SWI
Russell Stewart
a late post-party dinner (breakfast, really) at a local Village
Inn. After our meal, on the way out to our car, we noticed a
vehicle parked just a few spaces away with the engine running
and the lights off. I also noticed that there was someone in
the car, lying down with the seat reclined all the way back.
Our first reaction was that he must be asleep, but after a few
seconds of thought, we realized that we couldn't be sure: he
could be injured and unconscious, he could be dead; we just
didn't know. Finally, out of concern for this person (and
because we were too chicken to just go up and knock on the
window) we decided to call the police to send someone over
and check it out.
This might seem like an overreaction, but keep in mind that this
was about 2:00 in the morning, in a parking lot right in front
of a strip club. Who knows what had gone on before we were there,
and if this guy was suffering life-threatening injuries, we
wouldn't want to be the people who let him die because "it's
not our problem".
Anyway, we decided to wait for the cops to show up, in case they
had questions for us. After a little while, a fire truck (?)
showed up, followed by a police cruiser. The guys from the
fire truck went and knocked on the window, and the man inside
promptly woke up. They asked him to get out; he did, and it
was very obvious that he was heavily intoxicated.
At this point, the police officer thanked us for calling,
informed us that we could go home, and made a comment that
the guy would be facing DWI charges.
On the way home, my wife made the comment: "Well, that just
sucks. He wasn't even driving, and we got him arrested." At first,
I disagreed with her, but the more I thought about it, the
more conflicted I felt.
On the one hand, the man was clearly wasted, sitting in the
driver's seat of a running car. He was just one step away
from pulling out on the street and posing a mortal danger
to any drivers in his vicinity.
But then my Libertarian side objects, and says, "So what!
HE WASN'T DRIVING DRUNK! Do you want to go to jail for
what you *might* do?"
Now I just don't know. Even the most staunch libertarian
will accept that liberty must stop where it endangers
another's life, safety, or rights. But where do we draw
the line?
I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
a public space?
Discuss.
--
Russell Stewart | E-Mail: dia...@swcp.com
UNM CS Department | WWW: http://www.swcp.com/~diamond
"Stop saying the cause of Rick James' death is a 'mystery'"
-Bill Maher
tooloud
<snip>
> I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
> to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
> state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
> behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
> running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
> a public space?
>
> Discuss.
I believe in Iowa you can be arrested for this as well.
A buddy of mine was drinking one snowy night and slipped off the road into a
ditch on his way home. He ended up walking home to call a tow truck. The
driver picked him up in the tow truck and they returned to the car. A cop
was waiting there and gave him a breath test and arrested him for DWI,
though there was absolutely no proof that my buddy was drunk at the time of
the incident, there was six inches of snow on the ground, and the tow truck
driver verified that my buddy was drinking a beer at home when he picked him
up. The charge stuck.
--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...
tooloud
<snip>
> I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
> to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
> state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
> behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
> running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
> a public space?
>
> Discuss.
Oh, yeah--I think it sucks that this can happen as well.
SoCalMike
> I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
> to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
> state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
> behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
> running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
> a public space?
if the keys are in the ignition, theres an intent. especially if the
engine is running.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>
>On the one hand, the man was clearly wasted, sitting in the
>driver's seat of a running car. He was just one step away
>from pulling out on the street and posing a mortal danger
>to any drivers in his vicinity.
>
>But then my Libertarian side objects, and says, "So what!
>HE WASN'T DRIVING DRUNK! Do you want to go to jail for
>what you *might* do?"
>
>Now I just don't know. Even the most staunch libertarian
>will accept that liberty must stop where it endangers
>another's life, safety, or rights. But where do we draw
>the line?
>
>I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
>to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
>state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
>behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
>running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
>a public space?
>
>Discuss.
>
He was behind the wheel of a running car - close enough to driving in
my book.
Jordan Abel
> if the keys are in the ignition, theres an intent. especially if the
> engine is running.
yes, there's _an_ intent: it could be any of
intent to listen to the radio
intent to run the air conditioning / heater
or any number of other things that aren't illegal to do drunk.
Erich
Russell Stewart <us...@nospam.net> wrote:
> I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
> to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
> state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
> behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
> running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
> a public space?
There was a case like that near here. A guy got plastered at the local
bowling alley, went out to his car to sleep it off. During the night he
woke up, started the car and turned on the heat. Then went back to
sleep.
He was arrested and charge with DUI. In court, the judge found him
innocent and proceeded to chew out the arresting officer. Pointing out
that the guy was not driving. In fact, he was behaving exactly the way
we want people too drunk to drive to behave.
... Erich
Russell Stewart
> He was behind the wheel of a running car - close enough to driving in
> my book.
