want to rant and rave instead of approaching the whole thing like rational human beings..ala either minnesota_chris hilarious reaction...or Truth's tempered, reasonable reaction. we need more of that around this place, and this world..in my opinion.

but that's just my opinion...so you keep on saying what you have to say. i'll do the same..i dont think there's any question of that, now is there?

(crosses fingers and looks around for lightning bolts sent by the blather_gods)
They call me Truth daf daf daf, are you free?

do you wish to do something positive with that freedom?

is this positive in your eyes?

if so, positive to whom?

does your free speech have a purpose?

is it possible that you could be inflicted with the same sickness that you claim inflicts us all?

are none of the attempts at clever comebacks reactions to reactions and actions?

is your name calling not a reaction?

are you exempted from it because you believe that you are the only and first person that noticed that people react to things?
Temporary Enemy of Daf *mmf!* *yrmmhh!* *frrfgh!*

(Lips zipped for now. I'm going to wait to see if it responds to TCMT before I append my own commentary on *this* fiasco.)
bird let you be you, huh?

man, i give up.

don't ask for what you're not known for giving in return around here.
dafremen (raises fist in the air) Yea! You tell im bird! Fuck you dafremen! Everyone knows hypocrisy is unacceptable. My mother and father told me so. If you can't do exactly what you say, providing for predictable results then I'm ALSO done with you. (Fuckin shit_raker) Way to give him hell bird!! Hell yes! 080602
tourist I got Dismissed From a Jury once Because I Told the Attorney's selecting, that as Long as I could Drive Up to A window At A Liquor Store and Get The Makings of A Cocktail (cup of ice, soda and Liqour) handed to Me in the Drivers Seat, That I Couldn't Truly Uphold The "Open Container" portion of The Law. I Added that If The Person In Question Was Really InToxicated that That Was No Excuse For Breaking Any other Law.

I've been in Cars With Drunk Drivers, and I've Witnessed Accidents( Minor For Sure) Where the Drunk Driver Just Kept on Going... "Did I Hit That Car? or What?" And the Innocent Parked car was Dinged and I suppose Their Insurance Rates went Up if They Got it Repaired. We Got Home Alive,
S'all Good. An Aqaintace Of Mine Once Had Someone Smash His Car clean Up on The Curb By A Car In the Night that Sped Around a Turn Losing It Into His Drivers side Door, By The Time He Got His Pants On And Ran Outside The Driver Had Run But The Bottles and cans That Littered The Inside Didn't Speak very Highly of Sobriety. Unfortunatly the Vehicle Was Reported As Stolen So My Friend Just Had To Eat The Damages. Another Freind of Mine Was Driving Back from The Liqour Store With Another Fifth of Vodka When He Ran A Stop sign And Smacked Hell Out Of Some Unfortunate. He and The Passanger Ran Like Hell, Later He Called The Cops And Claimed That The Passanger Had Been Driving (Seeing how His License was Suspended already for similar shenanigans) when the Police Asked Why HE had Run, He Just said that When the Other Guy Ran He Just Paniced. He also told them He Didn't Know who the Dude Was, He Had Just Ask Him To Drive to The Store Since His License was Suspended. He Was a consumate Liar, And They let Him Go. Fortunately His Insurance Covered The Damages that Time.
As far as Getting the Word Out, Drunks Make Awfully Poor Listeners I've Found.
Yeah, Freedom is a Farce, An Empty Promise We are Taught to Proclaim Without True Substance, And Liberty Impies Responsibility For Your Actions
Perhaps That is Why Most People Fear It.
You Pick Some Pretty Edgy Things To Stand Up For Daf. You Really Do.
dafremen All the easy battles have been covered.

daf, i can safely assume (please don't give me the ol' "you know what they say about assuming") that you have never lost someone in a drunk driving accident.

please indulge me: what if your wife was driving out of the grocery store parking lot some evening and was hit by a drunk driver going 75 in a 35? not only is the car completely fucked but so is your wife. imagine vividly the blood pouring, twisted limbs, bruises, bones, the whole lot.

but she doesn't die. she becomes a vegetable. you are now forced to care for her as well as the rest of your family.

are you really serious with your apathy for those injured, the lives affected... those that Don't fit into your Death-Only statistics?

and if you are, perhaps you should share this apathy with your wife so she can prepare the divorce papers before she lacks the physical strength to do so.
dafremen Why are the only arguments against this idea emotional ones? Is that what we should be doing before passing permanent legislation? No. We need to think legislation through LOGICALLY. We need to take into account the needs and desires of our SOCIETY into account..not a very minute minority of its individuals. I'm sorry.

My second cousin wrapped herself around a tree. My friend Ninja (bless that brother) killed himself on a motorcycle.

Don't suggest to me what I should feel please. I don't believe in running a country by embracing hysteria and emotionalism. K?
dafremen Our divorce will be finalized on the 6th of this month. I filed the papers myself. Anything else? 080602
stork daddy there just needs to be a drunk driving lane obviously. with inflatable bumpers like at the bowling alley. 080602
Doar why do you blatherers continue to do this?

is it your enjoyment of the moment?

Daf is daf, stork is stork, truth is variable. let live, and be happy within yourself. Don't you know that the "temporary_anti_daf_league....whatever group you want to call yourselves".

We all pimp ourselves here, but do we collect on the other whoring we support?

Let it go.

. Please .
dafremen Stork, that was TRULY an inspired idea. You should run for office. Finally an American thinking like an American instead of like they do in Washington. 080602
mickey stupid 080602
1 dead 14 injured http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/06/02/mexico.bikers.ap/index.html

look at that picture and run your stupid fucking assertion by me again, chuckles
stork daddy in a truly libertarian state, that man would've been bludgeoned with bike helmets. 080603
dafremen Heheh..no doubt. With bikes even.


Pointing out ONE or two examples then screaming about the "poor dead" and saying "do it for the children" will not convince a person who realizes that if emotional arguments are ALL you have to resort to..you must not have a very good case.

That's what you folks keep doing.

Going back to "This guy is dead" and "That guy is dead." Ok..those are crimes. prosecute those responsible for their deaths. not for drunk driving...for vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide...take your pick.

the point is..we already have laws on the books to cover the crimes. why are you so bent out of shape to regulate the behaviors that OCCASIONALLY lead to those crimes being committed?

and why cant you cite ONE statistic that shows that there is some EPIDEMIC of people being killed and injured by drunk drivers?

Not examples.. this is a nation of 300 million people. Shit happens in a nation of that many people..but not nearly often enough to reach even LOTTO SCRATCHER PRIZE odds. Get it?

You have a better chance of dying of heart diease than of being hit by a drunk driver. no one's outlawing the manufacture of fatty foods and requiring people to exercise are they?

Why dont you feel sorry for the poor kids..whose parents raised them to be big fat slobs? Why aren't you railing against the companies that misrepresent their products. Heart diseas is the NUMBER ONE cause of death in this country. Then cancer.

But you want to cry and tie the hands of a people who are supposed to be free..for only a minute FRACTION of less than 1% of our population.

you really need to get a grip..and thank gawd you're not in office. you'd have us living like nazis in no time with that emotional outlook on legislating.

be emotional when dealing with individuals. do not be emotional when proposing restrictive legislation..unless you have the numbers to back it up. the freedoms of the living mean more than some memorial to the dead signed up on Capitol Hill by back-patting, hissy-fit throwing politicians.

Here's a tissue...we're proposing legislation that will bind ALL Americans for decades to come.

Please try to compose yourself.
kthxbye oh, go fuck yourself already, you pompous, smirking prick 080603
z Alcohol Impaired Driving Statistics

Over 50% of all fatal highway crashes involving two or more cars are alcohol related.
Over 65% of all fatal single car crashes are alcohol related.
Over 36% percent of all adult pedestrian accidents are alcohol related.
80% of all fatal alcohol related auto crashes occur between 8 pm and 8 am.
36% of all adult pedestrian accidents involve an intoxicated pedestrian.

z for me, the that says it all. 080603
Lemon_Soda Personal responsibility is pointless if its forced.

Hate is the choice of a weak mind.

I wasn't angry at the driver. I was upset at the situation. And I miss my friend.
birdmad Wow, that's a pretty big goddamn stretch, there daf.

comparing DUI laws to Nazism. heaven forbid there be some mechanism in place to give people pause before potentially doing something dangerously stupid.

"Oh my god, i can't get shitfaced and then get behind the wheel...it's fascism, i tell ya, next thing you know, they will be making casual drinkers wear little liquor bottle emblems on their lapels"

maybe you are the one who needs to compose yourself, Rog ol' boy.

kind of goes back to something i said years ago here about how it is only due to the consequence of law that there are any number of people in my past whom i have not killed and eaten just for the satisfaction of being able to excrete them later. i don't do it because it's highly illegal and that is the ONLY thing stopping me.

