1. If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

  2. Dismiss Notice

After 4th DWI, man argues legal limit discriminates against alcoholics

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by mikeyp, Feb 12, 2018.

  1. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,364
    Likes Received:
    2,927
    Disagree for all of the reasons previously posted.........you seem to want to take the roll of being a puritan

    The rest of us just want laws that punish people who fail to safely operate vehicles and dont prosecute people who do
     

  2. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,364
    Likes Received:
    2,927
    Disagree for all of the reasons previously posted.........you seem to want to take the roll of being a puritan

    The rest of us just want laws that punish people who fail to safely operate vehicles and dont prosecute people who do
     
  3. BrianWilson

    BrianWilson NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    590
    I must say Mike I always enjoy your posts on true freedom, and generally learn from them. I'm not as far along, but I'm trying. While I agree with your premise on it's face, that is not my perception of what transpired here.

    What I saw here was somebody jumping into the thread with the stated intention "I'm gonna out me some statists here" He then proceeded to respond to folks posts by changing their words and phrasing to alter the original meaning from a little to a lot, since they didn't really support his agenda as they were written. This guy can be identified by his posts beginning with the phrases "So what you said", "So what you really meant ", "So what you really were saying" etc., etc.

    What I saw was some guy, who in his zeal to "out him some statists here" was stooping to the same level as the cops who shat all over the poor CoP in their zeal to " bust them some DUIs here"
    Basically a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2018
  4. Jason Flare

    Jason Flare NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    3,086
    Location:
    Berkshires
    You may not like him but he’s our 42!
     
    BrianWilson likes this.
  5. 42!

    42! NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,217
    Likes Received:
    1,368
    What a minute, I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about me. I'm not "outing me some statists".
     
  6. Jason Flare

    Jason Flare NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    3,086
    Location:
    Berkshires
    Yah, you were. You just played devils advocate on a couple of posts.
     
  7. 42!

    42! NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,217
    Likes Received:
    1,368
    Hold on a minute, now I'm being accused of being a statist AND "outing me some statists". You can't have it both ways. And where in this thread was I playing devil's advocate?
     
  8. drgrant

    drgrant Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    60,118
    Likes Received:
    11,767
    I don't think its anything that conspiratorial, I think its a mixture of:

    -verbal fencing jousting and beating around the bush and strawmanning (I think the DUI statist club can do better than that kind of thing, or at least just fess up and admit that it makes them feel good to have malum prohibitum laws that try to hedge against some public safety risk which is, often overrepresented as being way too imminent and proximate to the "crime". ) In any event because of the sparring various parts of the discussion just don't make traction or progress. this results
    in something that looks like this...


    -There's also this built in, latent, institutional brainwashing WRT DUI/CUI (or any kind of drug that can be abused, for that matter) etc that is difficult to overcome in any setting. It's worse amongst gun owners because of the "law abiding piety complex" of many. (which often extends into malum prohibitum crap gun laws, but I digress. ) People don't want to accept the possibility that some guy could possibly drive a car (under ANY context!!!) at .087 or something and not present a huge statistical safety risk to the general public. (I'm not even saying its smart or a good idea, but that this isnt a boolean kind of issue here) It is steeped in nuance and different levels. We see the same systemic stuff WRT drugs and other things.... like I must be like one of 5? people on this board that had to take an opiate painkiller in my life for something, and SOMEHOW, by some miracle (according to "everyone else" , I didn't end up on the street buying smack a year later because it caused an addiction, lol. Meanwhile everyone else thinks that if your dentist gives you a script for 5 percs after ripping your tooth out, you better be careful because you gonna GIT addicted!!!! lol. Sometimes its from clouded personal experiences (eg, having addicts in ones family, etc) and sometimes I think it is also from projection. Like I know people that basically turn into retards when they drink too much, its like a switch. But that doesn't mean that EVERYONE does that. Nor does it mean that everyone drinks too much.

    There's other issues here too which need to be excavated; for me its not necessarily about protecting someone drinking and driving, its about protecting a generalized interest in personal freedom. I'd much rather like to live in a world where when the LEO comes up to your window at 3 am the conversation that spurned from an expired registration plate sticker doesn't immediately drop into a shit test that is more a less a fancy version of "have you had anything to drink tonight?" despite the fact that I'm stone cold sober. (just that its 3 am, and I just got "profiled" because the LEO is bored).

    There are plenty of other ways to block the bad effects of DUI without resorting to shitting on 4A.

    Hell for starters if I was king I would ban all checkpoints and convert that into extra road patrols. I'd prefer that cops actually catch drivers "in the act of
    being f***ed up and being unsafe" than shitting on everyones 4A rights and tricking marginally drunk people into talking themselves into a garbage grade dui conviction... but thats just the tip of the iceberg.

    -Mike
     
    jpk and Ultrarunner like this.
  9. drgrant

    drgrant Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    60,118
    Likes Received:
    11,767

    I love extensioni cord mess threads

     
    Jason Flare likes this.
  10. Jason Flare

    Jason Flare NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    3,086
    Location:
    Berkshires
    You were playing the devil’s advocate when you supported the state punishing people for what could happen.

