Should drunk driving be reduced to a $75 fine?

[KandabashiDevil]

Originally posted by googe
And why do we put more stigma on a drunk driver (unconscious decision for the most part) than someone who is fully conscious and aware of what they are doing, yet does this 'worse' texting offence regardless?

It seems like we have some priorities confused.

Seems like you've got some priorities confused...

Texting while driving is dangerous & I'm not defending it.
However, people who think texting is as dangerous (or more dangerous) than driving drunk are ridiculous. They represent a small portion of society who fervently pursue small laws because they over-value their own opinion.

Driving while impaired will never be reduced to a $75 fine.
Sending text messages while driving will never be punished as severely as driving drunk.

Get used to it! The two are completely separate offenses. I'm not even sure why you're making an argument comparing them. Texting behind the wheel is more like ... Playing video games, or watching a movie. Still very dangerous and illegal, but at least you can turn them off and look away. I wish being drunk had an "OFF" button!

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by mx73someday
Introducing risk is not a crime, there is no injured party.

Do you believe I should be able to shoot my guns at a school during recess so long as I don't hit any kids? I bet nobody would have a problem with that....

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by mx73someday
Toma all the way on this one. Introducing risk is not a crime, there is no injured party.

Where the hell does Beyond find people like you? I would say introducing risk IS a crime based on negligence. You don't have to hurt your kids to get them taken away (for instance).

[911fever]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
Texting while driving isn't even CLOSE to being drunk - I don't know who the hell they have doing these tests for them. I can easily text without even looking at my phone, but I still only ever do so at stoplights if I have to send a text for whatever reason. As long as my eyes are on the road, me doing something else at the same time is no different than talking to a passenger. I still don't text while I drive though. I suppose the laws have to account for the most retarded of people though, so maybe it would be good.

As for the drunks, IMO drunk driving punishments should be WAY higher. As of now you can get hammered, kill an entire family of five, and get 5 years in prison. Whoop de do. Maybe less people would do it if there was a 10yr jail sentence or something attached to it beyond a certain blood % (perhaps a bit higher than it is now). And if you kill someone while drunk, I'd like to see automatic 25 yrs.

IMO drunk driving shouldn't be any different than someone opening fire on a crowd of people or something - if the person knowingly does something to endanger the life of all the people, should he get a weak punishment just because he missed everyone and didn't kill them? In my mind drunk driving is the same, your chances of hitting someone are pretty high if you're hammered. If you get caught you get a slap on the wrist, and if you kill people, no problem there either - just a couple years in jail.

I agree completely. 100%.

[mx73someday]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


Do you believe I should be able to shoot my guns at a school during recess so long as I don't hit any kids? I bet nobody would have a problem with that....

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Where the hell does Beyond find people like you? I would say introducing risk IS a crime based on negligence. You don't have to hurt your kids to get them taken away (for instance).

You both are missing the point here completely. You need to look up the definition of a crime. A crime has to have an injured party. Driving under the influence is not a crime, it's simply less preferred behavior. AFAIK Toma is not against DUI being a statute violation (illegal). In the same way it's not criminal to shoot your gun at a school unless you cause harm or intend to cause harm, it may however violate a statute which makes it illegal. Neglecting your children causes them harm, it is definitely criminal.

[msommers]

When exactly would there be a situation where an individual brought a gun to a school without intent? Unless you're a police officer, a gun should never be at a school.

I'd really like someone who is a lawyer to step in and clear up that gun and school business. If I, a 25 year old male, showed up to Western Canada High with a gun with no intent to hurt anyone and instead, setup a shooting range for myself and started firing away, what is that classified as? And what happens if I keep doing it because I'm not getting charged criminally with anything but rather a small fine?

[mx73someday]

Originally posted by msommers
And what happens if I keep doing it because I'm not getting charged criminally with anything but rather a small fine?

Well typically what happens when someone repeatedly violates a statute of a jurisdiction or property is that they're banned from it (lose their permission, privilege or license). You won't be able to repeat it if you aren't permitted to visit the school.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by mx73someday


Well typically what happens when someone repeatedly violates a statute of a jurisdiction or property is that they're banned from it (lose their permission, privilege or license). You won't be able to repeat it if you aren't permitted to visit the school.

I'm pretty sure if msommers showed up at school to do some target practice at recess he would get a criminal charge immediately, and not after the third time he does it. He can just keep going to different schools if he gets banned from the one, or do it at shopping malls instead. The very least of his worries would be the ban from returning to school property and the confiscation of his gun.

Maybe criminal negligence, attempted murder, or something along those lines might be the charge. I'm not 100% familiar with all the charges but I would bet he gets a criminal charge immediately in addition to the more minor charges surrounding gun control.

Also you can get a criminal charge without harming anyone, I believe. If I set up a huge bomb in a public place that happens to not go off, you don't think I'd get a criminal charge? What if I just liked playing with explosives at that location and never intended to hurt anyone?

[calgary403]

Originally posted by msommers
When exactly would there be a situation where an individual brought a gun to a school without intent? Unless you're a police officer, a gun should never be at a school.