But what if he just wanted to keep warm while he slept it off?
Admittedly, in the time it would take him to do this, he could
easily run out of gas. But that just makes him stupid; not
criminal.
Still, I understand your point. As I said, I'm conflicted
on this.
Peter Boulding
<us...@nospam.net> wrote:
<snip>
>On the way home, my wife made the comment: "Well, that just
>sucks. He wasn't even driving, and we got him arrested." At first,
>I disagreed with her, but the more I thought about it, the
>more conflicted I felt.
>
>On the one hand, the man was clearly wasted, sitting in the
>driver's seat of a running car. He was just one step away
>from pulling out on the street and posing a mortal danger
>to any drivers in his vicinity.
>
>But then my Libertarian side objects, and says, "So what!
>HE WASN'T DRIVING DRUNK! Do you want to go to jail for
>what you *might* do?"
>
>Now I just don't know. Even the most staunch libertarian
>will accept that liberty must stop where it endangers
>another's life, safety, or rights. But where do we draw
>the line?
The guy's unconscious, with the engine running: you had to do
*something.*
Alternative A: you make a lot more noise and his still doesn't wake
up. You have to call the authorities anyway.
Alternative B: you make a lot more noise and wake him up. He
switches the engine off, climbs onto the back seat, and sleeps it
off.
Alternative C: you make a lot more noise and wake him up. He drives
away, drunk as a lord.
So yes, it sucks, but it wasn't your fault.
>I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
>to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
>state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
>behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
>running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
>a public space?
>
>Discuss.
In the UK possession of the keys would probably be enough -
certainly if they're in the ignition, whether or not the engine is
running - IF you're in a public space. You're OK on your driveway.
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
huey.c...@gmail.com
> I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
> to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
> state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
> behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
> running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
> a public space?
At some point, I was led to believe that, if you're bent, just sitting
in the front seat of a parked car and having the keys was a no-no.
That may be IL, WI, or MN law, or it may just be something a drunk guy
told me and I never had any real reason to doubt.
--
Huey
Les Albert
wrote:
>A few months ago, I, my wife, and a friend of ours were having
I am not a lawyer, and I am not connected withe the legal profession
in any way, but even I could defend that guy and get him acquitted of
the DWI charge. In California intoxication is not enough: the
prosecution must also prove that the defendant was driving.
I will bet a dollar to a digital donut that there must be proof of
*driving* in all state DWI laws.
Les
Les Albert
Your book is a scary one (and self-published).
Les
groo
news:2qpdrbF...@uni-berlin.de:
I don't follow the logic here. Did your buddy claim that someone stole
his car and put it in the ditch?
--
"Smile they said, it can't get any worse. And it did. B*****ds" - Chris
Greville
Tedthecat85
>
> <snip>
>
>On the one hand, the man was clearly wasted, sitting in the
>driver's seat of a running car. He was just one step away
>from pulling out on the street and posing a mortal danger
>to any drivers in his vicinity.
Obviously the reason for the law.
>But then my Libertarian side objects, and says, "So what!
>HE WASN'T DRIVING DRUNK! Do you want to go to jail for
>what you *might* do?"
He was arrested for what he had done. He had violated a state law against
being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Drunk
people controlling running motor vehicles is not a good thing. The state can
quite properly criminalize such behavior, and I agree it should be a crime.
>Now I just don't know. Even the most staunch libertarian
>will accept that liberty must stop where it endangers
>another's life, safety, or rights. But where do we draw
>the line?
You have a right to operate a motor vehicle and you have a right to get
drunk. You just don't have the right to get behind the wheel of a running
motor vehicle when you are plastered. As you say, this drunken man was just
one step away from pulling out on the street and posing a mortal danger to any
drivers in his vicinity.
That is an unnecessary danger to the public.
>I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
>to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
>state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
>behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
>running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
>a public space?
>
>Discuss.
In Oklahoma this is the law:
No person may be convicted of being in actual physical control of a motor
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol/(an intoxicating substance) unless
the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These
elements are:
First, being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle;
Second, on a highway/turnpike/(public parking lot);
Third, (while having a blood/breath alcohol concentration of 0.08 or
more)/(while under the influence of alcohol)/(while under the [influence of any
intoxicating substance other than alcohol]/[combined influence of alcohol and
any other intoxicating substance] which may render a person incapable of safely
driving a motor vehicle);
[Fourth, the blood/breath alcohol test was administered within 2 hours after
arrest).]
Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instruction CR 6-20
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=81351&hits=14
27+1426+1221+1220+1151+1150+1030+1029+1010+1009+754+753+712+711+672+671+58
5+584+419+418+367+366+264+263+244+243+71+70+35+34+9+8+
Gus
>From: tedth...@aol.com (Tedthecat85)
>Date: 9/14/04 8:02 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20040914210251...@mb-m26.aol.com>
Yepper, Been there -- done that..
