To follow up that point, the inconsistency in the vitriol applied to drunk driving is doubly dismaying when it is compared to other kinds of conditions while driving that impair a person's capacity to drive and are just as dangerous.
Texting while driving. Talking on a handset while driving. Reading while driving. Fatigued driving (this one is especially bad because it's arguably even more prevalent and dangerous than drunk driving)
These aren't nearly as demonized as drunk driving yet they are all undertaken by people with full faculties and capacity for reason.
Unlike a drunk driver, whose capacity for reason and good decision making is on some level chemically impaired, a person who is texting while driving knows good god damn well what they are fucking doing and does it anyway.
But that doesn't have 30 years of MADD and other cultural pressures demonizing it and making it into an act of murder, so people don't see it the same way.
No, but they also didn't have seventy years of people doing them absolutely intentionally, often many nights every week, and having that not just condoned, but not even examined really.
Not to say I disagree with you even. Just a caveat.
"More fish for Kunta!"
--LeVar Burton
+1
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
So if the passenger in the car was sober would he be more or less responsible for dying in a car crash?
more, because you're stupid if you get in the car with a drunk driver. You're also stupid if you drive drunk. You're also stupid if you're drunk and you get in the car with a drunk driver, but not as stupid because you were drunk and didn't think things through.
But neither is the drunk driver an EVIL MURDERER.
They are someone who lacked the cognitive agency to fully explore the consequences of their actions.
I am not saying driving drunk is okay anymore than Pony is. I'm saying I reject that they are horrible evil murderers.
Errr... this makes it sound like a mental condition that is wholly unexpected and can't be planned for
Which isn't the case, you know ahead of time when you drink that you'll have to at some point get home. You also know that drunk driving is illegal.
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
So if the passenger in the car was sober would he be more or less responsible for dying in a car crash?
more, because you're stupid if you get in the car with a drunk driver. You're also stupid if you drive drunk. You're also stupid if you're drunk and you get in the car with a drunk driver, but not as stupid because you were drunk and didn't think things through.
But neither is the drunk driver an EVIL MURDERER.
They are someone who lacked the cognitive agency to fully explore the consequences of their actions.
I am not saying driving drunk is okay anymore than Pony is. I'm saying I reject that they are horrible evil murderers.
Errr... this makes it sound like a mental condition that is wholly unexpected and can't be planned for
Which isn't the case, you know ahead of time when you drink that you'll have to at some point get home. You also know that drunk driving is illegal.
You also know that getting in the car with someone drunk is fucking bonkers.
I'd actually like to chime in that we should multiply mass transit a billion fold in America because driving everywhere all the time as your only option is bad for lots of reasons
"Pl-ay pod" *snip*
*"play hold"* *plays Gold by GZA"*
"Play podcast"
"Sorry, couldn't find pulled cost"
Siri is hilariously bad at anything but US accents.
Then you should do what most british actors do when they have to talk with an American Accent:
GO FULL TEXAN. YEEEEE HAW
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Aaaand i'm done with studying for now. I miscalculated my stuff and I think i'll be able to finish my studying in time and do decently at the exams! hurrah!
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
So if the passenger in the car was sober would he be more or less responsible for dying in a car crash?
more, because you're stupid if you get in the car with a drunk driver. You're also stupid if you drive drunk. You're also stupid if you're drunk and you get in the car with a drunk driver, but not as stupid because you were drunk and didn't think things through.
But neither is the drunk driver an EVIL MURDERER.
They are someone who lacked the cognitive agency to fully explore the consequences of their actions.
I am not saying driving drunk is okay anymore than Pony is. I'm saying I reject that they are horrible evil murderers.
Errr... this makes it sound like a mental condition that is wholly unexpected and can't be planned for
Which isn't the case, you know ahead of time when you drink that you'll have to at some point get home. You also know that drunk driving is illegal.
You also know that getting in the car with someone drunk is fucking bonkers.
Come on, really? The driver is responsible, he knows before he starts drinking that he's going to be responsible for things that happen while he's driving. This isn't that complicated
I think we can both agree texting while driving is dangerous because it impairs your abilities. If someone is texting when the driver gets them both killed is it their responsibility? No?
