Say it ain't so...Mark Grace

[Lancemountain]

If only people would get so up-in-arms about crimes that actually have victims.

- Sportscardtheory on drunk drivers.

 

[sportscardtheory]

If only people would get so up-in-arms about crimes that actually have victims.

- Sportscardtheory on drunk drivers.

How's the trolling coming along? Can't sleep and looking to push some buttons, huh. Get some sleep.

 

[Lancemountain]

. Intent is a big deal to me, and no one sets out to hurt others by hitting them with their car. So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence.

Way to contradict yourself, batman.

You are aware, of course, that manslaughter requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation. And inebriating oneself and driving a motor vehicle simply to get from point A to point B and in the process killing another human, by your wonderful ethical stance of intent being a big deal in your life, would fall in line with exactly what manslaughter is?


:benson:

Clearly you don't understand what I said or meant. That's okay though. ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: Here is some of these back at you.

feel free to explain, or did my utter destroying of your silly stance render you to only respond in emoticons?


"oh I am a big believer in intent, it's a big deal! But someone doing the definition of manslaughter isn't manslaughter! It's just driving under the influence! It's not like they didn't meant to kill, they didn't mean to kill on a different level of didn't mean to kill. Intent is a big deal to me"

You are severely lost. You are literally making things up. I have no idea what the hell you are saying.

Nice.

I'll break it down for you since you are "lost."

What did you mean by this:

So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence.

How is someone driving drunk and killing another person not manslaughter?

 

[sportscardtheory]

[quote="sportscardtheory":1vzp2n7w]. Intent is a big deal to me, and no one sets out to hurt others by hitting them with their car. So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence.

Way to contradict yourself, batman.

You are aware, of course, that manslaughter requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation. And inebriating oneself and driving a motor vehicle simply to get from point A to point B and in the process killing another human, by your wonderful ethical stance of intent being a big deal in your life, would fall in line with exactly what manslaughter is?


:benson:

Clearly you don't understand what I said or meant. That's okay though. ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: Here is some of these back at you.

feel free to explain, or did my utter destroying of your silly stance render you to only respond in emoticons?


"oh I am a big believer in intent, it's a big deal! But someone doing the definition of manslaughter isn't manslaughter! It's just driving under the influence! It's not like they didn't meant to kill, they didn't mean to kill on a different level of didn't mean to kill. Intent is a big deal to me"

You are severely lost. You are literally making things up. I have no idea what the hell you are saying.

Nice.

I'll break it down for you since you are "lost."

What did you mean by this:

So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence.

How is someone driving drunk and killing another person not manslaughter?[/quote:1vzp2n7w]

WTF are you talking about? It is manslaughter, because the intent was not to kill. I never said anything to the contrary. Wake up.

 

[Lancemountain]

If only people would get so up-in-arms about crimes that actually have victims.

- Sportscardtheory on drunk drivers.

How's the trolling coming along? Can't sleep and looking to push some buttons, huh. Get some sleep.

trolling? I'm asking honest questions about your statements. I could argue that you were trolling and here you are faced to answer to your posts. Feel free not to respond if you don't like what I am asking.

 

[Lancemountain]

[quote="Lancemountain":1qqmw9cq][quote="sportscardtheory":1qqmw9cq]. Intent is a big deal to me, and no one sets out to hurt others by hitting them with their car. So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence.

Way to contradict yourself, batman.

You are aware, of course, that manslaughter requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation. And inebriating oneself and driving a motor vehicle simply to get from point A to point B and in the process killing another human, by your wonderful ethical stance of intent being a big deal in your life, would fall in line with exactly what manslaughter is?


:benson:

Clearly you don't understand what I said or meant. That's okay though. ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: Here is some of these back at you.

feel free to explain, or did my utter destroying of your silly stance render you to only respond in emoticons?


"oh I am a big believer in intent, it's a big deal! But someone doing the definition of manslaughter isn't manslaughter! It's just driving under the influence! It's not like they didn't meant to kill, they didn't mean to kill on a different level of didn't mean to kill. Intent is a big deal to me"

You are severely lost. You are literally making things up. I have no idea what the hell you are saying.

Nice.

I'll break it down for you since you are "lost."

