simcor:
As for the drinking and driving it should be punished as premeditated murder in any vehicle regardless of how much over the limit someone is.
I’m sorry but that’s a ridiculous idea. Premeditated murder means you plan and intentionally set out to kill someone. Good luck trying to get that to stick in court in a drink driving case
So drinking over the legal limit and driving knowing your are possibly over the limit is still premeditated, you have chosen to drive knowing your unfit the same with drugs or being excessively tired. You know that by your actions you could cause and accident and seriously injure and even kill someone. Like I say it’s my opinion and is as valid as anyone else’s, however if you don’t agree with it that is your choice and your opinion.
simcor:
As for the drinking and driving it should be punished as premeditated murder in any vehicle regardless of how much over the limit someone is.
I’m sorry but that’s a ridiculous idea. Premeditated murder means you plan and intentionally set out to kill someone. Good luck trying to get that to stick in court in a drink driving case
In this context - Punished as… not the same as found guilty for.
I read that to mean as guilty as - rather than convicted as a murderer.
The question I would throw back is if a man premeditates the murder of someone who nonced him when he was a child… is that person worse or less worse than someone who takes many lives due to driving under the influence?
Should the sentence reflect the crime and what is that sentence?
Jingle Jon:
IMO, It’s very simple - if you have not got an alcohol problem then you don’t need to drink when you know you have to drive the next day.
If you can’t have your food without washing it down with beer… you have a problem.
If you have an alcohol problem - you should not be driving lorries.
You can easily prove to yourself you do not have a drink problem by abstaining.
Some people like tea with a meal, some like orange juice, some like Coca-Cola, some like beer. If a person does opt for a beer, and all of the alcohol is out of their system long before they have to drive, then who are you to dictate that they shouldn’t?
I personally think that it is you who has a problem, in that you come across as somewhat pious, puritanical and holier-than-thou.
You would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt they set out to intentionally kill someone. Which while drinking and driving is idiotic you’d have a hard time proving anyone did it with the intention to commit murder
Heard this earlier very shocking and saddening. Thoughts to all involved. I read it that the fatalities were 6 males and 2 women and 4 with serious injuries. I’m reading that as the poor little girl is not a fatal. Fair play to the bloke who held her hand and gave her his coat that must have been horrible for him.
switchlogic:
You would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt they set out to intentionally kill someone. Which while drinking and driving is idiotic you’d have a hard time proving anyone did it with the intention to commit murder
Yes correct in what your saying, however driving drunk the likelihood of seriously injuring and possible killing someone is high hence in this type of scenario I think it should at least be premeditated manslaughter then, maybe that would be a more apt wording.
I have a vague idea that there is a shift in general away from personal responsibility and flexibility - nobody wants to accept the consequences of stuff, but they very, very much want other people to.
People who generally “follow the rules” push for more rules and regulations to bring everyone else in line. Look at the reaction to the Welsh dashcam roadcommanders thread just as a little example, or the broken spirits working in RDCs who are so beaten down by oppressive rules and regs that they won’t give a driver back their keys for 5mins so they can fetch a jumper from the cab. To them, it’s as impossible as you asking them to jump out the window and fly.
Freedom comes with consequences, some really nasty ones, because stupidity is a major part of the human condition. The question is how much in the way of consequences we’re will to pay to protect the freedom.
Look at gun control in America - you could say that it’s the ultimate freedom to be able to own a weapon that has a singular purpose of killing another person. Overall, Americans accept the price of that “ultimate freedom” is thousands of killings a year. As time moves on, and the authorities increase their willingness to use guns to kill suspects at the drop of a hat, everyone who is “good” wants to tackle the problem with more rules and more controls, anyone else who holds a different position instantly becomes pro-crime… which is fatal for rulemakers, so more rules are brought in and slowly-slowly the freedom is seceded.
Not saying that I agree or don’t agree with the gun control thing, it’s just the example that came to mind.
When I was a teenager, I lost a car full of mates to a drink driver. I’ve also lost a friend to a left turning lorry. Both events pain me, and maybe I’ve got a few more screws loose than I thought, but neither event has made me want more rules and more controls. It’s made me wish for more education and an encouragement of people looking out for each other as something to take pride in. I also accept, somewhat nihilistically, that accidents will happen sometimes.
If the driver involved was over the drink limit because he’s an alcoholic then whilst he deserves to be punished he also deserves some pity even sympathy.
Alcoholism is an addiction it’s even now considered a disease. The alcoholic needs medical treatment to get better.
slowlane:
I have a vague idea that there is a shift in general away from personal responsibility and flexibility - nobody wants to accept the consequences of stuff, but they very, very much want other people to.
People who generally “follow the rules” push for more rules and regulations to bring everyone else in line. Look at the reaction to the Welsh dashcam roadcommanders thread just as a little example, or the broken spirits working in RDCs who are so beaten down by oppressive rules and regs that they won’t give a driver back their keys for 5mins so they can fetch a jumper from the cab. To them, it’s as impossible as you asking them to jump out the window and fly.
Freedom comes with consequences, some really nasty ones, because stupidity is a major part of the human condition. The question is how much in the way of consequences we’re will to pay to protect the freedom.