Because it's the driver's responsibility to not drive impaired!
I'd actually like to chime in that we should multiply mass transit a billion fold in America because driving everywhere all the time as your only option is bad for lots of reasons
Sure, but we barely have the money to fix the non-maintenance in our current transportation system. We definitely don't have the money to overlay it with even a semi-comprehensive new one.
"Pl-ay pod" *snip*
*"play hold"* *plays Gold by GZA"*
"Play podcast"
"Sorry, couldn't find pulled cost"
Siri is hilariously bad at anything but US accents.
Then you should do what most british actors do when they have to talk with an American Accent:
GO FULL TEXAN. YEEEEE HAW
LOL! First try with my worst texan accent worked.
PSN: Honkalot
+6
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
This LPR system is trying to consume my soul with frustration.
0
Options
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
I think one aspect to consider is that a drunk driver was at one point not drunk. That time before they became drunk and had to drive was their onus for preparing for when they had to drive or leave the party or whatever. It wasn't like they were at a party and then becoming drunk just happened to them. They made the decision to change their state of being from sober to inebriated, when they still had to drive somewhere.
I'm not saying I don't agree with you Pony, in fact I do agree with part of your argument. I just think this right here is why we still hold them to some responsibility.
"Pl-ay pod" *snip*
*"play hold"* *plays Gold by GZA"*
"Play podcast"
"Sorry, couldn't find pulled cost"
Siri is hilariously bad at anything but US accents.
Then you should do what most british actors do when they have to talk with an American Accent:
GO FULL TEXAN. YEEEEE HAW
This actually does work.
Using a comedy texan accent seems to render you comprehensible to Siri. Or at least, it did for the guy in the office with an iphone, which was the source of some amusement for a few days.
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
So if the passenger in the car was sober would he be more or less responsible for dying in a car crash?
more, because you're stupid if you get in the car with a drunk driver. You're also stupid if you drive drunk. You're also stupid if you're drunk and you get in the car with a drunk driver, but not as stupid because you were drunk and didn't think things through.
But neither is the drunk driver an EVIL MURDERER.
They are someone who lacked the cognitive agency to fully explore the consequences of their actions.
I am not saying driving drunk is okay anymore than Pony is. I'm saying I reject that they are horrible evil murderers.
Errr... this makes it sound like a mental condition that is wholly unexpected and can't be planned for
Which isn't the case, you know ahead of time when you drink that you'll have to at some point get home. You also know that drunk driving is illegal.
You also know that getting in the car with someone drunk is fucking bonkers.
Uhh there are tons of people who are completely impossible to read on their level of intoxication. Drunk people aren't always like something out of a fucking 1960s sitcom.
I'd actually like to chime in that we should multiply mass transit a billion fold in America because driving everywhere all the time as your only option is bad for lots of reasons
Sure, but we barely have the money to fix the non-maintenance in our current transportation system. We definitely don't have the money to overlay it with even a semi-comprehensive new one.
Maybe after we sort a bunch of other shit out.
We absolutely have enough money for all of those things, we just don't have the political will to both allocate it properly and raise the necessary funds
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
So if the passenger in the car was sober would he be more or less responsible for dying in a car crash?
more, because you're stupid if you get in the car with a drunk driver. You're also stupid if you drive drunk. You're also stupid if you're drunk and you get in the car with a drunk driver, but not as stupid because you were drunk and didn't think things through.
But neither is the drunk driver an EVIL MURDERER.
They are someone who lacked the cognitive agency to fully explore the consequences of their actions.
I am not saying driving drunk is okay anymore than Pony is. I'm saying I reject that they are horrible evil murderers.
Errr... this makes it sound like a mental condition that is wholly unexpected and can't be planned for
Which isn't the case, you know ahead of time when you drink that you'll have to at some point get home. You also know that drunk driving is illegal.
The American legal system looks very skeptically on intoxication as a defense to drunk driving because that is like the definition of circular reasoning
But some parts of the country agrees with LFHX's general argument that there ought to be some defense afforded, even if it is easily cleared by the prosecution
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I think one aspect to consider is that a drunk driver was at one point not drunk. That time before they became drunk and had to drive was their onus for preparing for when they had to drive or leave the party or whatever. It wasn't like they were at a party and then becoming drunk just happened to them. They made the decision to change their state of being from sober to inebriated, when they still had to drive somewhere.