    Also when you supported the state’s arbitrary limit on blood alcohol.
     
    jpk and Ultrarunner like this.
  11. Jason Flare

    Jason Flare NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    3,086
    Location:
    Berkshires
    I actually googled “extensioni cord mess.” I thought it was Italian. Or possibly Latin.
     
  12. BrianWilson

    BrianWilson NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    590
    Probably shouldn't be driving if you've had that many.
     
    Jason Flare likes this.
  13. 42!

    42! NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,217
    Likes Received:
    1,368
    No I actually do support punishment based on possible risk, but only after initial "this is wrong" kind of message is delivered. Hence my position that a first offence without harm should be fairly light, and they increase as the individual is repeatedly caught. This is by no means universal, I'm only talking about OUI. And it's possible risk based on actions, in this case 2, drinking AND driving, neither being an issue by itself.

    I don't support "the" limit, I support "a" limit, and it should not be arbitrary. The point is to NOT create a situation where a judgement call is being made as to who has violated the law and who has not. It should be 100% clear.

    I'd love for everyone to have my respect for others, and the general concern about how my actions may affect others, and then we would not need government. But the reality is that this will never happen. There will always be those who don't care if someone else is harmed because of their actions. In the far past, when populations were small, the community would gather and deal with these people (sometimes fairly, other times not so much). But today we would call that vigilantism.

    So there is a role for government, not necessarily the government as it is now, but something. Part of that should be law enforcement, and I'm talking laws that protect someone from harm by another person, within reason and without violating the rights of others. I'm not talking about BS like limiting the size of soda bottles, or giving an advantage to one person over another.

    But a Statist (an advocate of a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs)? No definitely not. And as for "outing statists" No, since I really don't give any thought to the term when I'm discussing an issue.
     
    Bonesinium and tuna like this.
  14. Jason Flare

    Jason Flare NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    3,086
    Location:
    Berkshires
    Nice devils advocate post.
     
  15. 42!

    42! NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,217
    Likes Received:
    1,368
    OK now you're just trolling me.

    I'm going out to get some dinner, and I'm going to have 2 drinks.
     
  16. Jason Flare

    Jason Flare NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    3,086
    Location:
    Berkshires
    I’ve never heard anyone admit to having more than two. It’s always two.
     
    drgrant likes this.
  17. BrianWilson

    BrianWilson NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    590
    drink.jpg
     
    Jason Flare likes this.
  18. Spanz

    Spanz NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    20,323
    Likes Received:
    4,468

    ARRRRRRR!
     
  19. Dadstoys

    Dadstoys NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    10,876
    Likes Received:
    3,717
    Location:
    North Shore
    Ok I read the rest of the thread before replying.
    Your not going to answer the question.
    The analogy is very relevant.
    Why can't I engage in an unsafe behavior as long as I don't actually shoot you ?
    I think I can safely answer it for you. You'd lose your shit if I kept doing it.
    Why ? Because now your on the RECIEVING end of someone else's stupidity and it's no fun.

    Unless we're going to get into the argument that alcohol has no effect on motor skills or mental status and driving impaired is perfectly safe.
    Lets not.

    Your fighting like hell in this thread to justify getting behind the wheel lit.


    People either grow up at some point or not.
    My moment came when a friend left a party we were at insisting he was fine to drive.
    He hit a tree at 80 some odd miles an hour.
    Two days later at the request of his mother we were scouring the scene of the crash trying to find the finger with his class ring on it so she could bury him with it.

    I've spent enough time with drunk family and friends to see the logic pattern, it's ALWAYS someone else's fault they couldn't control themselves.
    The wife is an a**h*** because she got tired of my drunk ass staggering in at all hours of the day and night.
    The cop is an a**h*** because he busted me for sideswiping a parked car and then falling on my face when I got out of the car.
    My boss is an a**h*** because he didn't like me showing up hammered for work.

    There is an insane solution to all of this though , it's a little out there but it just might work.
    If someone wants to go out for a few pops , have at it , but don't get behind the wheel of a car and put other people at risk.
    Crazy I know , that personal responsibility thing and all.
    Or you can just call other people who don't want to come around a corner to see your headlights coming at them on the wrong side of the road statists.
    Whatever floats your boat.
    I'm done with this one period , end of story.
    I spent enough time in my life arguing with drunk logic and it's a no win battle.
     
    tuna and robjax like this.
  20. 42!

    42! NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,217
    Likes Received:
    1,368
    I'll stretch it to three if I'm going to be there longer and have an appetizer, but I don't drink beer, and the drinks around here aren't cheap,and I am, so that's it. And they mix them weak. This will leave me well under my personal affected limit and the legal limit. Time to get #2
     
  21. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,364
    Likes Received:
    2,927
    I jumped into the thread when I saw a pile of people making the same arguments that the anti's make to justify gun control.

    You give me too much credit....I didnt "Out" anyone......y'all outed yourselves as statists.
     
