Drunk driver says he will continue driving impaired

[16hypen3sp]

Micheal Gerard Cooper kills two people while driving impaired. Serves seven years and says he will continue driving impaired once he is released which is very soon. The family of the victims is so concerned that they want pictures posted of him in every liquor store.

More here...

http://globalnews.ca/news/1096108/cape-breton-family-wants-pictures-of-drunk-driver-to-be-public/

[Env-Consultant]

I know a lot of people won't agree with this, but if it was my family, I'd kill him. The thought of not doing so wouldn't even cross my mind.

Kills a couple of my family members, shows no remorse, and rubs it in my family's face? That would be a missing person that nobody misses at all. Gone. You'd never find a trace of him. But he'd never be able to do what he did to my, or anyone else's, family again. Maybe I'm a vindictive asshole, but some people don't deserve the right to live.

[ZenOps]

:dunno: The penalties should be strong enough to stand on their own.

Somewhat related:

12% of Californians drive without a valid drivers license (nevermind valid insurance) The population of California being ~ Canada, so a solid 2 million people drive without being legal.

If they get caught, its usually no biggie as they will get three square meals in jail anyhow. Arguably, if you are over 65 and are having difficulty getting a license in Calfornia (usually because of financial situation) many just decide to drive even knowing that they are probably not in peak condition to be driving (IE: medication or physical ability may be similar to alcohol impairment). The penalty of jail - is very weak deterrent at that age and financial ability (jail is arguably, almost the same as a low income state sponsored retirement home)

Really, its becoming so that drunk and crack mayors are just as common as unqualified and invalid drivers.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by Env-Consultant
I know a lot of people won't agree with this, but if it was my family, I'd kill him. The thought of not doing so wouldn't even cross my mind.

Kills a couple of my family members, shows no remorse, and rubs it in my family's face? That would be a missing person that nobody misses at all. Gone. You'd never find a trace of him. But he'd never be able to do what he did to my, or anyone else's, family again. Maybe I'm a vindictive asshole, but some people don't deserve the right to live.
I guess the way to get off easy even if you were caught would be to get drunk and run him over.

[Feruk]

He did the crime, and now he's done the time. That's our justice system. :dunno: Now the father of the dead teen is proposing that this liquor board discriminate against the drunk, allowing for a nice lawsuit and payoff day? I dunno... If it was me, I'd sit on him for a day and snap a picture of him drinking. Violation of parole, back to jail.

[dirtsniffer]

Dangerous offender status.. seems simple enough.

[quick_scar]

Originally posted by Feruk
He did the crime, and now he's done the time. That's our justice system. :dunno: Now the father of the dead teen is proposing that this liquor board discriminate against the drunk, allowing for a nice lawsuit and payoff day? I dunno... If it was me, I'd sit on him for a day and snap a picture of him drinking. Violation of parole, back to jail.

Clearly jail is doing nothing for him. Granted it will get him off the street, but will only delay what will happen when he gets out. The second time with no conditions (other then no driving).

This speaks to the way our system is. It is not about rehabilitation, or helping people.

[ZenOps]

Taking the time to pickout one specific example is an odd trend nowadays.

I guess its because many Albertans don't live in the big cities. Really though, its like that other thread picking out one person for recieveing a food giftcart when she probably didn't need it. Well, duh - sorry to say, that there are a good 45 million people in the US who pickup $133 food cards every month that probably don't need it.

Really, its very focused vindictive type behavior. If you are going to pick out one person - you better be sure that 2% to 10% (or millions of people) aren't already doing the same thing.

[Env-Consultant]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Really, its very focused vindictive type behavior. If you are going to pick out one person - you better be sure that 2% to 10% (or millions of people) aren't already doing the same thing.

Very few people are murdering people via drunk droving, then rubbing it in the family's face by claiming they will continue their terrible actions and show no remorse.

Vindictive to stop this behavior? No, IMO. Typically, the world will balance itself out, but I have no problem with people tipping the scales to ensure that balance is maintained. Wouldn't be my first time.

The guy isn't worth the boots he walks in or the air he breathes. We'd all be better off without him.

[P_D]

Originally posted by Env-Consultant


Very few people are murdering people via drunk droving, then rubbing it in the family's face by claiming they will continue their terrible actions and show no remorse.

Vindictive to stop this behavior? No, IMO. Typically, the world will balance itself out, but I have no problem with people tipping the scales to ensure that balance is maintained. Wouldn't be my first time.

The guy isn't worth the boots he walks in or the air he breathes. We'd all be better off without him.

Truth

[sr20s14zenki]

I don't understand why we cant just put some people down.....if you cant get along with all the other people, you need to leave the planet please.

[KRyn]

Well that didn't take long at all...