I'm not saying I don't agree with you Pony, in fact I do agree with part of your argument. I just think this right here is why we still hold them to some responsibility.
Sure
Which is why they're still guilty of a crime when they do it, and why they're guilty of a violent crime if they harm someone when they do it. All I was trying to point out was the inconsistency in screaming "MUR-DIDDLY-URD-LER!" at the whole thing, which I think you got.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I think one aspect to consider is that a drunk driver was at one point not drunk. That time before they became drunk and had to drive was their onus for preparing for when they had to drive or leave the party or whatever. It wasn't like they were at a party and then becoming drunk just happened to them. They made the decision to change their state of being from sober to inebriated, when they still had to drive somewhere.
I'm not saying I don't agree with you Pony, in fact I do agree with part of your argument. I just think this right here is why we still hold them to some responsibility.
I think the point is that, regardless of their intent before they got to the party, or whenever, why do we hold them accountable for their decisions after they started drinking in this context, but in others, the act of drinking itself can be enough to say they are not accountable?
Like, say I went to the party fully intending to stay there, but after drinking, changed my mind and decided to drive.
If I change my mind after I started drinking, why is that a valid decision?
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
So if the passenger in the car was sober would he be more or less responsible for dying in a car crash?
more, because you're stupid if you get in the car with a drunk driver. You're also stupid if you drive drunk. You're also stupid if you're drunk and you get in the car with a drunk driver, but not as stupid because you were drunk and didn't think things through.
But neither is the drunk driver an EVIL MURDERER.
They are someone who lacked the cognitive agency to fully explore the consequences of their actions.
I am not saying driving drunk is okay anymore than Pony is. I'm saying I reject that they are horrible evil murderers.
Errr... this makes it sound like a mental condition that is wholly unexpected and can't be planned for
Which isn't the case, you know ahead of time when you drink that you'll have to at some point get home. You also know that drunk driving is illegal.
You also know that getting in the car with someone drunk is fucking bonkers.
Come on, really? The driver is responsible, he knows before he starts drinking that he's going to be responsible for things that happen while he's driving. This isn't that complicated
I think we can both agree texting while driving is dangerous because it impairs your abilities. If someone is texting when the driver gets them both killed is it their responsibility? No?
Because it's the driver's responsibility to not drive impaired!
I agree, which is why drunk driving should be punished to discourage the behavior. However, that still doesn't make drunk drivers murderers. Manslaughterers? Maybe.
And it sure as fuck doesn't absolve the drunk friend that got back in the car with you of any responsibility and make them a 100% innocent victim. And to anticipate the question, yes I do think there is a damn sight bit of difference between that and "wearing that skirt", so lets not try to say I'm making this a broad stroke and saying all victims have some responsibility because I am not.
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
So if the passenger in the car was sober would he be more or less responsible for dying in a car crash?
more, because you're stupid if you get in the car with a drunk driver. You're also stupid if you drive drunk. You're also stupid if you're drunk and you get in the car with a drunk driver, but not as stupid because you were drunk and didn't think things through.
But neither is the drunk driver an EVIL MURDERER.
They are someone who lacked the cognitive agency to fully explore the consequences of their actions.
I am not saying driving drunk is okay anymore than Pony is. I'm saying I reject that they are horrible evil murderers.
Errr... this makes it sound like a mental condition that is wholly unexpected and can't be planned for
Which isn't the case, you know ahead of time when you drink that you'll have to at some point get home. You also know that drunk driving is illegal.
The American legal system looks very skeptically on intoxication as a defense to drunk driving because that is like the definition of circular reasoning
But some parts of the country agrees with LFHX's general argument that there ought to be some defense afforded, even if it is easily cleared by the prosecution
I'm sympathetic to using it as a defense
As a first defense
And not to get someone off, but to mitigate punishment to something lesser. Young people don't know their limits, they don't know necessarily if they're drunk or not by the law's definition - I can empathize with that
Once you get a DUI that ship has sailed in my eyes though
I think one aspect to consider is that a drunk driver was at one point not drunk. That time before they became drunk and had to drive was their onus for preparing for when they had to drive or leave the party or whatever. It wasn't like they were at a party and then becoming drunk just happened to them. They made the decision to change their state of being from sober to inebriated, when they still had to drive somewhere.