It is called an APC = Actual Physical control. If you have access tot the keys
and you are anywhere in the car, they got you.
If you can hide the keys or throw them away so that the police can't find them,
then you can sleep iot off in a car thatis not in some violation because of
the fact of where it is at. ( middle of the street etc. )
In OK,
You can get
APC - actual physical control
DUI - driving under the influence
DWI - driving while intoxicated - impared.
And many many more LOL
Charles Bishop
<lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I will bet a dollar to a digital donut that there must be proof of
>*driving* in all state DWI laws.
I'll let others provide the proof and collect the dd, but there have been
cases of people drunk in their cars, without keys in the ignition, that
have been prosecuted and convicted for DUI. This is not to say you
couldn't have gotten him off (but I seriously doubt this) but I think
you're arguing the unfairness of the situation and not what the law and
tenor of the courts are.
I got villified the last time I said this, but I think[1] that just
driving while drunk, without any consequences of same, should not be
enough to get punishment. I do think that if a drunk driver hurts or kills
someone, it should be severely dealt with. There should be no mitigation
because of impairment.
charles
[1] I'm not sure I can defend real world consequences of this, but
philosophicaly I'm there
tooloud
<snip>
>> A buddy of mine was drinking one snowy night and slipped off the road
>> into a ditch on his way home. He ended up walking home to call a tow
>> truck. The driver picked him up in the tow truck and they returned to
>> the car. A cop was waiting there and gave him a breath test and
>> arrested him for DWI, though there was absolutely no proof that my
>> buddy was drunk at the time of the incident, there was six inches of
>> snow on the ground, and the tow truck driver verified that my buddy
>> was drinking a beer at home when he picked him up. The charge stuck.
>>
>
> I don't follow the logic here. Did your buddy claim that someone stole
> his car and put it in the ditch?
No, he claimed that he had several beers in the time it took for the tow
truck driver to pick him up after he walked home from the scene. When he
showed up at the scene again (an hour or two later), he was arrested for
drunk driving with no proof that he was even drunk at the time of the
accident, which most likely happened because of the slippery conditions.
Blinky the Shark
> You have a right to operate a motor vehicle and you have a right to
> get drunk. You just don't have the right to get behind the wheel of a
> running motor vehicle when you are plastered. As you say, this
> drunken man was just one step away from pulling out on the street and
> posing a mortal danger to any drivers in his vicinity.
He'd have been better off to try and make it home, rather than try to
sleep it off harmelessly and get bagged for *that* by a nosy bystander.
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Go Blue
Bob Ward
wrote:
The story seems to be changing. In the first sentence you admitted
that he had been drinking.
Greg Goss
>I am not a lawyer, and I am not connected withe the legal profession
>in any way, but even I could defend that guy and get him acquitted of
>the DWI charge. In California intoxication is not enough: the
>prosecution must also prove that the defendant was driving.
>
>I will bet a dollar to a digital donut that there must be proof of
>*driving* in all state DWI laws.
In my local jurisdiction (I don't know if it was provincial (BC) or
federal (Canada) jurisdicton), the vehicle needs to be under your
control. I think that being in the car with the keys in your hand is
enough. In the case I (vaguely) remember, the guy had the seat
reclined with the key in (for the radio), and the charges stuck.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Bob Ward
I remember an episode of COPS where they pulled up behind a guy who
was drunk and asleep, sitting at a stop sign with the engine running.
Not too much leeway there.
Bob Ward
So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages to
miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
Bob Ward
>
>You have a right to operate a motor vehicle and you have a right to get
>drunk. You just don't have the right to get behind the wheel of a running
>motor vehicle when you are plastered. As you say, this drunken man was just
>one step away from pulling out on the street and posing a mortal danger to any
>drivers in his vicinity.
Actually, as they say, "Driving is NOT a right, it is a privilege".
Greg Goss
>Third, (while having a blood/breath alcohol concentration of 0.08 or
>more)/(while under the influence of alcohol)/(while under the [influence of any
>intoxicating substance other than alcohol]/[combined influence of alcohol and
>any other intoxicating substance] which may render a person incapable of safely
>driving a motor vehicle);
I was talking to someone once. He said that he had been charged with
"driving while impaired" when he crashed into three cars on day three
of an extended driving session.
Tedthecat85
If he makes it home by cab then certainly that would have been a better choice.
The Origional Poster did not strike me as nosy; perhaps a touch innocent, but
not officious:
Les Albert
It sounds like the principle of "every dog is allowed one free bite".
Les
Tedthecat85
We did this one before. The government issues a "license" to drive. A license
is permission. In this sense driving is a privilege. You are correct.