What did you mean by this:

So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence.

How is someone driving drunk and killing another person not manslaughter?[/quote:1qqmw9cq]

WTF are you talking about? It is manslaughter, because the intent was not to kill. I never said anything to the contrary. Wake up.[/quote:1qqmw9cq]


I'll give you a big e-hug and an e-apology if I mis read your post but :

So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence

seems to not be what you are saying when you say:

WTF are you talking about? It is manslaughter, because the intent was not to kill.

 

[Weimer]

This thread is one big clusterfuck.

 

[sportscardtheory]

[quote="sportscardtheory":3argfsn3][quote="Lancemountain":3argfsn3][quote="sportscardtheory":3argfsn3]. Intent is a big deal to me, and no one sets out to hurt others by hitting them with their car. So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence.

Way to contradict yourself, batman.

You are aware, of course, that manslaughter requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation. And inebriating oneself and driving a motor vehicle simply to get from point A to point B and in the process killing another human, by your wonderful ethical stance of intent being a big deal in your life, would fall in line with exactly what manslaughter is?


:benson:

Clearly you don't understand what I said or meant. That's okay though. ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: Here is some of these back at you.

feel free to explain, or did my utter destroying of your silly stance render you to only respond in emoticons?


"oh I am a big believer in intent, it's a big deal! But someone doing the definition of manslaughter isn't manslaughter! It's just driving under the influence! It's not like they didn't meant to kill, they didn't mean to kill on a different level of didn't mean to kill. Intent is a big deal to me"

You are severely lost. You are literally making things up. I have no idea what the hell you are saying.

Nice.

I'll break it down for you since you are "lost."

What did you mean by this:

So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence.

How is someone driving drunk and killing another person not manslaughter?[/quote:3argfsn3]

WTF are you talking about? It is manslaughter, because the intent was not to kill. I never said anything to the contrary. Wake up.[/quote:3argfsn3]


I'll give you a big e-hug and an e-apology if I mis read your post but :

So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence

seems to not be what you are saying when you say:

WTF are you talking about? It is manslaughter, because the intent was not to kill.

[/quote:3argfsn3]

I was saying that DUI is not the same thing as manslaughter because many seem to demonize those who drive under the influence as if they have already killed someone. They aren't the same thing. DUI is a much lesser crime than manslaughter. That was my point.

 

[Lancemountain]

[quote="Lancemountain":2xorylzw][quote="sportscardtheory":2xorylzw][quote="Lancemountain":2xorylzw][quote="sportscardtheory":2xorylzw]. Intent is a big deal to me, and no one sets out to hurt others by hitting them with their car. So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence.

Way to contradict yourself, batman.

You are aware, of course, that manslaughter requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation. And inebriating oneself and driving a motor vehicle simply to get from point A to point B and in the process killing another human, by your wonderful ethical stance of intent being a big deal in your life, would fall in line with exactly what manslaughter is?


:benson:

Clearly you don't understand what I said or meant. That's okay though. ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: Here is some of these back at you.

feel free to explain, or did my utter destroying of your silly stance render you to only respond in emoticons?


"oh I am a big believer in intent, it's a big deal! But someone doing the definition of manslaughter isn't manslaughter! It's just driving under the influence! It's not like they didn't meant to kill, they didn't mean to kill on a different level of didn't mean to kill. Intent is a big deal to me"

You are severely lost. You are literally making things up. I have no idea what the hell you are saying.

Nice.

I'll break it down for you since you are "lost."

What did you mean by this:

So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence.

How is someone driving drunk and killing another person not manslaughter?[/quote:2xorylzw]

WTF are you talking about? It is manslaughter, because the intent was not to kill. I never said anything to the contrary. Wake up.[/quote:2xorylzw]


I'll give you a big e-hug and an e-apology if I mis read your post but :

So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence

seems to not be what you are saying when you say:

WTF are you talking about? It is manslaughter, because the intent was not to kill.

[/quote:2xorylzw]

I was saying that DUI is not the same thing as manslaughter because many seem to demonize those who drive under the influence as if they have already killed someone. They aren't the same thing. DUI is a much lesser crime than manslaughter. That was my point.[/quote:2xorylzw]
So I see you agree that one who drives drunk and kills another has committed manslaughter and should be punished accordingly?