I'm not saying I don't agree with you Pony, in fact I do agree with part of your argument. I just think this right here is why we still hold them to some responsibility.
Most people have agreed that the mental state that put you into intoxication is what effectively is your mens rea for the entirety of that state of time (presumably until your BAC lowers back to below illegal standards)
If you recklessly+ drank a lot in a situation that a reasonable person could foresee required driving afterwards, you'll get nailed for that.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Also when I tell Siri to google something she will Bing it.
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
So if the passenger in the car was sober would he be more or less responsible for dying in a car crash?
more, because you're stupid if you get in the car with a drunk driver. You're also stupid if you drive drunk. You're also stupid if you're drunk and you get in the car with a drunk driver, but not as stupid because you were drunk and didn't think things through.
But neither is the drunk driver an EVIL MURDERER.
They are someone who lacked the cognitive agency to fully explore the consequences of their actions.
I am not saying driving drunk is okay anymore than Pony is. I'm saying I reject that they are horrible evil murderers.
Errr... this makes it sound like a mental condition that is wholly unexpected and can't be planned for
Which isn't the case, you know ahead of time when you drink that you'll have to at some point get home. You also know that drunk driving is illegal.
You also know that getting in the car with someone drunk is fucking bonkers.
Come on, really? The driver is responsible, he knows before he starts drinking that he's going to be responsible for things that happen while he's driving. This isn't that complicated
I think we can both agree texting while driving is dangerous because it impairs your abilities. If someone is texting when the driver gets them both killed is it their responsibility? No?
Because it's the driver's responsibility to not drive impaired!
I agree, which is why drunk driving should be punished to discourage the behavior. However, that still doesn't make drunk drivers murderers. Manslaughterers? Maybe.
And it sure as fuck doesn't absolve the drunk friend that got back in the car with you of any responsibility and make them a 100% innocent victim. And to anticipate the question, yes I do think there is a damn sight bit of difference between that and "wearing that skirt", so lets not try to say I'm making this a broad stroke and saying all victims have some responsibility because I am not.
Well I'd agree with this in a better world
In the world we live in, drunk drivers are often murderers in the eyes of the law, especially if they're a minority and only if they're poor
I'd only consider a drunk driver a murderer in extreme circumstances
override367 on
0
Options
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
I think one aspect to consider is that a drunk driver was at one point not drunk. That time before they became drunk and had to drive was their onus for preparing for when they had to drive or leave the party or whatever. It wasn't like they were at a party and then becoming drunk just happened to them. They made the decision to change their state of being from sober to inebriated, when they still had to drive somewhere.
I'm not saying I don't agree with you Pony, in fact I do agree with part of your argument. I just think this right here is why we still hold them to some responsibility.
Sure
Which is why they're still guilty of a crime when they do it, and why they're guilty of a violent crime if they harm someone when they do it. All I was trying to point out was the inconsistency in screaming "MUR-DIDDLY-URD-LER!" at the whole thing, which I think you got.
And this I agree with.
Guys its like football role model Russell Wilson always says:
"Separation is in the preparation"
Also Russell Wilson is a robot and therefore could not get drunk.
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
So if the passenger in the car was sober would he be more or less responsible for dying in a car crash?
more, because you're stupid if you get in the car with a drunk driver. You're also stupid if you drive drunk. You're also stupid if you're drunk and you get in the car with a drunk driver, but not as stupid because you were drunk and didn't think things through.
But neither is the drunk driver an EVIL MURDERER.
They are someone who lacked the cognitive agency to fully explore the consequences of their actions.
I am not saying driving drunk is okay anymore than Pony is. I'm saying I reject that they are horrible evil murderers.
Errr... this makes it sound like a mental condition that is wholly unexpected and can't be planned for
Which isn't the case, you know ahead of time when you drink that you'll have to at some point get home. You also know that drunk driving is illegal.