Between that and the things i saw when i was studying forensics i can tell you that what you so casually trivialize with statistics, i have seen in the flesh, living and dead, broken, burned, scarred and disabled. I'll agree that a lot of laws on the books today are largely cooked up by the same insurance companies and financial institutions that own most legislators by way of campaign contributions and whatnot, but come the fuck on here, man...defending the "right" of shitheads to operate a vehicle in an impaired state? batshit crazy, man.

and from the numerous times i have been nearly clipped in a crosswalk by the other breed of inattentive assholes behind the wheel who can't blame liquor for their shite judgment are the goddamned space monkeys who think their cell phone conversations are more import than the pedestrians in the crosswalk.
dafremen First of all..this is more of the same shit. Taking numbers out of context in order to make them look bigger..is a propagandist move.

You're no different than the government in your insistence on distorting the numbers to support your case.

It's a simple formula: total number traffic fatalities related to alcohol/total population of the United States * 100. Very simple.

Any other statistics are irrelevant since we're talking about legislation that affects that ENTIRE population of 304,000,000 people.

You HAVE to put it in the context of the number of people that will be affected by the restrictive legislation. Period. You can't say we're going to affect your life over something that probably won't affect your life.

50% of all highway crashes...accounts for approximately...well shit..let's do the math.

The total population of the Unites States is 304,000,000 it's actually a little more.

Here is a DIRECT quote from the CDC's report on death statistics:

"Motor vehicle traffic—In 2005, motor vehicle traffic-related injuries resulted in 43,667 deaths, accounting for 25.1 percent of all injury deaths (Table 18). The slight decrease in the age-adjusted death rate for motor vehicle traffic-related injuries from 2004 (33) to 2005 (14.7 deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population to 14.6) was not statistically
significant." Note that last line..the traffic deaths went down by half..but it wasn't significant. See 50% doesn't mean shit unless you put it in context.

Get it so far? Ok, so that's ALL traffic related deaths.

So you say...50% of that? 21,833 deaths. We'll round it up to 22,000 just to give your alarmist rhetoric a fighting chance.

22 THOUSAND alcohol related traffic fatalities divided by 304 MILLION people multiplied by 100 equals: 0.007% of the population.

You want to have laws that affect 100% of the population in order to possibly save 0.007% of the population. That's absurd.

As we continue with this pointless debate..it becomes clearer and clearer that YOU'VE been brainwashed..and haven't done your homework.

I have...that's how I came to these conclusions. Meanwhile paychecks get raped and the rent is late...because of alarmist sheep..like you.

No thanks..I'm an American. I believe in freedom and in doing what's best for preserving freedom. Not in crying boohoo because I decided to be lazy and let a politican do the thinking for me.
dafremen As for you bird..you didn't read what I said.

I said that driving while drunk is not something I approve of. I also said that it WASN'T a sterling example of how we should exercise our liberties.

But my final point was..that when we start with drunk driving..we move on to something else.

Fuck that. The rule apparently needs to be clear and fixed.

So its: if it kills someone, injures someone or causes property damage..then its a crime..otherwise it's just risky behavior.

Nice try. Again more alarmist bullshit..taking my words out of context..basically you..like these others are resorting to half-truths and spin. Is that REALLY what you stand for?
dafremen By the way...eating people and excreting them is killing them. That's a crime.

It's not surprising that folks don't want to admit they've fallen for the biggest line of bullshit ever.

Who would? That means your intelligent asses fell for a sucker's con.

Who didn't at first?

Go read. Go look for yourself and stop listening to alarmist groups with bullshit numbers.

If they have to lie about the extent of the problem in order to sway public opinion..then you KNOW there is something wrong with what they are doing.
z so, playing chicken should be legal? how about running red lights? maybe we should remove all speed limits? what about bird's cell phone example (implied)? and passing on the right, tail gating or motorcycle white-lining? what about seatbelt laws? or child seats? or headlight laws. or re-tread laws.

these are all risk related standards that (overall) reduce death and injury. should we abolish them too?

i think not. i find your argument risky. and i don't want to be killed by your risk taking.
daf yes, yes and yes.

people don't want to die man. You're forgetting that. they engage in risky behaviors a lot less frequently than you're assuming. It's exactly because they think these behaviors happen frequently like you do...because they are afraid of "chaos" like you appear to..and because they don't want to die..that they support these laws in the first place.

the death statistics going back quite a few decades are evidence of the fact that it's never been dangerous. Not statistically.

The WHOLE safety campaign has been a big put-on that really comes down to revenue for the state.

It's a hard thing to swallow after all we've been taught to believe...but deal with that metamorphosis in beliefs.

Don't reject it.

Learn to get your head OUT of that box that we are born and raised in.

It isn't easy. We're talking a lifetime of conditioning that has led us to believe that these things are true.

They aren't.

It wasn't your idea to make up these alarmist notions..I understand that.

But now..you have information. You can choose to argue the facts. Or you can choose to investigate them.

Which do you choose?
dafremen P.S. I don't take many risks in my life. Other than moving around alot...and putting controversial opinions up on the public chopping block. That doesn't mean, that as an American I shouldn't value freedom over my own life.

Die for freedom is what we say..I'm willing to do that. Try me..see if I'm kidding. LAND OF THE FREE - HOME OF THE BRAVE. Seems like the priorities should be clear. But they aren't are they? What American gives up freedoms to save his skin?
daf On a side note:

All of you who disagree with the idea of a free country..talk an awful lot about lost lives.

I'd like to point out that for every law they make..they collect revenue from people for incidents that NEVER would have resulted in death or injury. They collect on the possibility of injury or death.

Each fine paid represents days of an American's life. Add them up and the FAR exceed the number of deaths in total hours based on average life expectancy. That's a fact. For every person that dies..220 years worth of hours is collected by the state. That's 220 YEARS at approximately $8/hour. Why don't you care about the suffering and exploitation of the living..who can actually feel the pain?

Why are you so willing to cry over a dead stranger's grave..but not over a living stranger's empty cupboard or their eviction notice?

Why dont you cry over the days of their lives taken from them for no good reason?
somebody i agree that there are some over-zealouse laws out there, but i wouldn't list drunk driving laws among them 080603
dafremen it only takes one unnecessary restriction to open the door to them all. if only that weren't so..perhaps i'd take up a M.A.D.D.
cause like forcing others to act in a manner i feel is appropriate..rather than stating my case...and letting them decide for themselves.

but there is no epidemic of drunk driving deaths and injuries. it was all a big put on. another excuse to scoop the days from our lives to pay for more laws to be made.
daf People...PLEASE..


We want you to make it home to your bed safe and sound. We'd love to tuck you in tonight..and read you tomorrow's story. We want you to see another warm sunrise.
z if each drunk driver had an empty road in the desert, with no property or people within miles of its route, i might agree with you. but, we all share the impaired choices of every driver who chooses to expose us to his or her arrogance. that fatality statistics as compared to other causes of death are small is irrelevant. avoidable death is reason enough. any avoidable death. each avoidable death. this is not an issue of individual liberty, it is one of personal responsibility. at minimum, it is a sign of respect for the rights of others. 080604
appended by another a sign of respect for the right of others TO KEEP LIVING. 080604
z i, zeke, approve the above appendage. 080604
z i think drunk driving laws versus liberty is a false dichotomy. 080604
daf personal responsibility is the key phrase. Not dictated responsibility. Until attitudes change..mechanisms do nothing to improve us as a society.

And yes...the statistics DO matter.

Because in a land with 304 MILLION different ideas about how life should be lived and liberty explored..no ONE GROUP should have the right to dictate the terms of another's life journey.

I was horribly abused as a child. Most folks would say.."we would pass regulation to protect you from that these days."

My answer to that is..I like the way my life is. I wouldn't take back a moment of my past..or the tragedies..or the awful consequences that I've paid for the choices of others.

They helped me to grow..they taught me many things about myself...life...and the foolishness of second guessing time's endless march.

One person or a group INTENTIONALLY playing God with the lives and life paths of others in anticipation of events that may never come..is not acceptable and might very well have steered my destiny into a direction that I wouldn't have been anywhere near as satisfied with.

I have empathy now. I know pain now..and know how to deal with it. I understand that life is for living...not for dying in fear. Not for cowering in a corner for fear of what MIGHT be.

Rather..I will deal day by day with what IS..and take it one day at a time.

There is NO REASON in a free society for one group to assume they have the answer. Do not speak for me without my permission. Do not dictate my path for it is not your own..and certainly..it is not YOURS to decide what is best for me...or anyone else..regardless of who you are.