CLICKY! (http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/28/man-who-refused-court-order-to-give-up-drink-after-killing-teens-with-car-arrested-near-halifax-liquor-store/)

[A790]

Originally posted by Env-Consultant


Very few people are murdering people via drunk droving, then rubbing it in the family's face by claiming they will continue their terrible actions and show no remorse.

Vindictive to stop this behavior? No, IMO. Typically, the world will balance itself out, but I have no problem with people tipping the scales to ensure that balance is maintained. Wouldn't be my first time.

The guy isn't worth the boots he walks in or the air he breathes. We'd all be better off without him.
This.

[lilmira]

Originally posted by KRyn
Well that didn't take long at all...

CLICKY! (http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/28/man-who-refused-court-order-to-give-up-drink-after-killing-teens-with-car-arrested-near-halifax-liquor-store/)

WTF? Just release him in the middle of a desert with a bottle of paint thinner. That should do it.

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by Env-Consultant


Typically, the world will balance itself out, but I have no problem with people tipping the scales to ensure that balance is maintained. Wouldn't be my first time.



I can appreciate the cold take on cause-and-effect, but it assume that these things are preventable.

The truth is, there are wackos and other truly defective individuals out there, and killing them won't have any deterrent effect upon other loose screws.

While this probably does deserve to be put down, let's not overestimate the corrective power of vengeance.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by LollerBrader
The truth is, there are wackos and other truly defective individuals out there, and killing them won't have any deterrent effect upon other loose screws.

If someone is truly crazy... and I mean, right damn "out there" - I would agree with you. While I have no idea on this guy's background, I would assume that he is not batshit crazy. He's likely just an alcoholic asshole. I'm also pretty sure that the vast majority of repeat offenders are also not crazy; even those who might have taken someone else's life as a result.

And for those people who still have a firm hold on reality, I actually think that if they heard about someone who went "missing" shortly after being released under these circumstances, that it just might make one or two of them think twice about getting behind the wheel drunk again. But then, that's my logical side speaking; I believe I've heard stats that states with death penalties are no less subject to violent crime than those without it.

I am not certain how I would handle this situation myself. It is easy to say I would kill him too - but the family *has* had 7 years to come to grips with the situation and are not likely blinded by anger by this point. Let's just say if that is what they felt they needed to do to both get their revenge as well as take a dangerous person off the streets, I certainly would have no desire to stop them.

[msommers]

This type of behavior is not uncommon of drunk drivers. Think of how many have that mentality of reoccurring but slip through without even getting jail time.

I'm not an expert (or even close to) so I don't understand why it's so difficult to get drunks off the road and carry far more severe penalties. I mean there are lawyers who specialize in helping people with drunk driving charges, with apparently high success. Perhaps some of the officers could weigh in.

[speedog]

Originally posted by msommers
This type of behavior is not uncommon of drunk drivers. Think of how many have that mentality of reoccurring but slip through without even getting jail time.

I'm not an expert (or even close to) so I don't understand why it's so difficult to get drunks off the road and carry far more severe penalties. I mean there are lawyers who specialize in helping people with drunk driving charges, with apparently high success. Perhaps some of the officers could weigh in.
Probably the same reason some people continue to speed excessively or why domestic abuse continues to happen? The penalties in Canada are just not enough of a deterrent for many.

Put it this way, if they started lopping off hands or feet for drunk driving or excessive speeding or domestic abuse, then I'd dare say that you'd start seeing some reductions in these type of offenses. But for drunk driving, shit the last time I went through a check stop was over 20 years ago and considering that, the odds are pretty good that this applies to most people. Put officers in unmarked cars in parking lots or near where the bars are - have them communicating with undercover cops in the bars, this would make it easier to catch drunks and would maybe make some think twice about driving while under the influence.

But as long as it's so easy not to get caught and if even caught, the implications aren't that serious, nothing's going to change.

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by Kloubek


And for those people who still have a firm hold on reality, I actually think that if they heard about someone who went "missing" shortly after being released under these circumstances, that it just might make one or two of them think twice about getting behind the wheel drunk again. But then, that's my logical side speaking; I believe I've heard stats that states with death penalties are no less subject to violent crime than those without it.


Increasing, I find myself questioning the entire idea of deterrence. Sane people abstain from robbing stores because it's wrong, not because they fear jail. Sane people don't rape chicks because it's wrong - Not because of jail fear.

For the impulsive, obsessed, and off kilter minds that want to rob a store or rape a chick... I'm not sure deterrent factors into it. I think they do not consider the possibility of negative outcomes.

Perhaps there are some marginal minds for whom deterrence means more than what is moral... But such folks are outside of my experience.


