State Rep let off DWI charges by judge; video shows him pleading with trooper

[rebelray84]

To boil it down, DWI is a victimless and any crime that has no victim except for the person doing the crime is not really a crime at all.

Wow I've read some pretty asinine statements on here but this ranks right up there.

Victimless crime?I think the families of all those thousands of people killed every year by drunk drivers would tend to disagree.

 

[Kraut]

...a DUI in and of itself is a victimless crime. When the person hits another person or property, then it has a victim.

Maybe I should start charging all the DWI arrests I make as Attempted Criminal Damage, Attempted Aggravated Battery, and Attempted Homicide. As an attempt, the penalties can be up to half of the time given for the actual offense, that could add up to some pretty stiff sentences.

 

[Jack]

Yes but the likely hood of injury needs to come into play. The vast majority of people that drive drunk are not involved in vehicle incidents. Shooting into my yard while my kid is in the back is criminally negligent or at least reckless. Acting like there is no difference between the two is like saying banning guns would eliminate any risk of gun crimes so lets do that.

Where does it cross the line? Is drunk driving ok, but drunk driving in a school zone not? Or, drunk driving is ok, but not behind your house? Also, your gun control example would only be valid, if someone was talking about a law banning alcohol. The item itself isn't the issue, its the irresponsible usage of that item, by either spraying on full auto next door to your house, or driving down the highway drunk. By the way, all that drunk driving is, is a specifically named form of criminal negligence.

 

[Summit_Ace]

so, I suppose you would have no objection at all if a bunch of drunks were target shooting full auto in the back yard next door to where your kid was playing outside as long as the bullets didn't actually strike the child. Am I right or wrong?

Yes but the likely hood of injury needs to come into play. The vast majority of people that drive drunk are not involved in vehicle incidents. Shooting into my yard while my kid is in the back is criminally negligent or at least reckless. Acting like there is no difference between the two is like saying banning guns would eliminate any risk of gun crimes so lets do that.

rooster, I agree with your theory on DUI and other laws like it however your defense of your position regarding Charliepapas statement was flawed. I believe the stance that should be taken is that your neighbors are shooting into "your" yard. That fact that they are drunk or not has nothing to do with it, it is the fact that they are violating your private property and that is the crime. At that point you are the victim and their drunkenness is no longer "victimless".

What people have to realize is that our founders never intended us to have the nanny state we have now, I think they would roll over in there graves if they saw what we have become. The only thing that all these laws that are there to "protect" us do is limit our freedom. All this crap about "I want to fly the space shuttle" is nonsense. The only law that really needs to exist is that you do not violate the rights of others. That is it, nothing more nothing less. DUI laws do not stop the "crime" it just takes more money out of our pockets and puts it in the coffers of PDs and lines the pockets of lawyers.

 

[dantheman]

rooster , next time you come to Baton Rouge , look me up . You can come over to the house for supper , and I'll let you explain to my wife how DWI is a " victimless crime " . She'll probably start off by showing you the scars from the sixty something stitches in her left arm . Then the pictures of her totalled Nissan Altima . THEN , the copies of the medical bills that the insurance didn't cover . And that's just a start .

 

[charliepapa]

I talked with a lady one time from MADD, she got very emotional, even down right MAD! Sorry I had to . I understand people's emotional issues with it. I feel the same when people who have had a child killed due to gun violence think guns laws should be stricter. I try to be respectful and not hurt there feeling while getting my point across, but in situations like that people won't and don't want to listen to reason, and I understand that. I do think there are many bigger issues than this to fight about though.

this analogy too, is flawed. comparing deaths from gun violence to deaths from drunk drivers is ludicrous. the vehicle = the gun; not the drunk as you indicate in your comparison, and the operator of each is the same, except you are saying that it's OK for one to be drunk until he hurts someone or their property. Or, are you saying being near anywhere near an armed drunk would be OK with you? I say that I would no more want to be next to a drunk waving a gun around than I would want to be next to a drunk in traffic. In my book, a drunk behind the wheel is no different than a drunk waving a gun around with his finger on the trigger.

 

[rooster]

this analogy too, is flawed. comparing deaths from gun violence to deaths from drunk drivers is ludicrous. the vehicle = the gun; not the drunk as you indicate in your comparison, and the operator of each is the same, except you are saying that it's OK for one to be drunk until he hurts someone or their property. Or, are you saying being near anywhere near an armed drunk would be OK with you? I say that I would no more want to be next to a drunk waving a gun around than I would want to be next to a drunk in traffic. In my book, a drunk behind the wheel is no different than a drunk waving a gun around with his finger on the trigger.

My point on this analogy was to show that I would not argue with people who have a very strong emotional stake. There are two major reasons, 1, I would not want to cause any grief to them and 2 they won't listen to reason and statistical fact, like most who have posted here so far.
I am by no means in favor or drunk driving, however I do not think there should be laws against it and like I said before it is a victimless crime. dantheman, when your wife was hit she was the victim so it is no longer a victimless crime. I don't think it's that hard to understand. I am sorry for her plight and think the person who hit her should pay but I would say the exact same thing if the person was not drinking. If the insurance companies and the law failed you it's not because of DWI. If someone hits some one in a car, they should pay. If they kill someone in a car they should be charged with manslaughter and the death penalty should be on the table. Proper punishment of crimes is a much better preventative than anything else.

 

[charliepapa]

two things left to say here and I'll leave it alone. First, I agree with the fact that punishment needs to be harsh and swift, which IMO would do more to curtail the offensive behavior than any new law would. Second, although I would technically agree with what you're saying in a totally black and white world, that's not reality. As has been said here before, although the First Amendment guarantees us the right to free speech, you can't lawfully exercise that right by running though a hospital screaming FIRE FIRE!!!