God/Tao/The Flow/Time..takes care of these things...who do we think we are? We can't even see to our next relationship...or next paycheck..our next success or failure most days. And we actually believe we have the foresight to know what's best for everyone?
dafremen I'd also like to point out how insistently you've tried to call the original blathe a defense of drunk driving.

It's the only point you've tried to make the whole time.

It's an argument for you...not a discussion. Like a sledgehammer you wield the same alarmist rhetoric that has been pumped into our brains for years now. Say something different. Say something that DIDN'T come from a M.A.D.D. poster.

Tell me how you feel about the endless stream of regulations that now has people in the state I'm living in..so fuming..so pissed off..so fed up..so broke..

Do you like the move toward a police state? More laws mean more police. More perception of danger and more people shouting that the world is a dangerous place means more people giving up their rights to cops..on the street.

Is that really what you stand for? Are you really so afraid of the boogeymen you've been told about..that you're afraid to embrace PURE freedom?

I'm not. Freedom 'Til Death. Laws be damned. Try swerving in and out of the cones at a construction zone that's never manned and 6 miles long because double fines in work zones inevitably leads to more work zones.

So many people so bored to tears that they pay out the ass for entertainment...vacations..escape..

And yet you'd increase the tedium by removing all risk..even when that risk is minuscule.

Live a little..take a chance..chances are...it's nowhere near as bad as you've been led to believe.

P.S. Overpopulation is bitch-slapping us daily. No wonder..the birth rate exceeds the death rate in this country..by DOUBLE. That's right..for every 1 person that dies...two are born. Unemployment is going sky high...wanna guess why?

More people means more expendable workers fighting over the same number of jobs...or less. More people means less land to be shared among us. More people means the money gets spread thinner.

You're just focusing on the little picture..try focusing on the WHOLE thing for a second and realize what a foolish foolish mistake we are making in the name of fear..here in the HOME OF THE BRAVE.
z mortality statistics do not include injury, maiming, psychological damage, property damage or near misses. i imagine (but do not know) that incidences of these which are associated with alcohol consumption far out number the related mortality statistics. death is not the only measure of harm, by far. and i do lay it at the feet of the intoxicated. it is their choice which is the variable factor.

incidentally, the prosecution of drunk drivers, i imagine, probably is most common because of observable behavior. weaving, erratic driving, sudden changes in speed or stops, lane control issues etc. those behaviors are inherently dangerous to others. that, to me, is reason enough to prosecute. disaster averted. another murderer off the road.
dafremen zeke..you should really look at what you're doing (This has nothing to do with your position..which is as valid as any other one.) You don't have discussions..you just go on because you're in an intellectual competition in your mind. it's sad when discussion becomes a competition. it's sad what you're using your mind for..

see also: answers_for_truth

is done here..
z i disagree. i am very aware of my rhetorical process. i choose to say what i mean, and i meant what i said above. what i should do is not for you to say. thank you for the suggestion, however, you will excuse me if i do not comply, i hope. 080604
minnesota_chris "It's not a crime to be an idiot. It is a crime to damage property or injure another."

that's completely inaccurate. If I was to have a brain aneurysm and drive my car through the wall of the local McDonalds and knock Ronald out of his shoes, nobody would prosecute me with anything, even though I'd be causing property damage and hurting poor Ronald.

What would be illegal, though, is if I had a high chance of causing an accident (for instance, if I had periodic seizures or was legally blind) and still decided to get behind the wheel. That would be being an idiot.

Perhaps you mean "it shouldn't be a crime to be an idiot." While perhaps it shouldn't be a crime to be self-destructive, it should be a crime to risk the lives of others unnecessarily.

Me, I'm just not sure why bars have parking lots. Who's driving all those cars, anyways?
sports_fan yay!!! zeke wins!! zeke! zeke! zeke! 080604
z surely they are all driven by designated drivers! who else could it be? 080604
minnesota_chris it totally sucks, sitting at a bar and watching everyone else get soused.

I'm not sure if that's a valid legal defense though.
dafremen Thinking of drinking?

Pesky the pesky patrolman and breath-alyzers that you paid for starting to get you down?

Try the new Teddy Kennedy signature series boot...from the Dog_Boot_Company.

With a built-in alcohol-meter that can read Blood Alcohol Content directly from your feet with a precision measured in thousandths of a percent, the Teddy Kennedy signature boot provides you with the accuracy and piece of mind you'll need to drink all the way up to 0.079% BAC without fear of losing your house to the State (or to your attorney.)

So get the Teddy Kennedy..and drive with a buzz...and with confidence!

The Dog_Boot_Company..keeping the rest of society from making decisions that affect YOU without your say-so since 1956.
minnesota_chris and without fear of losing track of your girfriend 080605
dos Ooh, missed this. Daf, you're my fucking hero!

For the moment, anyway. And no, I'm not kidding.
dos Darest ye doubt me, see: click_it_or_ticket 080910
dosquatch Here's a dirty little secret about traffic accident statistics - the compilers are quite liberal with what falls under the umbrella of "alcohol related" accidents. It doesn't mean "drunk", even a legal BAC still gets netted in as "alcohol related". It doesn't matter who caused the accident - a sober person running a light and t_boning a driver who has had a beer is "alcohol related".

Sometimes, the mere presence of a drunk passenger is "alcohol related".

All of this in an effort to inflate the number as much as possible, all so someone can point and say, "alcohol is bad, mkay?"

And, after all of the shady figuring and loose definitions of "alcohol related", in 2005 there were 16,885 deaths in accidents that were "alcohol related". That's less than 40%.

That's as high as they could inflate the number while still retaining credibility.

That means, class, that even granting them the best possible case they can make...

pay attention, this is important...

FUCK YOU SO, i hope more people die in car crashes, who cares? 080911
Dosquatch Meh. It's not so much that I actively wish ill on people, as much as I merely accept that life is inherently a fatal proposition, the process of living carries with it a certain amount of risk, and no matter how extensive your efforts you cannot mitigate that risk.

In fact, the ongoing efforts to nerf_coat the world gives more of an illusion of safety than any ACTUAL safety.

(*ahem*, YODA ON) Illusions of safety lead to complacency, complacency leads to lack of vigilance, lack of vigilance precludes noticing ACTUAL danger, which makes that danger even more dangerous than need be. (*cough*, sorry about that)

So, it's not that I wish ill. It's that I accept that shit_happens.

Somebody will try to argue that this means "I don't care," but that's not true, either.
your own words! "got cites?" if not, GITFO. 080911
dosquatch Ah, "I know you are but what am I?"

The last refuge of the spoiled brat. Erm, "petulant child".

See, fuffle, the difference is I called you on your bullshit, and you cited NOTHING. I will.

What you need, I got it. Traffic statistics? Here ya go:
From 2002, but the doc covers more ground in more detail than the stats I was looking at earlier from 2005, but the percentages are similar so it's still relevant. (And you'll notice it's an authoritative source)

What it says:
"NHTSA now estimates alcohol involvement in the
following three categories: 0.00 g/dl, no alcohol; 0.01 to 0.07 g/dl,
impaired; and 0.08+, intoxicated." Meaning, any BAC != 0.00 g/dl counts as "alcohol involvement".

"Traffic fatalities in alcohol-related crashes rose slightly (by 0.1 percent)
from 17,400 in 2001 to 17,419 in 2002. The 17,419 alcohol-related
fatalities in 2002 (41 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year) represent
a 5 percent reduction from the 18,290 alcohol-related fatalities reported in
1992 (47 percent of the total)." Based on this data, we see that alcohol involved accidents remain about 44% +- 3%. The median is higher than the stats from 2005, but it still means that nominally 56% of all fatal accidents involve ONLY SOBER PEOPLE.

Ah, this is interesting - "In 2002, 35 percent of all traffic fatalities occurred in crashes in which
at least one driver or nonoccupant had a BAC of 0.08 g/dl or greater."

35% involve an actual drunk person, but I just learned something I didn't know. Let's pay particular attention to that word "nonoccupant" - for an accident to have "alcohol involvement", apparently, you don't even need a drunk passenger! Everyone in the car can be dry as the Sahara and it STILL be an alcohol involved accident.
. what we'd need (what i want, here) would be to legalise drunk driving for some time (long enough for people to stop instinctively thinking 'i'm over the limit, better not drive') and see if more people die/are injured. if more people die (and fuck trivialising deaths with statistics), then the law's a good thing. 080911
dosquatch How else do you intend to talk about them? I'm not going to care, in any meaningful way, that someone whom I've never heard of, met, or had any contact with has passed away.