 

[sportscardtheory]

[quote="sportscardtheory":1w01780u][quote="Lancemountain":1w01780u][quote="sportscardtheory":1w01780u][quote="Lancemountain":1w01780u][quote="sportscardtheory":1w01780u]. Intent is a big deal to me, and no one sets out to hurt others by hitting them with their car. So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence.

Way to contradict yourself, batman.

You are aware, of course, that manslaughter requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation. And inebriating oneself and driving a motor vehicle simply to get from point A to point B and in the process killing another human, by your wonderful ethical stance of intent being a big deal in your life, would fall in line with exactly what manslaughter is?


:benson:

Clearly you don't understand what I said or meant. That's okay though. ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: Here is some of these back at you.

feel free to explain, or did my utter destroying of your silly stance render you to only respond in emoticons?


"oh I am a big believer in intent, it's a big deal! But someone doing the definition of manslaughter isn't manslaughter! It's just driving under the influence! It's not like they didn't meant to kill, they didn't mean to kill on a different level of didn't mean to kill. Intent is a big deal to me"

You are severely lost. You are literally making things up. I have no idea what the hell you are saying.

Nice.

I'll break it down for you since you are "lost."

What did you mean by this:

So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence.

How is someone driving drunk and killing another person not manslaughter?[/quote:1w01780u]

WTF are you talking about? It is manslaughter, because the intent was not to kill. I never said anything to the contrary. Wake up.[/quote:1w01780u]


I'll give you a big e-hug and an e-apology if I mis read your post but :

So forgive me if I don't think it's right to compare manslaughter to driving under the influence

seems to not be what you are saying when you say:

WTF are you talking about? It is manslaughter, because the intent was not to kill.

[/quote:1w01780u]

I was saying that DUI is not the same thing as manslaughter because many seem to demonize those who drive under the influence as if they have already killed someone. They aren't the same thing. DUI is a much lesser crime than manslaughter. That was my point.[/quote:1w01780u]
So I see you agree that one who drives drunk and kills another has committed manslaughter and should be punished accordingly?[/quote:1w01780u]

OF COURSE.

 

[Lancemountain]

Ok I can apologize I'm sorry.

Still stand by the fact that no one should ever even take so much as a sip and drive.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Ok I can apologize I'm sorry.

Still stand by the fact that no one should ever even take so much as a sip and drive.

No problem. I agree that driving drunk is a very stupid thing to do.

 

[Lancemountain]

I dunno, I guess I've always lived in an urban core and have needed a car much less then the average American, but I just don't get why anyone would even drink as much as a sip of wine then drive. Some of the arguments here are "what is inebriated" and that argument is just silly. Any amount of inebriation is enough so simply just do not drink alcohol and drive a car.

 

[predatorkj]

The only thing I don't get is that pretty much, most folks who have 3 drinks or more, drunk or not, are over the limit. Now, if that is the case and the establishment they are at cannot actively monitor how long they are there eating or drinking, then why can I go to any restraunt in town and order 5, 6, 8 beers? They don't know how much I've actually drank, they don't know if I have a DD, they don't know how long I will stay to let it wear off and they don't know how much I have had to eat.

Perhaps it would be better to have some legislation in effect where any bar or food establishment can only serve two drinks per customer and that is it. Now, you can always get around that by having your wife order drinks in your stead or friends even. But if it is seen that you are the one drinking them, no more alcoholic beverages are allowed to be served to that table or on that check/tab. You get out of line about it and start causing a scene, they call the cops and now you get a PI with disorderly conduct. This would be especially good at bars because honestly, seriously, I mean really, who the hell goes to a bar and drinks two beers and goes home? I've been to a slew of bars and people drink 5,6 ,7, 8...or more. Restraunts are different because most people stop after their meal is finished but a bar just isn't like that. You can lie to yourself and say it is but it's not.

Call me crazy or even throw in the fact that a lot of businesses would lose money. Okay. So what? You would rather them make money by allowing people to get over the legal limit. Just so they can make money. Wouldn't that possibly be blood money? Alcohol is the only vice where, whenever it's served in excess to a customer at an establishment, legislation/law enforcement looks the other way in the interests of allowing merchants to make money.

