Fencer
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2006
- Messages
- 14,293
- Reaction score
- 3,986
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.And you got into the car with them -- why?
I originally meant to say "missing or intentionally disregarding", but I decided to not be that snarky. My bad.
Still, it's obvious you've thought this through to your satisfaction. So we should let it drop.
Donte Stallworth broke the law by getting behind the wheel drunk. He is a murderer and he should be doing serious time for it.
What's worse about Plaxico's case is -- his gun discharge was accidental too.
On the other hand -- I don't know that I disagree with strong laws against carrying loaded guns around ...
If someone is pulled over for reckless driving, bust him for reckless driving. If someone kills someone because he's driving like a maniac, arrest him for that.
The alcohol is separate from the underlying charge. The argument about DUI is that it increases the danger of an accident. Well, so does listening to the radio, talking on the phone or to a passenger, having a woman driver over the age of 35, having a male driver under the age of 20, having a teenage driver who's got passengers, and there are other factors which raise the danger level as well.
We laugh at college men and women who tell us the horror stories about their beer goggles because we appreciate that drinking can impair decision making. Somehow, though, we decide to criminalize the behavior of a driver who's decision to drive was made while being impaired, by definition/legislation. To make it worse, we've watched as they've lowered the 'impaired' threshold so that you're more than capable of going to jail for drunk driving when you weren't even drunk, so it's now "Driving while impaired a little, just not as much as if you were on a cell phone". Just like the 'crime' of public intoxication, it's a moronic law to have.
You seem to be missing the point that driving under the influence of alcohol increases the likelihood of serious accidents. Take away DUI laws and you'll have more people driving drunk, without question, and more people killed as a result. The threat of serious penalty might not keep all drunks off the roadways, but there should be no doubt it has saved many innocent lives.
What's worse about Plaxico's case is -- his gun discharge was accidental too.
On the other hand -- I don't know that I disagree with strong laws against carrying loaded guns around ...
You've been hit by three drunk drivers, and you're an attorney, and you happen to be a prosecutor? How convenient for this conversation.I'm not missing the point of DUI laws. I understand the point of them quite well, actually, as someone who's an attorney and has prosecuted people for DUI. Oddly enough, people can disagree with laws that make no sense on the grounds that they make no sense. Of course, I disagree with them for other reasons, too, but that's one perfectly valid reason, among several.
Because the driver didn't seem particularly inebriated and what the hell else am I supposed to do in the middle of Russia where I won't even go out without a bodyguard in some places? I'm not saying it was smart, but my job puts me in some awkard situations sometimes.
Because the driver didn't seem particularly inebriated and what the hell else am I supposed to do in the middle of Russia where I won't even go out without a bodyguard in some places? I'm not saying it was smart, but my job puts me in some awkard situations sometimes.
I thought the answer would be something like that ...
I'm glad I don't have any major temptations to travel on business to dangerous countries. I wouldn't be real thrilled travelling Aeroflot either.
Hmmm...sounds like a movie script. Our people should talk. Are you the "real" Jason Bourne?
No, But I am the real David Dork.
You've been hit by three drunk drivers, and you're an attorney, and you happen to be a prosecutor? How convenient for this conversation.
Fair enough. I've never seen you claim to be a football coach, and that would be the most convenient story at a place like this, so I apologize for the implication I made.I'm not a prosecutor now. I interned in a state attorney's office. Shockingly, some conversations will come up that happen to fit the profile of one or more of the people engaged in that conversation. As I've had more than one job, and worked in more than one field, during the course of my life, it's possible that I might have a "convenient" situation arise again in the future.
My guess is that most here would say that Vick is a 'criminal,' and that Stallworth 'made a mistake;' and that a criminal should be in prison, while a person guilty of a mistake should get a break.
This kind of thinking has me freaked out. Vick will be booed and protested wherever he ends up playing. Stallworth will be greeted with quiet acceptance and, this is the part that really gets me, eventually Stallworth will be appreciated as someone who got his life back on the straight and narrow.
Talk about being the product of our society - we sure are. A brazen rich guy is obliquely involved in small time betting and dog torture, lies about it and we gladly give him the slammer for nearly two years and a rep as a vile human being. Meanwhile, many are inclined to give a drunk who ran down another human being the benefit of the doubt since it was possible the dead guy was guilty of jaywalking and the drunk dude has no prior record. (did anyone mention Vick wasn't a felon previously either?)
Think what these two episodes tell young people - don't torture dogs or fund betting because you'll do hard time; but if you run down a human being because you decided to drive drunk, in the daylight, on a busy road, while other responsible people were going to work, you will catch a break as long as you haven't been too much of a screw up before.
Next time another drunk kills on the road don't wonder why. Hey, at least all the dogs are safe.
My guess is that most here would say that Vick is a 'criminal,' and that Stallworth 'made a mistake;' and that a criminal should be in prison, while a person guilty of a mistake should get a break.
This kind of thinking has me freaked out. Vick will be booed and protested wherever he ends up playing. Stallworth will be greeted with quiet acceptance and, this is the part that really gets me, eventually Stallworth will be appreciated as someone who got his life back on the straight and narrow.
Talk about being the product of our society - we sure are. A brazen rich guy is obliquely involved in small time betting and dog torture, lies about it and we gladly give him the slammer for nearly two years and a rep as a vile human being. Meanwhile, many are inclined to give a drunk who ran down another human being the benefit of the doubt since it was possible the dead guy was guilty of jaywalking and the drunk dude has no prior record. (did anyone mention Vick wasn't a felon previously either?)
Think what these two episodes tell young people - don't torture dogs or fund betting because you'll do hard time; but if you run down a human being because you decided to drive drunk, in the daylight, on a busy road, while other responsible people were going to work, you will catch a break as long as you haven't been too much of a screw up before.
Next time another drunk kills on the road don't wonder why. Hey, at least all the dogs are safe.