- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 12/31/24 at 10:51 am to Open Your Eyes
quote:
any negligent act
Found the guy that drinks and drives regularly.
This is pretty specific law for someone who is already breaking the law. This is not negligence and drinking under the influence isn't even covered under that term. It is recklessness. You purposefully put others at risk
Posted on 12/31/24 at 10:52 am to UltimaParadox
Just let Elon make all cars driverless and all of this goes away.
Posted on 12/31/24 at 10:58 am to Saunson69
quote:
Those who drove drunk, which I'd bet at least 90% here have done at bare minimum 1x in their life, just got lucky.
People who drink and drive seem to think it's way more common than it is
Posted on 12/31/24 at 11:02 am to John Casey
quote:
If advancements in technology make it possible to get to a point where driver alcohol detection is a minor incovenience like a seatbelt, would you be for it?
No because you can make that argument for anything - guns, reckless driving, etc.
Don't trample on my rights because you want a safer society. It's the lawmakers jobs to protect the innocent.
And a seatbelt, while inconvenient, isn't the same as an interlock system.
Posted on 12/31/24 at 11:04 am to UltimaParadox
quote:
People who drink and drive seem to think it's way more common than it is
It’s less common now due more the high social stigma of doing and the prevalence of rideshare apps but it still very common. Most people are over the legal limit after two drinks. Most people have about 2 drinks when they go out to dinner. And most of those people get in their cars and drive home. And if you’re over 35 and have never DWI then you’re in a very small minority. If congrats on being a little angel.
Posted on 12/31/24 at 11:05 am to BR92
quote:
This law only applies to those who kill a child's parent while driving under influence. No one got lucky, they just never murdered anyone with vehicle, which is what this is all about.
I think the point he's making is that not many drivers get on the road trying or wanting to kill anyone.
The very specific target demographic of "drivers who kill people under the influence" does NOT include anyone who intentionally is trying kill someone.
You can make the argument "they are" but its really an ignorant argument when considering violent criminals and the thought process while committing such crimes.
So it does not include actual planned out crimes including abortion (which the same people arguing with this law will agree that's murder).
So yes in a way you are punishing "unlucky" people while the people who willingly want to kill people have nothing change for them.
I'm not saying these people should walk free but its a major deflection of the actual issue.
Its a feel good law that won't stop intoxicated people (who already aren't thinking straight) from driving.
It is punishing a specific group of people murder while many many other more deserving criminals don't have the same penalties. Again mainly the middle class.
Posted on 12/31/24 at 11:07 am to Dragula
In this day and age there's literally no excuse to drive drunk. None.
You have Uber, Lyft, Taxis.
People are far more easily reachable to call then they were 20 years ago.
And most larger areas on nights like NYE have public ride share opportunities.
You have Uber, Lyft, Taxis.
People are far more easily reachable to call then they were 20 years ago.
And most larger areas on nights like NYE have public ride share opportunities.
Posted on 12/31/24 at 11:11 am to Dragula
I love how you can have maybe two drinks in an hour (for some people they are officially over the limit) and you guys have them plowing over 12 mailboxes, killing 5 people, and swerving all over the place. 90% of people that drink have driven “over the limit”.
Posted on 12/31/24 at 11:12 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
In this day and age there's literally no excuse to drive drunk. None
There's literally no excuse to walk into someone's home and kill their parents.
Why are drunk drivers getting singled out here? If you make the law then make it a general "if you murder a kid's parents" and not specific to vehicle accidents.
It should be an all or nothing law, the fact that they want to put someone on the hook for up to 18 years child support without including other violent crimes is fricking retarded.
Posted on 12/31/24 at 11:16 am to Open Your Eyes
All good points. I don't dislike the law, but I find it to be short-sighted, and both too general, and too narrow of scope. This is one of those circumstances that I agree with the spirit of the law, but not necessarily the implementation.
Posted on 12/31/24 at 11:32 am to DellTronJon
quote:
get it, good intent, but how is someone likely to be going to jail going to pay child support?
Well, laws & judges are pretty lenient these days
Posted on 12/31/24 at 12:02 pm to UltimaParadox
quote:
Found the guy that drinks and drives regularly.
Found the emotional “guy” that can’t think logically
quote:
This is pretty specific law for someone who is already breaking the law.
Speeding and running red lights isn’t breaking the law now?
quote:
This is not negligence and drinking under the influence isn't even covered under that term. It is recklessness.
1. Something reckless can also be, and often is, negligent.
2. Then you must agree that anyone that commits any reckless act that results in the death of a parent should have to pay child support, right?
quote:
You purposefully put others at risk
Operating a motor vehicle period purposefully puts other people at risk. Flying a plane purposefully puts other people at risk. Operating a theme park purposefully puts other people at risk.
Should everything that purposefully puts other people at risk and causes the death of a parent result in child support?
Posted on 12/31/24 at 12:06 pm to Dragula
How are you supposed to pay child support when you’re in prison? Even the relatively nice states that allow prisoners to get any wages pay like literally $0.25 an hour.
I think the same thing about those states that charge prisoners for the cost of their incarceration. Regardless of the ethics of it, how do they expect prisoners to pay? Heck, wouldn’t that actually end up being a net loss to taxpayers? Wouldn’t the state end up spending more money trying to collect the payments than they’d actually manage to collect?
I think the same thing about those states that charge prisoners for the cost of their incarceration. Regardless of the ethics of it, how do they expect prisoners to pay? Heck, wouldn’t that actually end up being a net loss to taxpayers? Wouldn’t the state end up spending more money trying to collect the payments than they’d actually manage to collect?
This post was edited on 12/31/24 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 12/31/24 at 12:14 pm to Dtbtiger
quote:It sounds pretty sensible, but remember, the fine print always says, "not applicable to politicians, cops, or the well-connected."
I like this law.
This post was edited on 12/31/24 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 12/31/24 at 12:16 pm to Dragula
I mean that law seems fair
Posted on 12/31/24 at 12:23 pm to Loconuts
quote:
You’re being too emotional
you are right - I was being emotional. I had a friend in High School that lost his dad due to a drunk driver, and his mom being disabled really fricked with him growing up. he turned out ok in the long run, but the guy that hit and killed his dad ran a redlight - and it was his 4th instance of DWI.
so yeah - the emotion is seeing a very close, and lifelong friend suffer though it happening.
Popular
Back to top


0