Look at gun control in America - you could say that it’s the ultimate freedom to be able to own a weapon that has a singular purpose of killing another person. Overall, Americans accept the price of that “ultimate freedom” is thousands of killings a year. As time moves on, and the authorities increase their willingness to use guns to kill suspects at the drop of a hat, everyone who is “good” wants to tackle the problem with more rules and more controls, anyone else who holds a different position instantly becomes pro-crime… which is fatal for rulemakers, so more rules are brought in and slowly-slowly the freedom is seceded.
Not saying that I agree or don’t agree with the gun control thing, it’s just the example that came to mind.
When I was a teenager, I lost a car full of mates to a drink driver. I’ve also lost a friend to a left turning lorry. Both events pain me, and maybe I’ve got a few more screws loose than I thought, but neither event has made me want more rules and more controls. It’s made me wish for more education and an encouragement of people looking out for each other as something to take pride in. I also accept, somewhat nihilistically, that accidents will happen sometimes.
IronEddie:
If the driver involved was over the drink limit because he’s an alcoholic then whilst he deserves to be punished he also deserves some pity even sympathy.
Alcoholism is an addiction it’s even now considered a disease. The alcoholic needs medical treatment to get better.
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
If he’s guilty of killing several people because he was under the influence. I’d rather tie him to a post and use him as bayonet practice. My sympathy is with the true victims of alcoholics.
switchlogic:
Such an awful situation. I’m wondering if the driver over the limit was way over our just a little after having a couple of Friday afternoon/evening drinks with friends since this was very early in the morning. Neither scenario is acceptable by any means but that latter could be more understandable.
Understandable? So what you are saying is if you KNOW you are going to be driving a truck in less than 12 hours time, it’s OK to have a few drinks
switchlogic:
You would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt they set out to intentionally kill someone. Which while drinking and driving is idiotic you’d have a hard time proving anyone did it with the intention to commit murder
Yes correct in what your saying, however driving drunk the likelihood of seriously injuring and possible killing someone is high hence in this type of scenario I think it should at least be premeditated manslaughter then, maybe that would be a more apt wording.
I think the laws are fine as they are but I do think there is a case for increased sentences in the most serious of cases
switchlogic:
Such an awful situation. I’m wondering if the driver over the limit was way over our just a little after having a couple of Friday afternoon/evening drinks with friends since this was very early in the morning. Neither scenario is acceptable by any means but that latter could be more understandable.
Understandable? So what you are saying is if you KNOW you are going to be driving a truck in less than 12 hours time, it’s OK to have a few drinks
Surely even you know I didn’t say anything of the kind. Did you stop reading right before I wrote-
IronEddie:
If the driver involved was over the drink limit because he’s an alcoholic then whilst he deserves to be punished he also deserves some pity even sympathy.
Alcoholism is an addiction it’s even now considered a disease. The alcoholic needs medical treatment to get better.
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
If he’s guilty of killing several people because he was under the influence. I’d rather tie him to a post and use him as bayonet practice. My sympathy is with the true victims of alcoholics.
Don’t get me wrong it’s a tragedy and I feel most for the victims. The driver(s) responsible should get the book thrown at them.
But proper alcoholism isn’t the same as choosing to get bladdered and then drive. Like any addiction it takes over. You have to have that drink. You don’t think rationally.
IronEddie:
If the driver involved was over the drink limit because he’s an alcoholic then whilst he deserves to be punished he also deserves some pity even sympathy.
Alcoholism is an addiction it’s even now considered a disease. The alcoholic needs medical treatment to get better.
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
If he’s guilty of killing several people because he was under the influence. I’d rather tie him to a post and use him as bayonet practice. My sympathy is with the true victims of alcoholics.
Don’t get me wrong it’s a tragedy and I feel most for the victims. The driver(s) responsible should get the book thrown at them.
But proper alcoholism isn’t the same as choosing to get bladdered and then drive. Like any addiction it takes over. You have to have that drink. You don’t think rationally.
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
And do alcoholics have to put the keys in the ignition of a 44 tonne truck and drive it?
IronEddie:
If the driver involved was over the drink limit because he’s an alcoholic then whilst he deserves to be punished he also deserves some pity even sympathy.
Alcoholism is an addiction it’s even now considered a disease. The alcoholic needs medical treatment to get better.
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
If he’s guilty of killing several people because he was under the influence. I’d rather tie him to a post and use him as bayonet practice. My sympathy is with the true victims of alcoholics.
Don’t get me wrong it’s a tragedy and I feel most for the victims. The driver(s) responsible should get the book thrown at them.
But proper alcoholism isn’t the same as choosing to get bladdered and then drive. Like any addiction it takes over. You have to have that drink. You don’t think rationally.
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
And do alcoholics have to put the keys in the ignition of a 44 tonne truck and drive it?
Apologise - that was obtuse… but I do not accept any excuse for his actions. I merely try to put myself in the position of a father… I would not be calm.
So what you are saying is if you KNOW you are going to be driving a truck in less than 12 hours time, it’s OK to have a few drinks 