You also know that getting in the car with someone drunk is fucking bonkers.
Come on, really? The driver is responsible, he knows before he starts drinking that he's going to be responsible for things that happen while he's driving. This isn't that complicated
I think we can both agree texting while driving is dangerous because it impairs your abilities. If someone is texting when the driver gets them both killed is it their responsibility? No?
Because it's the driver's responsibility to not drive impaired!
I agree, which is why drunk driving should be punished to discourage the behavior. However, that still doesn't make drunk drivers murderers. Manslaughterers? Maybe.
And it sure as fuck doesn't absolve the drunk friend that got back in the car with you of any responsibility and make them a 100% innocent victim. And to anticipate the question, yes I do think there is a damn sight bit of difference between that and "wearing that skirt", so lets not try to say I'm making this a broad stroke and saying all victims have some responsibility because I am not.
So, if I was driving recklessly and got in an accident that killed my passenger and I was sober is that not murder?
I think one aspect to consider is that a drunk driver was at one point not drunk. That time before they became drunk and had to drive was their onus for preparing for when they had to drive or leave the party or whatever. It wasn't like they were at a party and then becoming drunk just happened to them. They made the decision to change their state of being from sober to inebriated, when they still had to drive somewhere.
I'm not saying I don't agree with you Pony, in fact I do agree with part of your argument. I just think this right here is why we still hold them to some responsibility.
Most people have agreed that the mental state that put you into intoxication is what effectively is your mens rea for the entirety of that state of time (presumably until your BAC lowers back to below illegal standards)
If you recklessly+ drank a lot in a situation that a reasonable person could foresee required driving afterwards, you'll get nailed for that.
Yea, the actions you take you're responsible for
the actions others take on you, you are not responsible for (eg: drunk rape)
Now we could get into a discussion on where that line lies re: rape but that would be a really bad discussion because it always is
I think one aspect to consider is that a drunk driver was at one point not drunk. That time before they became drunk and had to drive was their onus for preparing for when they had to drive or leave the party or whatever. It wasn't like they were at a party and then becoming drunk just happened to them. They made the decision to change their state of being from sober to inebriated, when they still had to drive somewhere.
I'm not saying I don't agree with you Pony, in fact I do agree with part of your argument. I just think this right here is why we still hold them to some responsibility.
I think the point is that, regardless of their intent before they got to the party, or whenever, why do we hold them accountable for their decisions after they started drinking in this context, but in others, the act of drinking itself can be enough to say they are not accountable?
Like, say I went to the party fully intending to stay there, but after drinking, changed my mind and decided to drive.
If I change my mind after I started drinking, why is that a valid decision?
Because our society has demanded that cars are essentially necessary in 99% of the country, even though driving is a highly dangerous and highly socially risky activity. You're putting a buttload of trust in other human beings not to be colossal fuck-ups, particularly when they're driving a 2ton babykiller
The decision requirements for such things are lowered for the sake of pragmatism and jurisprudence
Not to mention in your last scenario there isn't an intent to create a risky scenario by not driving (unless there was some necessity/emergency, like you refused to drive someone to the hospital? It gets murky there))
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Posts
No, but they also didn't have seventy years of people doing them absolutely intentionally, often many nights every week, and having that not just condoned, but not even examined really.
Not to say I disagree with you even. Just a caveat.
--LeVar Burton
Which isn't the case, you know ahead of time when you drink that you'll have to at some point get home. You also know that drunk driving is illegal.
No.
You also know that getting in the car with someone drunk is fucking bonkers.
Siri is hilariously bad at anything but US accents.
Loooouuuuussssyyyyyyyyy!!
balla
Then you should do what most british actors do when they have to talk with an American Accent:
GO FULL TEXAN. YEEEEE HAW
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Come on, really? The driver is responsible, he knows before he starts drinking that he's going to be responsible for things that happen while he's driving. This isn't that complicated
I think we can both agree texting while driving is dangerous because it impairs your abilities. If someone is texting when the driver gets them both killed is it their responsibility? No?
Because it's the driver's responsibility to not drive impaired!
Sure, but we barely have the money to fix the non-maintenance in our current transportation system. We definitely don't have the money to overlay it with even a semi-comprehensive new one.