However, you have a right to apply for a driver's license. If you satisfy all
of the requirements for a license, and fall within no provision disqualifying
you from a license, then you have a right to make the government issue a
driver's license to you. You then have the right to use that license until it
expires by its terms or until the government takes action under a specific
statute or regulation to try to revoke your license. If that happens you have
a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard in a court or an administrtive
tribunal before a final decision can be made to revoke the license.
I said "you have a right to operate a motor vehicle" for the sake of
simplicity.
Blinky the Shark
>>Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>Tedthecat85 wrote:
>>> You have a right to operate a motor vehicle and you have a right to
>>> get drunk. You just don't have the right to get behind the wheel of a
>>> running motor vehicle when you are plastered. As you say, this
>>> drunken man was just one step away from pulling out on the street and
>>> posing a mortal danger to any drivers in his vicinity.
>>He'd have been better off to try and make it home, rather than try to
>>sleep it off harmelessly and get bagged for *that* by a nosy bystander.
> If he makes it home by cab then certainly that would have been a better choice.
Or by driving. What's to lose? He got busted for not driving, anyway.
Bob Ward
wrote:
driving home unsuccessfully would be a lot more expensive than a cab
ride.
Charles Bishop
<bob...@email.com> wrote:
This came up last time and it bothered me then and bothers me now. My
inclination is to say yes, but am leaning toward some form of punishment.
Remember when drunks were funny? People laughed at them and actors and
comics got laughs playing them-Foster Brooks and Dean Martin come to mind.
People were killed by drunk drivers and the drunk drivers got a small
amount of punishment, under, I think the belief that they were "impaired"
and couldn't make good judgments and so weren't in full control. Or
perhaps because a lot of the judges and lawyers drank and thought, "there
but for the grace of god".
Then, people realized how much damage (chronic) drinking could cause, or
even being drunk. But rather than severely punishing those who commited
felonies while drunk (because this is difficult) there was punishment for
everyone, because, "they could hurt someone while drunk."
I won't argue that they couldn't, but if possible harm becomes part of the
law, then what about driving while angry? I don't think it will ever come
to this, and do think the severe punishments for drunk driving are a case
of the pendulum swinging too far the other way.
Still, I don't know what to do about your gun example.
charles
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages to
>miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
Yes. And, if he did hit someone, but no one liked that guy very much, you know,
like an old man that kept to himself except to yell at people, that would be
okay, too.
incandescent blue
>
> It sounds like the principle of "every dog is allowed one free bite".
A principle which is actually contradicted by law in 30 states:
<http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/legal_ri.htm#One-Bite%20states>
"A dog does not get "one free bite" in a statutory strict
liability state, and it is unnecessary to prove that the
owner or handler was negligent. In some states, the strict
liability statute applies to non-bite injuries as well as bites,
and to non-owners who have custody, control or a financial
interest in the dog (i.e., a "keeper" or "harborer"). In two
states (Pennsylvania and Colorado), the strict liability statute
applies to a bite that causes severe injury but not one that
causes little injury. In one state (Maine), the strict liability
statute applies only to dogs that have been declared to be dangerous.
Even where the strict liability statute does not apply, any person
can be held liable if he or she was negligent or maintained
custody or control of the dog with knowledge that the dog was
dangerous. In cities with a "leash law," violation of the leash
law constitutes a form of negligence. Therefore, if the accident
happened in a "one bite state," you need to understand the principles
of negligence and must always research the law of your city and
county... Furthermore, a victim in any state can recover for dog
bite injuries resulting from intentional conduct or from outrageous
or reckless behavior. For example, if a person who is walking a
dog commands it to attack the victim, that person (who might or
might not be the owner of the dog) would be liable for his
intentional conduct.
The usual exceptions to liability in statutory strict liability
states are these:
* The victim was a trespasser
* The victim was a veterinarian who was treating the dog at the time
of the incident
* The victim was committing a felony
* The victim provoked the dog
* The victim assumed the risk (i.e., implicitly consented) to being bitten
* The dog was assisting the police or the military at the time of the
incident"
A. "my dogs think "one free bite" should be the rule for people food"
--
"I'm sorry," I say, "if I give you the impression that it's only my
mouth that's rough. I do my best to be rough all over."
Peter Hoeg, _Smilla's Sense of Snow_
Russell Stewart
Not nosy, concerned. If I had known the guy was just sleeping (drunk
or not), I would have let him be. We were afraid that something was
wrong with him; that he might need medical attention.
chrisgreville
"Peter Boulding" <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u43fk0pssb038kf8s...@4ax.com...
>
> In the UK possession of the keys would probably be enough -
> certainly if they're in the ignition, whether or not the engine is
> running - IF you're in a public space. You're OK on your driveway.