Life is a game already lost. You are going to die. Not if, not maybe, you will with complete certainty one day no longer be alive among us. 'Tis only a question of when and how.
Spoiled Child Analogy

"I'm just gonna swing this sword around on a crowded pedestrian mall, and if someone gets impaled, its their own damn fault. I've every right."
dos Well, yeah. If he's swinging *at* you, that's one thing, but if he's just swinging it in general and you wander into the blade, doesn't that seem a silly and avoidable action on your part?

Just saying.

All the same, though, I've seen that guy. In fact, it was 3 swords. He also twirled a flaming baton, spat fire, and stood on top of an 8' ladder and walked the crowd.

. so cocky... 'next?'..

what have you actually said to respond to the analogy? that you've met a nutter... wow. who hasn't?

the equivalent to 'wandering into the blade', the 'silly and avoidable action', in the case of drunk driving, is simply, walking on the pavement. what a crazy thing to do! how stupid of me to risk life and limb by walking on the pavement when someone was just about to drive there! i can't imagine why i didn't see it coming. this particular swordsman was moving at fifty miles an hour, so even though he wasn't aiming for me, even though i didn't want to get stabbed, it kind of inevitably happened.

death is inevitable, though, so i guess i don't mind. since i had to die some day, there's no reason to value my or other lives...
(or at least, that's what i guessed you were saying about death, otherwise the only meaning that speech might have had would be to make you sound cool, as if you didn't fear death.)
. it also occurs to me that while more people may die from other things (old age, cancer), there's nothing we can do about that. death statistics don't really reveal anything like the avoidability of the death. legislation is naturally, and rightly, going to come in where it can reduce easily avoidable deaths. as for the pain people feel when those close to them die easily avoidable deaths, i won't say anything. nor that of those who accidentally kill.

wow, it's like, the more i think about it, the more wrong i think you are about this issue. as for the pain i feel when i see people being so wrong...
dos No, that I've seen a street performer who juggled short swords, among other circus tricks. A group of two foot sharpened blades flying around in the air seems directly applicable to your previous argument, even if not exactly what you had in mind.

you said "is simply, walking on the pavement. what a crazy thing to do! how stupid of me to risk life and limb by walking on the pavement when someone was just about to drive there!"

Don't be silly. You don't even have to step outside. In the past year or so, there have been 3 cases in my area where a car has driven through the front doors of businesses and either hurt or killed people inside. One of which was done in anger by a guy bounced from a bar ("alcohol involvement", but not drunk).

One other case had a car end up in someone's living room.

I imagine that you're going to say I'm answering the wrong part of your argument again.
dafremen I think what's being overlooked here by anonymous dot is that killing people or injuring people through reckless behavior is ALREADY a crime...and rightfully so. Having the right to swing a sword around at the mall does NOT mean that you aren't responsible if you kill or injure someone while exercising that right.

The DIFFERENCE between the two approaches (allowing people to take risks and regulating those risks) is that less people are going to be involved in risky behavior that results in death or injury than the number of people that just engage in risky behavior.

That said, it's OBVIOUSLY in the state's best interest to prosecute risky behavior than it is for the state to only prosecute risky behavior that results in death or injury. More prosecutions = more revenue.
. since you know you are, why not do something about it, and actually respond to my argument? digression, 'the unexpected' (it certainly is unexpected, and rather stupid, to really bang home the point i was making about the one-sidedness of the choice to take the risk to drink and drive) and snootiness are dull. if you could actually refute or counter my arguments, it might be interesting. hell, i guess i'd settle for you just engaging with them. i didn't have high hopes though, so i'm hardly disappointed. if you think you've said more than that, or could, then please, don't hold back for my sake. 080912
. (d'oh, the above paragraph was meant to be a direct response to dos, but daf got in between...)

yes, i see, daf, it is very true that the drunk driving itself is not the problem, the deaths that occasionally result from it, which are themselves already illegal acts, are the problem. i guess that means that drunk driving laws are in place not as punishments for serious crimes, but as preventative or deterrant measures to reduce serious crimes.

as i said above, even if it only saves a few lives, i'd say it's worth it. and as i just wrote on click_it_or_ticket, i'm sure that it does, because the authoritative 'no' to drunk driving and the risk of being caught alone deters people who are otherwise quite recklessly drunk, and by probability alone fewer drunk drivers means fewer accidents. naturally, empirical evidence would be better, to determine the relationship of the law to casualty count, which was the first thing i wrote on this page.
z the notion of personal responsibility that is often used by libertarians and people with similar outlooks, seems to be predicated on the idea that people's judgement and standards for the safety of others are equally high. if, as in the example of the sword weilding mall rat, i were to be accidentally killed by what she judged as a good risk, then her freedom could be said to have deprived me of mine, by no fault of my own. the laws about risky behavior are an attempt to IMPOSE (this word is the crux of the argument for some) a minimum standard.

some people argue that the punitive aspects of laws that deal with risk taking (read as: dui related deaths or injuries) are inherently deterrent in nature. that is debatable. in the analogy above, i would still have died from a severed carotid artery. if the death penalty applied (which it does not) then the attitude of permissiveness about risk taking would have claimed two lives. dead is dead. my right live will have been traded for another's right to self expression. if you ask, i suspect that most people would not make that accommodation, even as a hypothetical scenario.

and regarding the title of this blathe, if one defines a crime as anything that is circumscribed by a law, then drunk driving Is, by definition of those laws that forbid it, a crime. perhaps this blathe should have been "drunk_driving_should_not_be_a_crime".
pff ywolll rrrr crrayayayxxxzzy

where are my keeyss?!?! BITCH! i can n dreive!!
dafremen I still see thousands of drivers in 1 - 3 ton vehicles speeding along every day on EVERY street in the state. But for some reason I don't hear about them exercising their right to drive them by plowing through parks full of smiling women and children.

To say that deterrence is needed is to assume that everyone is willing to risk hurting others in the name of expressing themselves through freedoms. Reality just doesn't support that position.

People are GOOD generally. People ARE responsible with risky freedoms (like driving and gun ownership) generally. All of this alarmist crap that tries to use POSSIBILITY OF RISK and media spin-like reliance on our conditioning toward safety and security seems designed to make a problem appear out of something that ISN'T a problem at all. Mainly because the argument doesn't have a single logical leg to stand on. YEARS of driving and gun-owning Americans PROVE that beyond a shadow of ANY doubt. If history were a scientifically conducted (and corporate sponsored) study, we'd have an AIR-TIGHT case.

By the way, labeling someone a "libertarian" in order to satisfy your need to stick someone in a box because you can't handle the notion of there maybe being 304,000,000 million different perspectives is pretty telling.

Narrow that field in your mind if that's what makes it easier to take in the big picture. (Oops did I say narrow minded? My bad.) (Did I just bait an overinflated ego? Oops...my bad.) : )
dafremen P.S. Your right to live would have been sacrificed not for ONE person's right to self expression, but for the right to free expression of ALL 303,999,999 other people who share this country with you. You selfish law-loving fascist.

(Oops...did it again. Am I maybe bigoted against lawyers? Sigh..I try so hard to be good. My bad.)
dafremen Conscience inclines me to apologize for the name-calling. There's a part of me that can't stand intellectuals spouting emotionally charged spin in the nameof winning battles. It's the basis of politics and the cause of a great deal of suffering in the world. Take this as you will. 080912
. paragraph 1 ("i still see" etc): your analogy (?) is so unclear that i can only imagine it's nonsense. are you saying that having a right doesn't imply/require/provoke testing it to its dangerous limits? if so, then your example of driving through a park/groups of people is poor, since that is not a right that car-drivers have. i'd say drivers are fairly reckless *within* (or around) the numerous limits placed on them: lights - people often speed through yellow lights; speed limit - people generally travel a few miles per hour over the speed limit; pedestrian crossings - i definitely wouldn't step onto one without waiting and looking, even though i have right of way.

paragraph 2: people don't take minor risks that could have major consequences to others in order to express their freedom, true; they do it because they're lazy and self-involved. ('they' includes me and you.)

paragraph 3: people are GOOD!?? and RESPONSIBLE?? people love nothing more than to shirk responsibility, blame others, poison the land they live on, all in all do whatever they can to make their lives easier and more comfortable. people are especially irresponsible when drunk. would you trust a government to make decisions for you if they were permanently drunk? or a parent to make decisions for their children after two bottles of whisky? i'm betting on no, because they're in a position of responsibility (as a driver is), and alcohol will have severely impaired their ability to be responsible.

paragraph 4: i envy zeke the ad hominem attack. i apparently am not worthy of attack, or response. i guess i am just a dot, though.

paragraph 5: isn't baiting overinflated egos a lot of fun?