Maybe after we sort a bunch of other shit out.
--LeVar Burton
i actually quite enjoy driving automobiles
LOL! First try with my worst texan accent worked.
I'm not saying I don't agree with you Pony, in fact I do agree with part of your argument. I just think this right here is why we still hold them to some responsibility.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
Hey now, Homeland has plenty of british actors (which seems silly) and none of them sound texan!
twitch.tv/tehsloth
This actually does work.
Using a comedy texan accent seems to render you comprehensible to Siri. Or at least, it did for the guy in the office with an iphone, which was the source of some amusement for a few days.
EDIT: Hah!
Uhh there are tons of people who are completely impossible to read on their level of intoxication. Drunk people aren't always like something out of a fucking 1960s sitcom.
We absolutely have enough money for all of those things, we just don't have the political will to both allocate it properly and raise the necessary funds
The American legal system looks very skeptically on intoxication as a defense to drunk driving because that is like the definition of circular reasoning
But some parts of the country agrees with LFHX's general argument that there ought to be some defense afforded, even if it is easily cleared by the prosecution
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
still
fuck the police
Sure
Which is why they're still guilty of a crime when they do it, and why they're guilty of a violent crime if they harm someone when they do it. All I was trying to point out was the inconsistency in screaming "MUR-DIDDLY-URD-LER!" at the whole thing, which I think you got.
I think the point is that, regardless of their intent before they got to the party, or whenever, why do we hold them accountable for their decisions after they started drinking in this context, but in others, the act of drinking itself can be enough to say they are not accountable?
Like, say I went to the party fully intending to stay there, but after drinking, changed my mind and decided to drive.
If I change my mind after I started drinking, why is that a valid decision?
I agree, which is why drunk driving should be punished to discourage the behavior. However, that still doesn't make drunk drivers murderers. Manslaughterers? Maybe.
And it sure as fuck doesn't absolve the drunk friend that got back in the car with you of any responsibility and make them a 100% innocent victim. And to anticipate the question, yes I do think there is a damn sight bit of difference between that and "wearing that skirt", so lets not try to say I'm making this a broad stroke and saying all victims have some responsibility because I am not.
I'm sympathetic to using it as a defense
As a first defense
And not to get someone off, but to mitigate punishment to something lesser. Young people don't know their limits, they don't know necessarily if they're drunk or not by the law's definition - I can empathize with that
Once you get a DUI that ship has sailed in my eyes though
Most people have agreed that the mental state that put you into intoxication is what effectively is your mens rea for the entirety of that state of time (presumably until your BAC lowers back to below illegal standards)
If you recklessly+ drank a lot in a situation that a reasonable person could foresee required driving afterwards, you'll get nailed for that.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I think all of this is just high level trolling!
Well I'd agree with this in a better world
In the world we live in, drunk drivers are often murderers in the eyes of the law, especially if they're a minority and only if they're poor
I'd only consider a drunk driver a murderer in extreme circumstances
And this I agree with.
Guys its like football role model Russell Wilson always says:
"Separation is in the preparation"
Also Russell Wilson is a robot and therefore could not get drunk.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
So, if I was driving recklessly and got in an accident that killed my passenger and I was sober is that not murder?
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Yea, the actions you take you're responsible for
the actions others take on you, you are not responsible for (eg: drunk rape)
Now we could get into a discussion on where that line lies re: rape but that would be a really bad discussion because it always is
in what way
Because our society has demanded that cars are essentially necessary in 99% of the country, even though driving is a highly dangerous and highly socially risky activity. You're putting a buttload of trust in other human beings not to be colossal fuck-ups, particularly when they're driving a 2ton babykiller
The decision requirements for such things are lowered for the sake of pragmatism and jurisprudence
Not to mention in your last scenario there isn't an intent to create a risky scenario by not driving (unless there was some necessity/emergency, like you refused to drive someone to the hospital? It gets murky there))
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
If the law can treat children as adults for criminal proceedings, it should see them as adults period.
But, of course, that will never happen. Kids aren't people, haha, who am I kidding!
Happy to drop a truth bomb on ya, pardner.
*touches the brim of his stetson hat*
*rides off into the sunset*