>
If you have the keys, you are classed as being in charge of the vehicle,
even if you are asleep in the back.
From http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/crimedrinkdriving.htm
Being in charge of a motor vehicle with excess alcohol (DR40)
Penalty - Fine - up to Level 4 (£2,500) and/or up to 3 months imprisonment
10 penalty points on your licence
Disqualification is at the discretion of the Court
I am by no means certain of this, but I don't think you are right about it
being OK on your driveway.
Chris Greville
huey.c...@gmail.com
> Dunno about that. ISTR a vehicle (brain says it's a Suburban) got
> stuck in a snowdrift, and the occupants ran it at idle (to run the
> heater) for something like a dozen days before they ran out of gas.
They weren't running the engine the whole time, unless they had a 55
gallon drum of gas in the back, or dual truck tanks, or something.
Suppose your car idles at 500rpm and gets 20mpg cruising on the freeway
at 5000rpm going 70mph. That means it only takes you four hours to run
out of gas. With the engine at 1/10th the speed, assume it takes you 40
hours to run out of gas. That Subaru would either have to be getting
144mpg, or if you assume it got 40mpg, have a 51 gallon gas tank.
> Idling uses very little fuel. Presumably they had food and water in
> the car.
If you're stuck in a snowdrift, water is easy to come by. And you can
easily survive on a crash diet (har har) for two weeks. But the 100mpg
carburetor is one of those Great Usenet Kook-Magnets of our times for a
reason...
--
Huey
Patrick M Geahan
> No, he claimed that he had several beers in the time it took for the tow
> truck driver to pick him up after he walked home from the scene. When he
> showed up at the scene again (an hour or two later), he was arrested for
> drunk driving with no proof that he was even drunk at the time of the
> accident, which most likely happened because of the slippery conditions.
Except for your admission in your original post that he had been drinking
before he got into the car.
And if your friend thinks it's a good idea to knock back 'several beers'
while in the midst of handling a car accident, I'd say he's got a pretty
significant alcohol problem there.
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
"You know, this is how the sum total of human knowledge is increased.
Not with idle speculation and meaningless chatter, but with a
medium-sized hammer and some free time." - spa...@pffcu.com, a.f.c-a
Charles Wm. Dimmick
My late father-in-law told of an incident in a little town in western
Missouri where a much-disliked person was murdered in broad daylight
in the middle of town and nobody remembered seeing a thing.
Charles
--
"And some rin up hill and down dale, knapping the
chucky stanes to pieces wi' hammers, like sae mony
road-makers run daft -- they say it is to see how
the warld was made!"
Rick B.
news:ktW1d.16979$ZC7....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:
> Incredible Rhyme Animal wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward bob...@email.com writes:
>>
>>>So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages
>>>to miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
>>
>> Yes. And, if he did hit someone, but no one liked that guy very
>> much, you know, like an old man that kept to himself except to
>> yell at people, that would be okay, too.
>
> My late father-in-law told of an incident in a little town in
> western Missouri where a much-disliked person was murdered in
> broad daylight in the middle of town and nobody remembered seeing
> a thing.
Happened as recently as 1981--search key is "Ken Rex McElroy". A&E did
a "City Confidential" episode on the case a few years ago.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
<snip>
Well first off, you really ought to be willing to getinvolved personally.
Sicing the cops on someone to avoid personal interaction isn't IMHO a nice
thing to do. But small kudos to you for doing something: At least you
didn't just ignore the situation.
<snip>
> On the way home, my wife made the comment: "Well, that just
> sucks. He wasn't even driving, and we got him arrested." At first,
> I disagreed with her, but the more I thought about it, the
> more conflicted I felt.
Gotta agree with the wife.
> On the one hand, the man was clearly wasted, sitting in the
> driver's seat of a running car. He was just one step away
> from pulling out on the street and posing a mortal danger
> to any drivers in his vicinity.
As we are all just one step away from posing mortal danger to anyone at
just about anytime: when we carry a baseball bat to our sons game, when
ever we drive, who knows we could snap and just start harming people...
> But then my Libertarian side objects, and says, "So what!
> HE WASN'T DRIVING DRUNK! Do you want to go to jail for
> what you *might* do?"
Now you're making sense.
> Now I just don't know. Even the most staunch libertarian
> will accept that liberty must stop where it endangers
> another's life, safety, or rights. But where do we draw
> the line?
We should draw the line where wew can find a victim. Do you have a victim
here? I don't think so.
