The drunk driver that hit my wife ....

[Cat]

I have seen cases of seven offenses being handled as a second.

I believe this is the root problem. It {typically} isn't the 1st offenders that are the bigger threat*. It's the habitually repeaters. The punishments aren't severe enough. In kindergarten we're taught 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... Not seven means two and two means one three times over.


*Yes. I know a first offense can kill just as easily. But I think there is a high margin of stupid college idiots and other misjudgments in the 1st offense crowd. They aren't necessarily a 2nd offender.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Pretty much but they are only going to recover the actual amount they are out and not what you are out of pocket.

Go to the DMV and explain the facts and they will give you a form to file. Doing so will give you recovery for the entire amount of both the insurance payout and your out of pocket plus other damages. Even bankruptcy will not clear his debt to you.

AU contraire....debts due to bodily injury caused by the debtor by way of DWI are nondischargeable-othe damages, ie property are dischgargeable. AND it is not self actuating-if the guy goes chapter 7, you have to hiire a lawyer and file an adversarial complaint objecting to the discharge and prove up your case. check out 11 USC 523.
Not only an I a criminal defense lawyer LD I also am quite conversant regarding the bankruptcy code

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I really appreciate the fact that I said something you actually agree with I will remember this day. All kidding aside.

This is the same thought process anti gunners use. Every year thousands of people are killed or injured by guns, many of those are self defense (something the anti gunners will never admit to), but many are not.

They look at owning a gun as a "behavior" like we look at drunk driving. "We" would never drive drunk, just as they would never own a gun. They sell the anti gun agenda in much the same way you sell the anti drunk driving agenda. "Most" gun "accidents" or crimes are caused a stupid decision by a stupid persons, much the same as drunk driving. So the anti gunners propose (and many times pass) gun legislation witch not only effect stupid gun owners, but the good ones also. What do we do when this happens? We through fits! Do we consider at all how DUI laws affect the person who does not drive drunk? No, not at all. Why? Because drunk driving is "evil" and it kills innocent people, unfortunately the anti gunners look at gun ownership the same way.

Do we wish to pass laws where a LEO can randomly stop people on the street and ask if they are carrying a weapon, then demand they answer questions about the laws regarding the carrying of that weapon? Then have them submit to a field proficiency test? If they refuse to submit to that test the state then subjects them to fines and a suspension of their gun ownership privileges.

DUI checkpoints effect non drunk drivers kind of the same as weapons bans and carry restrictions effect gun owners(we pay for stupid people).

How is it "OK" with "us" that there are DUI checkpoint, yet it is not ok if there were random weapons checkpoints? IF you think the ani gunners would not have it that way, think again.

My point is not to say by any stretch that drunk driving is OK, but that we do not want gun owners harassed unless they commit a crime, yet we are willing to have law abiding drivers harassed.

i understand what you are saying, i really do, but what seems to me is that you and several others view the world as a zero sum game. It simply is not that way.

I agree that once we make a law, it is the first step on a slippery slope. However, in the real world, we must have some form of law. So, your argument is logically sound, it is not realistically applicable.

Everything about law is a matter of relativity. If we say felons cannot have firearms, then we can say speeders cannot have firearms, then people with red hair cannot have firearms. Of course, you can always become more restrictive, but for many issues, there is a realistic necessity for some level of restriction.

There are really only two arguments that can me made.

It is either an argument for absolutely not a single law, which while it sounds good, I think most here are intelligent enough to realize is completely unrealistic, or it is the ever debatable argument of how much law and for what.

For example, while some may not believe there should be a speed limit, most would agree that should not be able to drive just anyway you think with no regard for the safety of others. Many believe do away with all traffic laws and just have a reckless operation type law. Great, that gets rid of a lot of laws, but now it creates a very vague law.

Unless you are MEM and are under the delusion that the world would be better with absolutely no law and you were 100% responsible for the entire safety and security of yourself 100% of the times, everywhere you go, 24 hours a day, with no legal system, whch means if someone thought you wronged them, they could shoot you or beat you, then you realize there is a need for some form of law....the question is how much.

I agree with most that generally speaking there are TOO MANY laws in our society. However, my belief system may think drug laws are good and gun laws are bad. Others believe that drug laws are bad and gun laws are good. That is simply the nature of the beast in a mixed society. It is a constant struggle between maintaining order through laws without infringing too much on the rights of the people.

Just as one example, i disagree with your notion that DUI checkpoints affect non-DUI people the same as anti-gun laws effect gun owners. A small inconvenience of stopping at a checkpoint is completely different (AND A MATTER OF DEGREE AND RELATIVITY) than the denial of a fundamental right. I see your point, but you are trying to make too direct of a correlation which sounds good in theory, but does not translate in real life.

Dealing with laws is a matter of degrees and relativity. You will agree with some and not with others, as will I. Society will never totally agree on all laws. However, if enough people disagree, it can be changed...prohibition.