PS in my country, guns are illegal. why the hell would anyone legalise something that has no purpose except killing and hurting other people? there is a direct correlation between % households with firearms and % gun crimes (which are more violent than non-gun crimes, on the whole).
the significant difference in gun crime rates in the uk and usa can be seen from a quick google search, eg:

PPS why are your examples of debates over freedom restricted to objects/actions of potential danger, like gun owning and drunk driving, and not such infringements on freedom as gay marriage (one of the three_words i just got, as fate would have it, was saved_by_texas_gay_marriage_ban ; i like andru more and more with time). my guess is because you only care about freedoms that affect you, and for all your overblown emotion about freedom, it's just a banner under which you spout your personal gripes. me, i can't stand 'intellectuals' (whatever they are) spouting emotionally charged spin in the name of winning battles..
jane please do not correlate drunk driving and gun control issues. i am openly anti-gun control and i am keeping my mouth shut on this drunk driving ruckus. 080912
. jane: if that was directed at me, or generally, then i'd like to clarify that my PS on gun crime was a digression from the topic at hand i went off on since daf had mentioned gun ownership, and was in no way meant to link or liken the two.
although, i guess in my PPS i put the two in one clause with the words 'potential danger' in front of them, for which i apologise, for carelessly classing together two very different matters.
dafremen You're ignoring the statistics that disprove your position. Plain and simple.

The statistics are clear: A very small fraction of ONE PERCENT of the population is killed in ALL AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS. (Take ALL injuries into account and it shoots up to a whopping 1.02% of the population.)


Firearms? (ALL firearm related INJURIES: 0.04% of the population. DEATHS: a whopping 0.01% of the population. Why have them? Good question...why is the government the largest purchaser and developer of new firearm technology? Lemme guess...it's so that people don't die..right?)

In fact LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of the ENTIRE population of 304,000,000 people is killed from ALL CAUSES.

That includes guns. That includes heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.

What IS IT that people are trying to save our society from? It certainly isn't overpopulation, since the birth rate is DOUBLE the death rate in this country. (And no one seems to be interested in regulations that force the entertainment industry to stop promoting promiscuity among teens.)

By the way, of the LESS THAN 1% that die every year, TWO THIRDS of them are over the age of 65.

What IS your point exactly? That this DECIMAL PERCENTAGE death rate and SINGLE DIGIT injury rate isn't low enough yet?

That somehow we can eliminate deaths and injuries entirely if we just HANDCUFF our people to a few more laws? (Don't tell that to the American Medical Association..)

I'm sitting here listening to folks call the notion of GOOD people who generally (as the statistics prove) AREN'T reckless with their liberties...an IDEALISTIC NOTION, when what YOU are proposing is the elimination of ALL death through legislation which restricts ALL LIVING PEOPLE IN SOCIETY.

Want to REALLY make a "dent" in that 0.83% of the population that dies every year? Try making a law that forces corporations to STOP producing foods that are KNOWN to accelerate heart disease and diabetes. That'll save around 1.275 MILLION people per year. (Course no more sweet junk foods and sticky treats. No more pop machines in the break room.. Hey..they're ONLY FREEDOMS..right?)

Pass laws to restrict corporations from producing products that expose people to "safe" levels of carcinogenic chemicals and "safe" levels of radiation over the course of their lives. (There hasn't been a 40 year study done yet on either. 40 years old is an average age at which these conditions manifest themselves.) Then maybe you'll eliminated most forms of CANCER. That'll save another HALF a MILLION people per year.

But see..in your eyes, THAT'S not negligent OR reckless. That's not an abuse of liberties.

As for the fascist comment, that was just an attempt to goad ol' z for old time's sake, but if you'd like to wear the shoe and it fits...by all means.

A fascist society is one in which everyone must act in a similar manner. (Think fascimile machine..) THAT's what you folks are proposing.

I've gotten along JUST fine for 40 years without killing anyone...and WITHOUT a "daddy" or "mommy" to protect me from all of the "reckless people." I love these "reckless" people. I'd like to see them remain free to express their BEING without the State telling them how to.
daf Sorry jane. Just picked up on the fact that you weren't responding to my blathe. (I was wondering why guns came up...sigh.)

Still the argument about legislating away risky behavior also applies to guns. It's just such a tiny fraction of the population.

The number one cause of crime, injury and quite possibly death in this country is overpopulation, not freedoms.
. i think jane was responding to you, to your saying "years of driving and gun ownership prove" etc, but just in case she was talking to me, i thought i'd respond.

i'm glad you haven't read my argument, because it means i don't need to come up with a new one yet. i have said that statistics trivialise death and i find disgusting this attitude of 'screw the few'. the few, in this case, a fractional percentage as you've pointed out, is still tens of thousands of people. if i killed that many people, accidentally, i'd probably be hated, and people would probably use tax money to lock me up.

i have also said that death statistics do no tell us anything about the avoidability of the death. we cannot do anything to stop people from dying of old age, and we do not have a cure for cancer. i'm not saying we're trying to stop all deaths, and you're an idiot for exaggerating my argument to say that. i'm saying we're trying to stop people dying in avoidable stupid ways.

i have said that drunk driving is being a danger to others, putting others at risk. getting cancer or diabetes does not put other lives at risk, and so our choice to live or not live a healthy lifestyle is a freedom we possess, because it does not harm others.

in fact it occurs to me, if the government was *only* interested in fining risky behaviour, as you claim, they why *aren't* they fining us for living unhealthy lives? is it because they're actually fining us only in situations where we put others at risk? would that be because they're not fining us just because they're greedy bastards (i'm not the one who claimed people are good and responsible; how come governments are exempt from that world vision?) but that they're fining us in the hope of reducing accidents? my god, it's a revelation. once again your own examples undermine the point you're trying to make. the differences between dying of cancer and killing someone while drunk driving are why risking the latter is criminal and the former isn't, and reveals that the government isn't grabbing all the money it can, but fining people who risk the lives of others to stop others from trying the same.

the statistics do not disprove my position, because my position is not '50% of the population die in drunk driving accidents' or something that stupid. my position is death and injury by drunk driving is avoidable if people are deterred from doing it, and if this saves one or more lives (as i'm certain the deterrent does), it's worth it.
jane to clarify: what i was saying was please do not use examples of gun control in an argument about drunk driving. they are two completely separate issues.

(that is all)

(carry on)
dafremen Pharmaceutical companies ARE fining us for living unhealthy lives. You only have to have been observant for 25 - 30 years or more to notice that the diabetic solutions section of your local pharmacy has gone from a little lock-up shelf to an entire aisle of products.

This willingness to agree with whatever "reduces deaths" is admirable, I'll agree, but it's not helping anyone. And to me, it's MUCH more tragic for the MAJORITY to have to give up the hours of their lives (in the form of dollars earned during those hours) and continue living in greater and greater poverty, than it is for less than 1% LESS THAN ONE PERCENT, (c'mon less than one percent? No wonder you're hiding your opinion behind an anonymous punctuation mark man/woman.) Every life IS precious. I agree. But the odds of reducing ALL deaths are NIL. There will be deaths in a nation of 304 MILLION people. Deal with that and try to realize that some of us truly ARE brave. We truly ARE willing to face astronomical risk to remain free. Hell some of us are willing to face tazers and batons in order to defend freedom, why are you so willing to sell those freedoms out?

This is NOT about deaths..even if you would make those of us who value the freedoms of generations over security out to be insensitive. It's about freedom to express one's self within a society. In order to make that expression as TRULY free as possible, what are the MINIMUM number of regulations that need to be enacted?

If you are afraid of drunk drivers and think that they are such a huge problem...stay off of the roads during peak "drunky" hours. Don't tell the rest of us through legislation what it is that we need to do with our lives. Don't reduce the quality of our lives and our ability to express our BEING (as in "human being") because you happen to subscribe to paranoid notions. Please. Stop. You're destroying freedom and killing the American experience.
somebody let's get real. why do you think drunk driving laws have become so stringent? just because the state wants to persecute its constituents? how ridiculous.

constituents found an extremely high correlation between drunken drivers and highway casualties/fatalities. constituents pushed for measures to correct this grievance. constituents got their way. Good state! **petting motion**

yes, america's freedom begins to sag beneath the weight of excessive social legislation... but drunk driving laws are far, far, far away from the epicenter of undue statist intervention.
jeff "stay off of the roads during peak "drunky" hours."

why should their freedom to drive drunk impede on my freedom to drive at any time without feeling unsafe?
dafremen This goes back and forth. We are not children. If there were a choice about being surrounded by and chained to the legislation of society. You might have a point. But as it stands your point is that there is only room in the world for the paranoid and fearful to enjoy freedom..the rest are to be forced into behaviors that placate the timid...paranoid...fearful or not.