If a gun shop sold you a gun but they knew if you purchased more than one box of shells, you were extremely dangerous and very likely, in some cases highly likely, to kill someone, don't you think they'd limit the amount of shells you could buy? If the corner store knew that if they sold you more than one pack of smokes, you were highly likely to harm another individual to the point of you being a dangerous person, don't you think they'd limit it to one pack a person? If you went to Target and purchased 3 pairs of scissors and they knew you were okay buying one but if you purchased all three, you were highly likely to stab someone in the eye on the way out, would they sell you all three?


Yet, no matter how high the odds of you getting more dangerous by the sip, they continue to serve. And most places won't cut you off until you are acting like an incredible fool. They'll easily let you run out the door with 5 beers in you. Why is that so?

I had a family member get killed by a drunk driver. Problem was, the drunk driver was him, and he killed himself.

 

[RL24]

Lancemountain, I think the source of the confusion is this. During your argument, you make it sound like every single DUI results in a death. DUI should not be equated to manslaughter.


I just don't get the whole argument. I understand it's stupid for somebody to get drunk and drive, because they can kill somebody. Here's the part I don't get... any time you get in your car and drive, you can kill somebody. Happens to hundreds of people every day. 99% of the time it's a sober person crashing into something, maybe even into another sober person.

Why aren't you guys all up in arms about all of these preventable deaths? The innocent victims? Should cars not be banned? Think of how many lives would be saved each year. I know that's smartass, but I read things like "You shouldn't take 1 sip and drive" and it makes me scratch my head. Taking 1 sip and driving is absolutely no different from taking no sip and driving. I read things like "I only have 1 detail, and that is that this person got a DUI. Now I think he's a POS." and it makes me frown. And want to say mean things about that person. Deep breath.


You guys should check into this a little. Google News "fatal car accident" and start reading. There are hundreds of them, and a very small percentage involve alcohol. Driving must be stopped. I think people should stop using alcohol as an excuse for why these things happen.

 

[thefatguy]

This board will give him a pass because he's white.

One of the most ignorant posts in the history of Al Gore's internet.

 

[predatorkj]

You guys might be at odds on your thoughts but it is good discussion for the simple fact that it's time people stopped turning their heads about the problem. I think a good 80% of us have had a beer and drove before. Some of you say don't do it at all, some say just don't drink more than one, some say just stay under the limit.

Now, I get that people need to be responsible and all. I don't think there is any denying that. The problem is, if this is such a big deal or can create major problems, which I think we agree on that, then why the hell is it allowed? I'm tired of the whole, "well, adults have to be responsible" bit. Of course they do. But if it's not responsible to drink anything and drive, then like I asked earlier, why can I go into any restraunt in town and get loaded and then go home? Why is it allowed to be served? Especially in excess? I mean, really, the only reason is because there is money to be made off of it. That is a major issue when we allow people to play nightly roulette on the roads because somebody makes money. You guys don't see a problem when you can go somewhere and be allowed to do something completely illegal in a public setting and then be allowed to chance a drive home? That is what it is isn't it? Looking the other way to allow people to cash in. I think if people really cared, they'd stop allowing it to be possible. Because you, me, and the next guy can say no thanks and just stick to Dr. Pepper but who the hell is going to stop the next 10 idiots?

I am not a fan of drinking and driving but I have very little respect for the way it's been handeled by law enforcement and the government. They aren't trying to stop a damn thing and it's pretty sick. And you get into a wreck after a drink, even under the limit, it's your ass and trust me, it's not in your best interests to try to prove it wrong either.

Funniest thing I have ever seen was a cop sitting inside his patrol car outside a bar I used to go to with my wife. I asked one of the people we knew who works there why. She told us he tries to catch all the drunk people coming out. Now to me, that's crappy because they are being setup and don't even know it. But on the other hand, it's good because he is stopping people from getting on the road. But I still question why, if they know what's going on inside, it's still even allowed to get to that point. It's like trying to stop drug use by arresting all the junkies you can find. Why not stop the source? Oh yeah, wait, people are making money so we have to axe that plan. Sorry...I tend to forget things from time to time. What a bunch of BS!