  22. drgrant

    drgrant Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    60,118
    Likes Received:
    11,767
    That's what I get for posting that like before I left work and not paying attention to exactly what
    appeared on the screen when I pressed the button.... LOL
     
  23. drgrant

    drgrant Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    60,118
    Likes Received:
    11,767
    Particularly at a certain trailer park in Nova Scotia...

     
    Jason Flare likes this.
  24. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,364
    Likes Received:
    2,927
    DT, if you cant tell the difference between your attempt to equate shooting out the window of a moving vehicle on a public road with the examples below then I cant help you

    Whats next? You going to try to use an analogy that includes smoking a stogie while flying the hindenburg over linden nj with a BAC of .4 WITH a hand grenade in your pocket with no pin?
     
    drgrant likes this.
  25. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,364
    Likes Received:
    2,927
    That looks like the equivalent of a scorpion bowl for 4.......
     
  26. drgrant

    drgrant Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    60,118
    Likes Received:
    11,767
    Unless you want laws to be fundamentally arbitrary and capricious (a term you should be intimately familiar with, considering every gun owner in MA has been subject to this sort of thing at one point or another in the past couple years) it's pretty much a necessity to have that discussion, although not at that level of stupidity- of course it has an effect, the problem is "At what level" and "what is the actualized risk". etc. Without digging into that, or at least
    without invoking some serious science, you end up with trash laws, and trash outcomes to those laws. All this MADD lunatic stuff has happened for most of my lifetime and hasn't done much to curb DUI deaths.

    I'd place a fair wager that the existence of Uber and Lyft have done more to reduce DUI deaths (particularly in urban and moderately built up parts of the US) than all the .gov bullshit combined in the same amount of time those services have been running.


    -Mike
     
    Jason Flare and jpk like this.
  27. BrianWilson

    BrianWilson NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    590
    It sounds a bit to me as though the problem from your angle is more how the number was arrived at, or the number itself, than the actual law.

    Yes, on the Uber thing, but again, part of the drinking thing is the folks who are quite sure "I'm alright to drive" even though they can't stand up.
    At what point is there an obligation to protect the rest of us from them, and them from themselves?
     
  28. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,364
    Likes Received:
    2,927
    Ok, lets use your "Flying the hindenburg over linden nj while smoking a stogey with a hand grenade in pocket with no pin" example

    What practically speaking changes?

    Under statist malum prohibitum laws:
    Guy that cant stand somehow gets behind wheel and cant operate vehicle normally/safely and gets pulled over by cop and nailed for failure to operate vehicle safely and dui

    Under non statist law
    Guy that cant stand somehow gets behind wheel and cant operate vehicle normally/safely and gets pulled over by cop and nailed for failure to operate vehicle safely which carries a compounded penalty for involvement of alcohol at <incremental level>

    In other words nothing changes for the redonculous hindenburg examples the fear mongering statists are going to trot out
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2018
    Jason Flare likes this.
  29. drgrant

    drgrant Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    60,118
    Likes Received:
    11,767
    Yup.... the current main objections I have to DUI laws currently are:

    -DUI enforcement needs to be on a longer gradient not this current "Intoxicated! Not Intoxicated!" boolean crap. Some states have a 2nd tier for really f***ed up people; this kind of demonstrates that the lower tier is at least partially a farce. (the state is admitting that there is a "we think you can't drive" and a "we're pretty f***ing sure you can't drive" BAC levels. Nebulous first tier existing is not a good thing (esp if its linked to a felony).
    -Inherent 4A violation of checkpoints
    -Inherent waste of tax dollars on checkpoints (when you could take those 4-5 cops and put them on the road actually watching for shitty driving behaviors, and stopping people who are a REAL threat, not just some guy who had 4 beers 2 hours ago and blows a .085 a mile from his house).
    -DUI being a felony - particularly in cases where the DUI offense was "casual" - EG- guy otherwise driving normally gets pulled over for broken taillight, segues into DUI arrest, and where no report was made of improper operation nor collision etc.
    -Trash grade DUI arrests of people that aren't actually operating vehicles. If some guy is safely parked in a parking lot taking a nap, he shouldn't be able to be arrested just because his keys happen to be in the ignition or within reach. This is total bullshit. That's not "operating". Same thing with people that have pulled far off the road and parked.
    -Little to no enforcement of actual shit driving (not just speeding and broken taillights). Theres an LE culture of lionizing a DUI arrest but sytsem doesnt seem to care if a LEO pulls over a guy driving like shit with no DUI arrest. System has an endemic thing with MV enforcement "If its not drugs, alcohol, or speeding, its ignored/not given enough credit... bad traffic enforcement priorities. "
    -The system colludes with the insurance companies etc but there is not enough incentive of good driving behavior. Not enough alliances with bars and other establishments that serve alcohol etc. (eg, to do things like pay for people to get a ride home etc. ) Obviously the worst offenders wont use that type of thing but the casual one could be pushed that way- EG, the type of people most likely to get hit with a trash grade DUI arrest.


    -Mike
     
    jpk likes this.
  30. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    6,643
    Likes Received:
    2,001
    This may have to be my new sig line.
     
    cams likes this.

Share This Page