If you want to kill the behavior without infringing upon freedom..educate, be aware and cross your fingers.
the jokes write themselves i should be allowed to ply with fire near propane tanks and fuel depots.

if i blow up, my death by explosion or disfigurement from burning should be considered punishment enough and that should satisfy any one else victmised by my stupidity and douchebaggery

hey, why should anyone else's desire to not be incinerated impinge on my good time
fresh shit same old rake this goes back and forth because you are pretty much pathologically unwilling to ever concede the idea that maybe - just maybe - you are totally blowing it out your ass

you can be the raging "enfant terrible" with one breath happily throwing bombs and the misunderstood martyr with the next breath, wondering why nobody enjoyed the explosions

you seem to lack the capacity for introspection required to even entertain, however briefly, the concept of your own fallibility - that little voice from your subconscious that says "you know, we might be a little off-base here"

and "d00d," that makes you kinda scary
Concerned Bystander It is him that the laws are made for. The special one who is so confident that he (or she) exempts himself from the judgement of his peers. The one who walks away from the wreckage of other's lives and may still not recognize their own fallibility. Long live the laws that restrict him. Long live the rest of us. Long live the innocent. 080929
cesar duff-face, why do you think that people who desired a little law and order are "paranoid and fearful"? wouldn't you consider that's a terrible generalization and exaggeration? do you mean to say that raping little children is also not a crime because that infringes in the rights and freedoms of pedophiles?? you might answer yes because you are too cool for school but in fairness, it is wrong and i wish you would know to tell basic wrongs from basic rights. 080929
dafremen First off. I don't drink and drive. Nor do I play with a torch at gas stations. I WAS however at a gas station in the Philippines where the jitney driver very casually unscrewed the cap to his vehicle's gas tank (located under his seat) and, with the very long ash from his cigarette falling off the end and landing on the ground near the gas station attendant's feet, asked him to fill it up in a Tagalog which I didn't understand at the time. (The ash missed landing in the gas can by about 2 inches.)

For the record, we did not all die in a fiery ball of seething, screaming Pacific Island destruction. The trip proceeded normally, in spite of my overreaction. (I'd been spoonfed paranoia since I was a lad too you see. American boy.)

The point of this entire blathe is to make a point. That point is that LAW is ALWAYS imposed upon the unwilling in the name of some great act of social conscience..foregoing completely the notion that there is already a life going on quite well thank you...which does not need to be micro-managed or scripted.

The inane notion (why do I ever listen to myself) was that someone might be able to pick through the brainwashed emotional reaction that has been instilled in us about the issue of drunk driving long enough to consider the ramifications of using LAW and RESTRICTION as tools of social engineering.

It is stated very clearly that I am against drunk driving at the beginning of this. That I think it is stupid and that I truly feel for those who have lost loved ones to drunk driving. I've lost a friend and a cousin.

But see? We're not programmed to read. We're programmed for sound bites (like the title of this blathe.) And although we've been digging up ammo to support the respective "sides" of the discussion..once the ammo is exhausted...at that moment when the rhetoric is worn out and the assured victory of "logic" hasn't been secured by the common notion..then we find the real root of the conditioning that brings on the reaction in the first place.

Hello...I agree with you..drunk driving is a tragedy. Is this the right solution? Does it open the door to more abuses than the solutions it promises?

This is the way you'd expect it to happen. But just stir the pot a little bit. Make a few strong...strange statements..and watch it rise to the surface. Legislation...rule based on exploiting a fearful "possibility" (as opposed to probability) wary populace.

Scientists have told us that there is a random chance of ANYTHING happening. In order to narrow it down then, to what we might come across in our daily lives...they try to stick with "probability."

They are often quoted calling this "reason" or "rational."

But all bets are out the window when someone with enough money wants to change the way we behave. Turn on the tube..preach to the kids..click it or ticket. Pay up and shut up because you can't fight city hall.

Reasonable "side" my ass. : )
Lemon_Soda My girlfreind raises goats. I've watched their behaviour. They started outside of a pen, wandering free. Many died from accidents, some from predators. She put them in a goat pen. When she has food for them, or is walking away, they come straight for her. When she walks toward them, or chases them, they run in fear. Some of the goats don't like being in the pen, so they escape. They invariably hang out around the edges fo the fence, though, to be near the other goats, and of course, so they arn't too far away at feeding time. Their well cared for, and loved. But there is no chagrin or hesitation when my girlfriend needs the meat, either. 080930
the life of wryly which is funny, because humans_are_animals too 080930
Baron Otto Filet-Show Daffy, you can argue that certain prophylactic measures are a slide down the slope toward fascism, but someone can just as easily counter that your arguments advocate one down the other slippery slope into anarchy

in short: other than stirring up an argument wherein you insist that yours is the only "righteous" indignation, what the fvck was your actual point?

You're not going to sway anybody because you have all of the rhetorical finesse of being f*cked in the ear with a 20-ton concrete schvantze.

This whole thing is little more than the verbal equivalent of Ron Jeremy's donut impersonation back when he was younger and more flexible
Lemon_Soda You don't have to be an animal to act like one. Humans are not animals. 080930
Lemon_Soda And Daf swayed ME...I've read everything on here and what he has to say(once you get past the way its said)makes sense to me.

Ultimately, though, I think its a mix of both, regardless of how you look at it, that makes this contry what it is. Console yourself, daf, that if things truly get as bad as you fear, there WILL be revolution. To everything a season...

Ofcourse, "Truth" is a matter of perspective and I can only speak for mine.
zeke humans are animals. 080930
Lemon_Soda Are not.

.: Since drunk driving is currently illegal, it is a crime. The only qualification for being a crime is legislation. There are no golden tablets.

Until recently, sodomy laws rendered gay sex a crime. Ridiculous legislation, perhaps, but that's what makes crimes crimes and criminals criminals.

I agree with legislation against drunk driving. I disagree with the acceptable blood-alcohol level being lower than .12, however...
dafremen is still trying to decide if anarchy's such a bad word.. 080930
dafremen To Baron-Otto:

Is that what this is about? Swaying people? The winner convinces? The loser runs out of words? I hope you don't REALLY think that way..do you?
aught O fell 8Eo Spare us the phony attempt at high-mindedness, daf.

If this was ever a game to be won or lost, you designed it so that you could be it's only winner because your neverending ego would never allow anything else.

you weren't trying to edify anyone with any of this, you just felt like throwing a bomb and watching the sparks fly and then wallowing in the debris

seriously, what do you do for an encore?

do you wave your johnson at a bunch of passing nuns and then wonder why most of them are not amused?
one is a sick duck and the other... irritating when the shoe is on the other foot, ain't it

(and not just because the toes are pressed in funny)
dafremen I asked you a question:
Do you think this is about domination with words?

OR perhaps about convincing people of something?

Well? And if not...why are you trying to "put shoes on the other foot"? Is it because you felt that shoes were put on your feet nd are hoping to watch someone else in your position? Is it that you need to spread what you disliked?

What IS it that you're expressing? And what in the world does it have to do with anyone but you? (It's ok..take a deep breath. They're only words..you can handle this.)
scorekeeper points for otto
penalty for daf
Dumbfounded Ad Finitum Daf, what is this really about? So you think drunk driving isn't criminal. We get that. Most of us seem to disagree. If you aren't trying to convince us, and this isn't just some weird ego thing for you, then what is the point of your incessant reiterations? 080930
dafremen Fair question. It's about this:

I was not born on this planet to be ruled over, nor was I born here to be a lab rat for the misguided notion that I should be mothered or socially engineered by the fearful majority of my kind. I was born to BE..and what I will BE is no concern of yours if I do you no harm.

None of us was born with a crystal ball in our hands or our head. None of us knows what another's course through life is supposed to be..and yet we dictate rules as though we thought we did. We predict the future like gloomy soothsayers when we pass regulations and attempt to steer it like paranoid gods.

You don't KNOW whether or not I was supposed to be abused as a child...you don't KNOW whether or not my ex-wife was supposed to practically hack her arm off in front of our children. You just don't know.

But you would have stopped these events that traumatized, but tempered and taught me. You would have had my life take a completely different course..and perhaps there was a time when I might have as well. But now I am HERE..and I like this point that my life has led up to so far. And I might dislike the next place it takes me..but I will learn and I will grow from it.

Perhaps I'll even die tragically, becoming the catalyst in someone ELSE'S personal transformation. Perhaps not. Perhaps it will be my "senseless" death at the hands of a drunk driver which spurs my friends or family on to educate others about the problem. OR leads them in a different direction that they could never have imagined. Perhaps my death will have no meaning at all.

Either way..I'd never be sheltered from the course my life would take at the cost of my freedom to explore what it is that I AM.

And so it doesn't matter whether the regulation is well intentioned, sensible or not. I'm not here to be ruled over by God-men who would steer my destiny in a direction which someone that doesn't even know me finds favorable. I choose freewill as my guide.