Now, I've run into this problem before. Came into work and found a guy in
the parking lot passed out in the front seat of his car. I woke him to
find out if he was OK, discovered him stinking drunk and told him that he
had to clear out of the area, offering to call him a cab. He had a cell
phone and refused, but then passed out again, at which point I called the
cops to get him and his car off the property. I had no qualms: I offered
to let him extract himself form the situation gracefully, he didn't avail
himself of it. He had gotten hmself into such a state where he couldn't
reasably stop trespassing, so as the victim, I had no problems with the
law coming in and dealing with him.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> "tooloud" <nospa...@mchsi.com> wrote in
> news:2qpdrbF...@uni-berlin.de:
> > Russell Stewart wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
> >> to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
> >> state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
> >> behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
> >> running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
> >> a public space?
> >>
> >> Discuss.
> >
> > I believe in Iowa you can be arrested for this as well.
> >
> > A buddy of mine was drinking one snowy night and slipped off the road
> > into a ditch on his way home. He ended up walking home to call a tow
> > truck. The driver picked him up in the tow truck and they returned to
> > the car. A cop was waiting there and gave him a breath test and
> > arrested him for DWI, though there was absolutely no proof that my
> > buddy was drunk at the time of the incident, there was six inches of
> > snow on the ground, and the tow truck driver verified that my buddy
> > was drinking a beer at home when he picked him up. The charge stuck.
> >
> I don't follow the logic here. Did your buddy claim that someone stole
> his car and put it in the ditch?
No, he's claiming he had an ordinary accident, returned home on foot, had
a beer at home and then got penalized for having a beer shortly after an
accident, which nominally isn't a crime.
Jordan Abel
>>>A buddy of mine was drinking one snowy night and slipped off the road
>
> No, he's claiming he had an ordinary accident, returned home on foot, had
> a beer at home and then got penalized for having a beer shortly after an
> accident, which nominally isn't a crime.
but you already admitted that what _really_ happened was that he'd had a
few drinks first and went off the road on his way home
Richard R. Hershberger
Possible harm has always been part of the law. Look up "reckless
endangerment". While I appreciate a libertarian streak, it is
misplaced here. Consider the gun in the crowd scenario. Suppose the
bullet hits and kills somebody. Yes, we all agree that the shooter
would be severely punished. But that doesn't bring the victim back to
life. Yes, a civil suit might result in the survivors being
compensated. But that doesn't bring the victim back to life. Legal
action after the fact simply cannot repair the damage, legal fictions
to the contrary notwithstanding. We can infer from this that the
right of people walking down the street to not have random bullets
flying about them is a stronger imperative than the right of other
people to shoot random bullets near pedestrians. Whether or not those
bullets happen to hit or miss anyone really is not the point. The
drunk driving argument is exactly the same. Even from a libertarian
viewpoint, the right of people to reasonably safe roads outweighs the
right of people to make those roads unreasonably unsafe.
Taking this from a non-libertarian perspective, the result is the
same. People tend to do stupid things. Feedback is important: you
only have to put your hand on a hot stove once to learn to be careful,
but many kids require that first time. This system breaks down if
there is a low(ish) probability of an undesirable result, but that
result is very very bad. So suppose that a drunk driver can get home
safely 99 times out of a hundred. Eventually the odds will catch up
to him. From a social engineering perspective it makes more sense to
prevent the mayhem by outlawing all drunk driving than waiting for a
catastrophe and then punishing the driver.
This is a happy case where social engineering and libertarian
considerations reach the same solution. Sit back and enjoy it.
Richard R. Hershberger
r
keys in the ignition, but not running. That was in New York state.
Admittedly, his case had some extra features--he was engaged in an intimate
act at the time with some guy he picked up at a highway rest stop in
addition to being intoxicated. But he did get charged with DWI, amoung
other things. It think the presence of the igition keys or having the motor
running shows intent under the law.
David J. Martin
I don't know squat about breathalyzers, but I'd guess the problem is
that having a beer while waiting for the tow truck isn't likely to
result in a high reading. You said he "was drinking one snowy night and
slipped off the road ..." So he drank, had an accident, then had a
beer. Apparently the judgment was that the first drinking was more
important than that last beer.
I know someone who tried to argue that he wasn't drunk at the time he
was driving even though he tested positive. His contention was that he
had few shots just before leaving the bar that didn't affect his
driving, but kicked in after he was stopped. He might have been right,
but it's not much of a defense.
David
Les Albert
Because he was having sex in the car, your friend's arrest was
classified as a moving violation.
Les
Les Albert
<die-bla...@hyacinthine.net> wrote:
>On 2004-09-15, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> It sounds like the principle of "every dog is allowed one free bite".
>A principle which is actually contradicted by law in 30 states:
><http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/legal_ri.htm#One-Bite%20states>
The other 20 states are more enlightened.