I'd really like someone who is a lawyer to step in and clear up that gun and school business. If I, a 25 year old male, showed up to Western Canada High with a gun with no intent to hurt anyone and instead, setup a shooting range for myself and started firing away, what is that classified as? And what happens if I keep doing it because I'm not getting charged criminally with anything but rather a small fine?

I don't know why these people keep comparing drinking and driving to doing target practice in public. If you fire a gun in a public place you WILL be charged criminally. Not some "you're banned from the property."

It is a criminal charge. Hell, it's even a criminal charge not having your firearm stored IN YOUR OWN HOUSE properly.

Also for the people saying it shouldn't be a criminal to drink and drive need to really give your head a shake. Why don't we take out all the workplace safety rules as well? Those of you who are in the trades good luck surviving the next year!

It's there to prevent people from drinking and driving. If people break the law while it's illegal imagine the amount of people that would do it if it was decriminalized. It would be like playing bumper cars driving down fucking deerfoot.

Originally posted by mx73someday




You both are missing the point here completely. You need to look up the definition of a crime. A crime has to have an injured party.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...harges-101003/

You ever heard of uttering threats? That's criminal. No one is injured. You really need to brush up on your definitions, or stop making up bullshit all together.

Maybe we should make it legal to store loaded and cocked firearms in your kid's rooms? Technically no one has been "injured" yet.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by calgary403


I don't know why these people keep comparing drinking and driving to doing target practice in public. If you fire a gun in a public place you WILL be charged criminally. Not some "you're banned from the property."

It is a criminal charge. Hell, it's even a criminal charge not having your firearm stored IN YOUR OWN HOUSE properly.

We're using those examples because the others in this thread think you can put people in as much danger as you like (drunk driving), and so long as you don't harm them its OK, or at least a very minor charge.

[Chojo]

Originally posted by mx73someday
You both are missing the point here completely. You need to look up the definition of a crime. A crime has to have an injured party.

So bringing a gun to school and waving it around, as long as no one gets hurt, is not a crime?

When you get screwed over $100,000 by a ponzi scheme, you're not injured, so I guess it's not a crime either?

[mx73someday]

mitsu3000gt's original school scenario was lacking quite a bit of detail you guys have decided to add in the last couple posts. This is basically turning into a strawman-fest against me. I can just as easily create scenarios out of nothing to show my point:

"The school yard is massive, a few kids go to a secluded part during recess, all aware that one kid is going to shoot a gun. No other kids or people are aware of any threat. The kid fires a few rounds safely and nothing else happens."

"A kid has a gun on school property for self-defence, because he's expecting an attack and he uses it when a group of kids attack him."

"A kid goes to a vacant school in the middle of nowhere and shoots a gun. No one hears it."

So what part of these scenarios is criminal?

Chojo's example is a pure strawman effort. Up to that point no one mentioned anyone waving a gun around in the air. No one defined harm as only being physically injured, I certainly didn't assume that. If waving a gun around in the air causes any other kind of trauma to some children, then it's a crime.

If I understand correctly, and in my own words, Toma's main point was that some things you can be criminally charged for by the people calling themselves government aren't necessarily criminal.

Simply driving and exceeding some arbitrary level of drunkenness with the intent of getting home (or some other destination) does not constitute a crime. It only becomes a crime if someone else becomes injured. Firing a gun without intending to hit someone can result in traumatic injury if people are nearby, it's quite different. Just the same if a drunk nearly causes a collision, someone can receive trauma from the experience and then it could be considered a crime.

Maybe we should make it legal to store loaded and cocked firearms in your kid's rooms?

Who's we?

When you get screwed over $100,000 by a ponzi scheme, you're not injured, so I guess it's not a crime either?

What does fraud have to do with drunk driving?

[Toma]

Yeah, no sense getting drawn into their ridiculous gun in the schoolyard example lol....

It's not even close to the same thing on pretty well any level... and yeah, it is a straw man, and we simply dont bother with those.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by mx73someday
mitsu3000gt's original school scenario was lacking quite a bit of detail you guys have decided to add in the last couple posts. This is basically turning into a strawman-fest against me. I can just as easily create scenarios out of nothing to show my point:

"The school yard is massive, a few kids go to a secluded part during recess, all aware that one kid is going to shoot a gun. No other kids or people are aware of any threat. The kid fires a few rounds safely and nothing else happens."

"A kid has a gun on school property for self-defence, because he's expecting an attack and he uses it when a group of kids attack him."

"A kid goes to a vacant school in the middle of nowhere and shoots a gun. No one hears it."

So what part of these scenarios is criminal?

Chojo's example is a pure strawman effort. Up to that point no one mentioned anyone waving a gun around in the air. No one defined harm as only being physically injured, I certainly didn't assume that. If waving a gun around in the air causes any other kind of trauma to some children, then it's a crime.

If I understand correctly, and in my own words, Toma's main point was that some things you can be criminally charged for by the people calling themselves government aren't necessarily criminal.

Simply driving and exceeding some arbitrary level of drunkenness with the intent of getting home (or some other destination) does not constitute a crime. It only becomes a crime if someone else becomes injured. Firing a gun without intending to hit someone can result in traumatic injury if people are nearby, it's quite different. Just the same if a drunk nearly causes a collision, someone can receive trauma from the experience and then it could be considered a crime.