If we don't want fucked up people exercising freewill, perhaps we should pay as much attention to our children and the development of human conscience as we do to death statistics, fear propaganda and domination over ideologies that disagree with ours.

I'm still waiting for the answers to my questions.
dafremen I just realized that I only responded to the "missed the point entirely" nature of your response, and not the question. (Meaning: You didn't understand what I was saying at all, since this has very little to do with drunk driving.)

The reason for repeating it is simple. It's an idea that is NOT seen or contemplated in public very often.

We have T.V. Commercials, posters, classes in school and the day-to-day banter of our friends and associates to speak the "pro regulation" opinion.

This idea of protecting freedom by keeping regulation to a minimum might NEVER have that much of a chance to be heard.

So every response, every unsolicited speaking opportunity which I take here, is simply a balancing measure. It is my hope, through my own words (and those of others who feel the same) that this notion will be more fairly represented among the alternatives out there.

The title was just an attention getter, and drunk driving was chosen exactly because it is one of the more controversial outcomes of the ideology presented here.
shout it to the heavens soapbox 081001
Oingo Boingo "perhaps if we're nice, he'll go away" 081001
The Spork Daf, I hate to say it, but it does come off mostly as being an ego-driven endeavor.

Your last rant in reply to others summarized it pretty neatly.

Basically, you are telling everyone that you fancy yourself to be some brave iconoclast because of your views on this issue and that anyone who isn't jumping on your particular bandwagon is either some incipient fascist or some pusillanimous sheep waiting in line for the abattoir.

And let's be honest with ourselves, here, Daffy, you chose a provocative topic for your jumping off point EXACTLY so you could provoke the exact sort of emotional response you claimed you want people to see past. There are enough people out there who have been in some way affected by a drunk driving incident that you KNEW or Should_Have_Known the type of reaction you were going to get

Bravo, Daf, you set up a towering Straw-Man of an argument and you have tackled it bravely and ferociously and we are all genuinely impressed.
somebody ha! i knew this wasn't really about him thinking drunk_driving_is_not_a_crime.

for the record, tho, a friend of mine who lives in a rural area (dirt roads, etc) was pulled over 30 feet from his driveway and blew .08 (this state's limit) and was arrested. ridiculous. definite agreement with the suggestion that permissible BAL be raised considerably.
dafremen I'm sorry..I don't believe that I get your point. Are you saying that regulation breeds freedom?

Are you saying that reducing regulation is an absurd notion?

Are you saying that you'd prefer to sit on the fence about it and choose which lost freedoms don't affect you and therefore can be ignored?

Or are you somehow trying to justify your opinion of me? (Be advised that your opinion of me or anyone else is irrelevant. It's your opinion of YOU that's important.)

(For the casual observers out there...as you are probably aware by now..this is just a rerun of what we did a couple of months ago. Folks'll learn how to get a grip on the reaction complex eventually. These things take time. Hope you're enjoying the show. Sorry if you aren't.)

Here's a touch of bait, Doc: You know nothing about what is going on. Sit down. This isn't your office.

(A little bait tossed into the water for the drama lovers in the audience.)

see also: in_the_book_of_creation
dafremen To clarify something:

The title of this blathe was chosen as an attention getter. That does NOT mean that it isn't relevant. Drunk driving ISN'T a crime. Killing or injuring someone while you are driving whether drunk or not..IS, most likely a crime.

The standard, in my almost humble opinion..is harm. It's that simple. If you harm another, then your acts, depending upon the cirumstances...are criminal.

Let's face it..if no one had ever been killed or injured by drunk drivers..most of us would never consider this act a crime. It's because of the harm done that we find the behavior reprehensible. So why are we legislating the behavior and affecting those stupid individuals who get behind the wheel but DO no harm? Granted, they aren't exactly engaging in the brightest behavior in the world, but until their actions cause harm..they've done nothing that we would find reprehensible. Some say.."but they COULD harm someone." So...you're a fortune teller now. I COULD win the lottery too..and the odds are about the same. Care to tell me when that winning ticket is going to come through?

So to summarize, I don't believe that drunk driving is a crime. I do believe that hurting others through negligent behavior..drunk driving or otherwise...is a crime.

Thanks again. Keep those cards, letters and unsolicited character observations coming.
The Spork What's the matter, Daf, in spite of your insistence on the comparative relevance and value of opinions, i seem to have struck a nerve as you have just taken a turn for the exceptionally pissy now.

As "Otto" alluded to via his name, you really are just sucking your own unit over this one.

And nowhere in my little analysis of you and this blathe did i suggest that "regulation creates freedom"

What i suggested is that you engineered this little exercise so that you could look down your nose at and make yourself feel superior to anybody who takes a position contrary to yours and that you, as you admit, chose a hot topic and now you're bitching about the heat you've gotten as a result.

We are all quite impressed with how special you seem to think you are and with how earth-shattering and enlightening you think your utterances and pronouncements are.

Meanwhile, somewhere out there, there are cookies, please go have some
dafremen Not even warm. But nice try. Look closer. You're missing something. (You'll want to get over your initial impressions if you're ever going to crack this case, Doc.)

P.S. Here are a couple of hints:

1. Why should you care about my opinion? There are no answers to be found outside of ourselves..why should anyone who knows this get "pissy" over your opinion?

2. You don't have to know the rules to play the game.

Have fun..or move on..your call. See you soon, Doc. ; )
where? if i was your wife, i would have gone for my own throat (not my arm). she must have been some kind of retard. 081002
Im not gonna wave your pompoms Perhaps Daf will be struck and paralyzed by a drunk driver and someone will be able to wave the pom-poms for him.

dafremen Oh my..if the pro wrestling fans aren't out for blood today! So let's see if I get this straight. You're concerned people who can't stand the thought of some stranger getting struck by a drunk driver once in awhile.

But one of you would like to slit my throat...and the other would cheer my paralysis on. (Extolling the value of the drunk driving that did the deed!)

All this..because someone spoke their mind and you disagreed. Hard to believe it, but you're exactly the sort that's overpopulating Washington D.C. these days. ; )

I gotta say, I'm really diggin' the bloodthirsty care bears bandwagon you're riding on. You're poster children for NOT allowing other people to rule our lives..

This is so much better than I could have ever hoped for. You've made me so happy. : )

So...got any answers to my questions yet anonymous ones?
who? i didn't say your throat. i said my own (as your wife). your misinterpretation is just another indication of your ability to filter out what you want to read. very telling, in fact. 081002
dafremen Good point. So you'd slit my ex-wife's throat then is what you're saying? As much hell as she put me through, I'd still have to say disagree and mentally stick you on the care bears wagon train to bloodshed. You be the judge. (By the way..she's bipolar..way to exploit our tragedy..you're a sterling example of human compassion.)

There was an interesting compromise on this drunk_driving thing put on the table about lowering the Blood Alcohol Level.

I thought it was especially insightful because of something I read in the "Handbook of Poisoning" under "Ethyl Alchohol" (ISBN: 0870410717 Pg.162)

Mild alcohol poisoning (also known as intoxication) is defined as a blood alcohol level of from 0.05% to 0.15% with the symptoms listed as follows (quoted from the book):

"Mild (0.05% - 0.15%) Decreased inhibitions, SLIGHT visual impairment, SLIGHT muscular incoordination and slowing of reaction time. Approximately 25% in this group are clinically intoxicated."

Note that only 1/4 of the drinking and driving population or less would be considered clinically intoxicated at a Blood Alcohol Level of the current standard: 0.08%

The book goes on to define MODERATE alcohol poisoning as 0.15% - 0.3% the symptoms being described as follows:

"Moderate (0.15% - 0.3%) Definite visual impairment, sensory loss, muscular incoordination, slowing of reaction time and slurring of speech. From 50 - 95% are considered clinically intoxicated."

So basically, 75% of people who have a BAC of 0.08% are NOT clinically drunk although they are considered so by the current law.

At 0.15%..almost TWICE the current legal limit..we find the rest of the population to be clinically intoxicated.

But see...lowering the BAC increases state revenues. The lower it goes, the more people there will be who, although they aren't drunk, can be called drunk by the state and fined.

I'm not sure why politicians would want that..I mean most of them being lawyers and all..and state representatives charged with handling state budgets and what-not.

Give em just one inch...they'll take miles and miles and miles until they have everything. It's that simple. And we all know it...but we like to make exceptions because it sounds good.

I just don't buy it. I say don't give them ANY inches ANYWHERE...or they'll take the miles from THERE.