Les
Jordan Abel
> I know someone who tried to argue that he wasn't drunk at the time he
> was driving even though he tested positive. His contention was that he
> had few shots just before leaving the bar that didn't affect his
> driving, but kicked in after he was stopped. He might have been right,
> but it's not much of a defense.
The people who are trying to claim that even if you test negative [or
even .00] you can still be considered drunk are going to have a hard
time refuting it - either it's about the literal numeric blood alcohol
level or it's not. if a .09 _must_ be illegal under all circumstances
regardless of how the person is driving, a .07 [or .00] _must_ therefore
be legal, similarly regardless.
nUt
"Bob Ward" <bob...@email.com> wrote in message
news:nsbfk01u22omsua2l...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:58:22 -0500, "tooloud" <nospa...@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >groo wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>> A buddy of mine was drinking one snowy night and slipped off the road
> >>> into a ditch on his way home. He ended up walking home to call a tow
> >>> truck. The driver picked him up in the tow truck and they returned to
> >>> the car. A cop was waiting there and gave him a breath test and
> >>> arrested him for DWI, though there was absolutely no proof that my
> >>> buddy was drunk at the time of the incident, there was six inches of
> >>> snow on the ground, and the tow truck driver verified that my buddy
> >>> was drinking a beer at home when he picked him up. The charge stuck.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't follow the logic here. Did your buddy claim that someone stole
> >> his car and put it in the ditch?
> >
> >truck driver to pick him up after he walked home from the scene. When he
> >showed up at the scene again (an hour or two later), he was arrested for
> >accident, which most likely happened because of the slippery conditions.
>
>
> that he had been drinking.
There was no proof that he had been drinking prior to the accident... except
perhaps the spillage over the seat as he lost control of the car.
nUt
"Jordan Abel" <jma...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:2qqvl9F...@uni-berlin.de...
But, without the admission, where's the proof?
Paul Ciszek
In article <ci8p6c$tkg$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
chrisgreville <chrisNooo-s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Peter Boulding" <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:u43fk0pssb038kf8s...@4ax.com...
>>
>> In the UK possession of the keys would probably be enough -
>> certainly if they're in the ignition, whether or not the engine is
>> running - IF you're in a public space. You're OK on your driveway.
>>
>
>If you have the keys, you are classed as being in charge of the vehicle,
>even if you are asleep in the back.
What if you are passed out in an alley with the keys in your pocket?
--
Please reply to: | "When you are dealing with secretive regimes
pciszek at panix dot org | that want to deceive, you're never going to
Autoreply is disabled | be able to be positive." -Condoleezza Rice
nUt
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:46:49 GMT, ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles
> Bishop) wrote:
>
> >In article <884fk05eekn3fndng...@4ax.com>, Les Albert
> ><lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>I will bet a dollar to a digital donut that there must be proof of
> >>*driving* in all state DWI laws.
> >
> >I'll let others provide the proof and collect the dd, but there have been
> >cases of people drunk in their cars, without keys in the ignition, that
> >have been prosecuted and convicted for DUI. This is not to say you
> >couldn't have gotten him off (but I seriously doubt this) but I think
> >you're arguing the unfairness of the situation and not what the law and
> >tenor of the courts are.
> >
> >I got villified the last time I said this, but I think[1] that just
> >driving while drunk, without any consequences of same, should not be
> >enough to get punishment. I do think that if a drunk driver hurts or
kills
> >someone, it should be severely dealt with. There should be no mitigation
> >because of impairment.
> >
> >charles
> >
> >[1] I'm not sure I can defend real world consequences of this, but
> >philosophicaly I'm there
>
>
> So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages to
> miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
Somebody didn't shoot the gun.
Your analogy is analogous to someone driving home while inebriated and not
having an accident.
Charles Bishop
rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) wrote:
>ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote in message
news:<ctbishop-140...@user-2ivfmo5.dialup.mindspring.com>...
[driving while drunk]
>> I won't argue that they couldn't, but if possible harm becomes part of the
>> law, then what about driving while angry? I don't think it will ever come
>> to this, and do think the severe punishments for drunk driving are a case
>> of the pendulum swinging too far the other way.
>
>Possible harm has always been part of the law. Look up "reckless
>endangerment". While I appreciate a libertarian streak, it is
>misplaced here. Consider the gun in the crowd scenario. Suppose the
>bullet hits and kills somebody. Yes, we all agree that the shooter
>would be severely punished. But that doesn't bring the victim back to
>life. Yes, a civil suit might result in the survivors being
>compensated. But that doesn't bring the victim back to life. Legal
>action after the fact simply cannot repair the damage, legal fictions
>to the contrary notwithstanding. We can infer from this that the
>right of people walking down the street to not have random bullets
>flying about them is a stronger imperative than the right of other
>people to shoot random bullets near pedestrians. Whether or not those
>bullets happen to hit or miss anyone really is not the point. The
>drunk driving argument is exactly the same. Even from a libertarian
>viewpoint, the right of people to reasonably safe roads outweighs the
>right of people to make those roads unreasonably unsafe.