Full disclosure: Like many on here, I did completely stupid things when I was younger, and should by rights be dead, or in Jail. The survival I once attributed to cleverness I now recognize as pure luck. And never did I weigh penalties of any kind. I did what I did because I was going to do it.




Originally posted by Kloubek

I am not certain how I would handle this situation myself. It is easy to say I would kill him too -


Provided one doesn't have other dependents, this is of course an option. I've often wondered what I'd do if someone hurt my family. The answer depends a lot upon how much of my family is remaining. Self sacrifice can take different forms - many of which don't involve a dramatic finish.



Originally posted by Kloubek

Let's just say if that is what they felt they needed to do to both get their revenge as well as take a dangerous person off the streets, I certainly would have no desire to stop them.



If the offender does have a high likelihood of re-offense, it's a public service... But this doesn't have a cosmic balancing or deterrent effect that someone claimed earlier in the thread.

It would be done because it just had to be done, and it doesn't have to have more meaning than that.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by speedog
Probably the same reason some people continue to speed excessively or why domestic abuse continues to happen? The penalties in Canada are just not enough of a deterrent for many.

But as long as it's so easy not to get caught and if even caught, the implications aren't that serious, nothing's going to change.

You can beat down the symptom to death, but if you ignore the disease, you'll never win. DUI has carried more and more serious consequences over the years, and guess what, it has not deterred people from doing it. I somehow doubt your solution of EVEN steeper penalties is gonna do shit all. I also doubt it's as simple as the ease of not getting caught. I can go out today and rob a Mac's store and probably never get caught. I don't do this because I have no need. So instead of more severe punishment, let's deal with why people are driving drunk.

[Seth1968]

In this regard, consequences won't help.

An intoxicated person has no legitimate perception of consequences.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by Feruk
I can go out today and rob a Mac's store and probably never get caught. I don't do this because I have no need. I disagree with this. I don't need to pirate my music/movies/games, but I do. If the risk of being caught and charged for piracy was the same as for robbing a convenience store, I likely wouldn't do it.

Consequences mean something to the vast majority of us. I'm not sure what we can do about everybody else.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by Feruk
He did the crime, and now he's done the time. That's our justice system. :dunno: Now the father of the dead teen is proposing that this liquor board discriminate against the drunk, allowing for a nice lawsuit and payoff day? I dunno... If it was me, I'd sit on him for a day and snap a picture of him drinking. Violation of parole, back to jail.

Parole restrictions and penalties are only as good as the ability to enforce them. Distributing a picture of the ex-con is only discrimination if the restrictions on his ability to buy/possess/drinking alcohol weren't in place. It's not really any different than when they distribute the picture of a convicted but recently-released sex offenders.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Mibz
I disagree with this. I don't need to pirate my music/movies/games, but I do. If the risk of being caught and charged for piracy was the same as for robbing a convenience store, I likely wouldn't do it.

Consequences mean something to the vast majority of us. I'm not sure what we can do about everybody else.

Yes and no really. Most people who download stuff do it because morally they don't believe its as bad as traditional theft. So its a moral and beliefs issue.

Theft was once defined as depriving someone the use of their property.
Then there is the concept in economics of a 'public good'. Which is " a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others".

So pirates rationalize it by saying that their copy came out of thin air with no cost to anyone, no loss of use or enjoyment to anyone, not even profit to the company, cause realistically a pirate downloads many many times of what he or she would have purchased if they could not download.

They also place low value on their activity, because when they don't have to pay for it, they download crap they NEVER would have purchased.

Hence, its easily given up if the chance of punishment is increased.

Morality is a far greater motivator than the prospect of punishment IMO.

[ZenOps]

Is it wrong to take money from people, badly manage it, lose it all, pay none of it back, make sure that there is no personal accountability, and then simply declare bankruptcy four times?

Then Donald Trump should be president.

Me, I'd just use your money and put it all on red (better yet, you might as well just ignore me altogether and put it on red yourself) At least that would be honest.

As for piracy. If an artist makes a painting, you can definitely argue that the first sale is definitely important and meaningful and should benefit the artist.

But what about the second sale, and all subsequent future sales - and all digital copy forms of it, and all sales after the intial artist is many generations dead?

Argument goes, that the painting is really only worth what the first sale is. If the artist sells it for a million, but is immediately sold by a shrewd artinvestor for two million the next week, the artist should not get extra proceeds. Or should the artisit "rent" the image, never for sale. And how does the consumer know the difference? How could one ever possibly keep track of everthing that was ever sold or "rented" out.

IE: Is it illegal for me to display a digital reproduction of the Mona Lisa on my computer screen or TV becuase I did not pay for it? Who do I pay? The great great x 10 or X100 grandson of the original artist?

[R!zz0]

They should scare him like this

watch?v=zfvPPPc_UTs