Sorry if that offends, but it's a big world with lots of people..not sure why there should only be one way to think about this.
z http://fullapologies.com/ 081003
Lemon_Soda * eats some popcorn * 081003
Erzatz tourist This Blathe is getting out of hand,
My Screensaver starts
Before It Fully Loads
dafremen Behold the power of the *bump* : ) 081003
dafremen z,

Thanks for the link. It was incredible.

I think we can agree that the incident changed their lives. Changed their perspectives..and probably has touched many people deeply that have seen these apologies. Is it a good thing that their friends died? Absolutely not. Would their lives have been impacted the way they were if their friends hadn't died?

Probably not. They would be completely different people if they'd been pulled over. More likely than not, the blame would have been placed (by them) on the police..not on their actions.

I'm very strongly in favor of the sort of messages that I saw there. people speaking out, from their hearts to try to change things...to try to PERSUADE people to change their behavior.

I do not believe in coercion as a method for achieving these aims.

It's just a basic difference of opinion. A different philosophy. I've found that education and experience are much better persuaders than restrictive legislation.

I've also noticed over the course of the last 25 years or so of my life, that I've been paying attention to such things, that the REAL beneficiaries of restrictive legislations aren't the people they claim to protect...but the state and those in power.

I wish it wasn't that way. I wish we could trust our elected officials to not abuse the laws that we allow them to pass which take away the breathing room that we have to live in. I DON'T defend drunk driving. But I DO feel a need to defend the right of life as a whole (as a sum of ALL of us...all of our parts) to go through whatever motions it intends to go through.

The only Laws that I find justifiable are those related to harm. If they could be boiled down into one single piece of legislation..it would simply be:

Do no harm.

I don't claim to be a fortune teller...I don't claim to know what the future holds. But I DO prefer to believe that the risks aren't nearly as common as we are led to believe. I believe it's basically a beautiful life which I should cherish from day to day..for as long as I have..because I don't have forever.

In the book "Journey to Ixtlan" by Carlos Castaneda, the shaman Don Juan teaches that, "Death is an advisor."

I thought about that long and hard..and realized that it is true.

INDEED the risks..the moment to moment knowledge that ANY moment could be our last..are what provide us with perhaps the wisest council of all: Live your life without fear...without doubt...without hesitation. Take a chance..every day (not necessarily in a car with a 12 pack in your belly) but maybe walking down the road where just such a person might be driving because the flowers there are beautiful and the woods there make you feel alive.

Live it...breathe it..know it...be what you will.

I know it sounds irresponsible..but from my own perspective, life lived in a box created by regulation..or lived in a box created by fear of risks...is no life at all.

I would rather take my chances..because my own research indicates to ME..that the risks of death are small compared to the threat of exploitation by those who make laws to "prevent" death.

That's all I have to say. Thanks to EVERYONE who contributed to it, this is a multifaceted blathe. There's a lot going on here that has nothing to do with drunk driving. A lot of energy has been spilled into the blather_space and there are a lot of clues here to why it is that the "social experiment" called society has gone horribly wrong.

I leave you with that. Thanks again for the link. It was very touching and I was quite moved by the apologies there.
Tirade tirades_of_blather 090127
stoned spirals -"in time" or "with time" take your pick 110727
re_alisma People do, pretty much, like to be doing better than their neighbors, and this can extend into a vindictive belief system.... But I kinda think this sort of thing is out-of-date and belonging to a more conveniently superstitiious era.

Some astrologers can jump to the conclusion that placements are due to karma, but I don't buy that it's something definitive and thus people should be presumed innocent. I gotta believe that we get shit thrown at us because there's growing up to do. Not that God was mad, or what goes around comes around, although I guess that could be the reason, too. But I wouldn't declare it to be so.

Not the greatest blathe title I've ever seen and I definitely didn't read the whole debate.
dafremen When we deal with human beings, we deal with a lifetime of habitual posturing. It's practically impossible for us to do anything in our day to day interaction with practically ANYONE that doesn't involve intellectual posturing or manipulation of some sort. The grand intellectual waste of mighty brained Homo Sapiens continues.

"Your titles aren't that great." "You are wrong and presumably stupid..etc etc." It is the basis for 90% of our comedy these days: intellectual one-ups-manship. Sitcoms: the same. Group dynamic? Much of the same. Pseudo-strong alpha-assholes using their intellects in much the way early humans used muscle and spear. Ugh.

Another reason putting one's freedom in the hands of other human beings should be optional.
h|s|g good_point 110728
just saying tell that to the Mother and Dad whose child got dead
at the scene of such 'non' crime

*jus saying
just saying re " drunk_driving_is_not_a_crime ",

I mean..
now IM just saying maybe you should read the entire page before making statements like this. 110729
dafremen Look, I don't believe people should bring their pet shark to the swimming pool. But I also don't believe in passing laws against it. If someone figures out a way to responsibly bring their shark into the pool(say..without getting shark poop in the pool), then by gawd..this is America..land of the free. I say bring it on..I'd love to see something different. A story to tell my grandkids.

I can think of few things more UNAmerican than restricting the ways people use their freedom in the name of fear.

"Hi. I'm a Brave American who wants you to stop bringing that big pocket knife to school because I'm AFRAID you'll hurt someone with it."

(Home of the Brave? Hello?)

If someone is harmed or property is damaged, then by all means..prosecute..mourn..recover. That is life and its randomness..the randomness and uncertainty that is FREEDOM. Then BRAVELY move forward.

How can we claim to be "spreading freedom abroad" when we can't even allow it to grow here at home?

If you feel that a situation is dangerous, you should have the FREEDOM to remove yourself from that situation..avail yourself of that right instead of having a law passed to keep everyone else from bringing flippin' peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to school please. Thank you.
grandpa "you know, kids...
they had a shark in this pool once.."

"yeah, grandpa, we know *rolls eyes*...
you already told us that one."

"well, what the hell do you want
from me you ungrateful little
They made everything else illegal,
so nothing else ever happened
around here."
z z 120403
Someone Else Daffy 3:16.

You know, I fucking love this thread. I have converted from Daffy-hatred to see the wisdom of his ways. Perhaps this thread is egotistical, but so many extremely wonderful points are made.

I've read it many times, and I don't think I can say that Daf is EVER WRONG. (here at least).

("You're not WRONG, Walter, you're just an asshole...")

I don't even see the asshole here.

I think, Daf, this is an excellent thread, I refer to it often, and I have, through the skills I learned from it, converted at least three people to (also at least) open their minds, if not completely convert them.
daf The eyes of the universe are opening, this time it is self-aware. How amazing is that? 120406
dafremen I put your blathe in a box marked "My_Favorite_Things" and promptly forgot it.

It will be cherished. Thank you.
dafremen What does an officer do when his life is in danger? And how do we ensure that our policy response doesn't become a state-sanctioned area of abuse?

I think these are fair questions. Questions which the lives of every citizen who interacts with the police is directly tied to answering. The question of value of life comes up when we explore these fundamental questions.

If a citizen kills a cop in self defense and gets prison time, but a cop who kills a citizen in self defense gets a paid leave, what does that say to both the citizen AND the cop about the comparative value of their lives as far as the justice system is concerned?

Doesn't it give the impression that given similar crimes, the system values the officer's need to survive more than it values a citizen's?

Is it any wonder that the police have started to develop a callous, arrogant attitude toward the public which it supposedly serves? Who can blame them for feeling that these regular joes are beneath them? They can speed, assault and kill with impunity and get paid for the privilege. Regular joe can't do that.

And what about regular joe? How does he start to feel about his place in society? And was it worth it to protect the maybe 60 police officers a year who are shot in the line of duty? (Anywhere from 400 to 1200 citizens are shot by police in the same period of time. By the way..number one source of officer deaths in the line of duty? Being killed while running a traffic light, and heart attacks. Maybe they should lay off the coffee and donuts. And steroids.)

In the end, I have to agree that an officer should be able to choose to live over dying for his job. But that should be the end of it. He should be able to live, but can no longer be a police officer if he chooses to kill a citizen. And the bitching should end there.

If it was really about his fear for his life, there he goes..he's alive. He just isn't a cop anymore. And if the circumstances are found to be criminal in nature, of course..he goes straight to prison..general populace for an extended taste of his own sadism.

I'm sure with a policy like that in place, cops would find other means of securing their lives and safety that didn't involve just reaching for the gun and pulling the trigger. It would also help citizens feel that the scales of Lady Justice are truly balanced in favor of those she serves, not herself.
sluggish "Give em just one inch...they'll take miles and miles and miles until they have everything. It's that simple. And we all know it...but we like to make exceptions because it sounds good."

just say no, to crack wars, to ruby ridge to waco to ferguson to now. an inch at a time.
dafremen Fucking light bulbs everywhere. Thank gawd. 170101
what's it to you?
who go