This is what you said:

Originally posted by mx73someday
Toma all the way on this one. Introducing risk is not a crime, there is no injured party.

You didn't put any conditions on it either. We suggested situations where there was risk introduced, nobody was hurt, and it would have been a criminal charge without a doubt. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, because if nobody is hurt, then it isn't a crime by your definition.

Simply bringing a gun to school is no more criminal than a drunk going out and sitting in his car - I agree. But as soon as that drunk starts driving, it's the same as a shooter shooting with innocents around (no intent to harm them), just like it's a total gamble whether or not that drunk is going to smoke a pedestrian or T-bone someone at 120km/h. In fact I would think the drunk driving is even WORSE because at least people will know what is going on when someone fires a gun and will get the hell out of there. With a drunk driver, I have no clue if that guy behind me is going to stop, or the guy beside me is all of a sudden going to run me off the road.

Would you be OK with people being allowed to randomly discharge firearms at recess at your kids' school? (no intent to harm). They wouldn't need an approved area to do so in for comparison's sake, because that drunk driver doesn't have his own special roads to drive on. They are out driving with everyone else.

Again, I am not talking about someone who had 1 beer, but someone who is hammered. Both are introducing risk, regardless of intent, and both are charged criminally as they should be.

[89coupe]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
Texting while driving isn't even CLOSE to being drunk - I don't know who the hell they have doing these tests for them. I can easily text without even looking at my phone, but I still only ever do so at stoplights if I have to send a text for whatever reason. As long as my eyes are on the road, me doing something else at the same time is no different than talking to a passenger. I still don't text while I drive though. I suppose the laws have to account for the most retarded of people though, so maybe it would be good.

As for the drunks, IMO drunk driving punishments should be WAY higher. As of now you can get hammered, kill an entire family of five, and get 5 years in prison. Whoop de do. Maybe less people would do it if there was a 10yr jail sentence or something attached to it beyond a certain blood % (perhaps a bit higher than it is now). And if you kill someone while drunk, I'd like to see automatic 25 yrs.

IMO drunk driving shouldn't be any different than someone opening fire on a crowd of people or something - if the person knowingly does something to endanger the life of all the people, should he get a weak punishment just because he missed everyone and didn't kill them? In my mind drunk driving is the same, your chances of hitting someone are pretty high if you're hammered. If you get caught you get a slap on the wrist, and if you kill people, no problem there either - just a couple years in jail.

At least a drunk driver still has his eyes on the road. Someone texting is in another world.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by 89coupe


At least a drunk driver still has his eyes on the road. Someone texting is in another world.

I never text while driving, but I can easily text without looking at my phone. Anyone with a smartphone I would think can easily do this so their eyes can be on the road. They can put the phone down too, a drunk can't sober up on command. Don't get me wrong though, I don't agree with either of them.

Another grey area surrounding the use of phones, is that they can be used for other things, like GPS. If a cop sees me typing in an address for GPS on my iPhone and thinks I am texting, it would be hard to convince him otherwise. Yet, you are allowed to type addresses in actual GPS units on the go, as far as I know. They would have to clear a lot of things up to make texting while driving a harsh punishment.

[89coupe]

Originally posted by Toma

But only cause driving intoxicated is imo wrongly classed as a criminal offense.

Back in the 70's and 80's, it was pretty common to swig back 4-10 drinks and drive home. Pretty well everyone did it.

I grew up in the same era and I agree. I can recall my Dad, Uncles and their friends driving with beer in the vehicle...LOL.

Anytime we went on a road trip they would have a 6 pack of cold ones in the car LOL.

No one ever got hurt, nobody ever got into an accident & 30 + years later they are still around.

We also never wore seat belts, kids sat in the back of trucks driving down the road and Moms held their babies in their laps.

[Toma]

Originally posted by 89coupe


I grew up in the same era and I agree. I can recall my Dad, Uncles and their friends driving with beer in the vehicle...LOL.

Anytime we went on a road trip they would have a 6 pack of cold ones in the car LOL.

No one ever got hurt, nobody ever got into an accident & 30 + years later they are still around.

We also never wore seat belts, kids sat in the back of trucks driving down the road and Moms held their babies in their laps.

Fuck eh... I still have trouble remembering to wear a seatbelt lol... And people are like "OMG, YOU"RE GONNA DIIIEEEE!!!!" roflmao

Eat the fear... it's hilarious.

[core_upt]

Yup - people used to also live in huts and caves, not houses like all these pussies these days. And you had to hunt and kill your own dinner, not a grocery store - Modernization has got it all wrong.

More pregnant moms smoking, more drinking and driving - nothing bad happened then, right?

The reason Drinking and Driving is a crime is because being under the influence greatly decreases a person's ability to handle a motor vehicle compared to a sober person. End of story.

Texting is similar to being drunk behind the wheel, and legislation will eventually catch up, as it is finally doing now regarding talking on a cell phone and driving in several places. Laws are just a lot slower to adapt to technology.

[HiTempguy1]

an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

The definition of crime. Fail.