It sounds to me like the "you can't bring someone back to life" should
have no bearing on the discussion. It's a fact in all cases, but the legal
system is set up to address this. Civil suits put a dollar value on such
lives, and the criminal system is set up to punish such crimes. This is
supposed to be a deterrent to others and punishment for the person
comitting the crime.
The shooting a gun in a crowd argument sounds a little like the flag
buring ammendment argument-a prohibition against something that isn't
likely to happen. That is, absent punishment, is it likely that someone
will choose to shoot a gun in a crowd on the off chance that sie won't hit
someone? Probably not, so what the current law address is a way of
punishing someone who fires a gun for another reason, probably trying to
kill someone, but failing to do so. This currently rates a punishment.
For whatever reason, this current law and punishment doesn't make me as
uncomfortable as the one against drunk driving does. I don't know exactly
why, but it might be that someone purposefuly shooting at someone and
missing is different from someone driving while intoxicated who doesn't
have the same intent.
>
>Taking this from a non-libertarian perspective, the result is the
>same. People tend to do stupid things. Feedback is important: you
>only have to put your hand on a hot stove once to learn to be careful,
>but many kids require that first time. This system breaks down if
>there is a low(ish) probability of an undesirable result, but that
>result is very very bad. So suppose that a drunk driver can get home
>safely 99 times out of a hundred. Eventually the odds will catch up
>to him. From a social engineering perspective it makes more sense to
>prevent the mayhem by outlawing all drunk driving than waiting for a
>catastrophe and then punishing the driver.
But changing people's behavior is part of the legal system-you might get
punished if you commit a crime so you don't. If drunk drivers are
sufficiently punished-life in prison perhaps-for a death commited while
drunk, then I think the number of deaths would go down. Would it do down
as much as if all drunk drivers were arrested, put in jail and punished? I
don't know.
>
>This is a happy case where social engineering and libertarian
>considerations reach the same solution. Sit back and enjoy it.
I think the libertarian solution is "don't punish someone where no harm is
done", but I could be wrong.
charles
nUt
"Russell Stewart" <us...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ci8m6o$q8b$1...@iruka.swcp.com...
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
> > Tedthecat85 wrote:
> >
> >
> >>You have a right to operate a motor vehicle and you have a right to
> >>get drunk. You just don't have the right to get behind the wheel of a
> >>running motor vehicle when you are plastered. As you say, this
> >>drunken man was just one step away from pulling out on the street and
> >>posing a mortal danger to any drivers in his vicinity.
> >
> >
> > He'd have been better off to try and make it home, rather than try to
> > sleep it off harmelessly and get bagged for *that* by a nosy bystander.
>
> Not nosy, concerned. If I had known the guy was just sleeping (drunk
> or not), I would have let him be. We were afraid that something was
> wrong with him; that he might need medical attention.
A new strain of STD which causes paralysis within minutes?
Jordan Abel
>>The story seems to be changing. In the first sentence you admitted
>>that he had been drinking.
>
> There was no proof that he had been drinking prior to the accident... except
> perhaps the spillage over the seat as he lost control of the car.
but. he. WAS. you said so yourself - don't act like it's some sort of
injustice just because he "should have gotten away with it"
Jordan Abel
> Somebody didn't shoot the gun.
>
> Your analogy is analogous to someone driving home while inebriated and not
> having an accident.
The thread had drifted - they were _talking_ about when someone drives
home while inebriated and does not have an accident - unlike your
brother or whoever it was, who did so and _did_ have an accident [though
one in which no-one was hurt]
nUt
"Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ci9sku$171$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> In article <ci8p6c$tkg$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> chrisgreville <chrisNooo-s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Peter Boulding" <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:u43fk0pssb038kf8s...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> In the UK possession of the keys would probably be enough -
> >> certainly if they're in the ignition, whether or not the engine is
> >> running - IF you're in a public space. You're OK on your driveway.
> >>
> >
> >If you have the keys, you are classed as being in charge of the vehicle,
> >even if you are asleep in the back.
>
> What if you are passed out in an alley with the keys in your pocket?
Depends if the hood's warm or not!
Personally i believe that, if the cars running, it's at the discretion of
the police[wo]man to decide whether a crime is about to be committed or not.
If the car isn't running then it's laughable that they could even try to
prosecute... unless in circumstances which prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the motorist was guilty of a crime:
A friend of a friend was nicked while the car was parked on his drive and he
was indoors.
The police had been tipped off that he had driven home while under the
influence... the car was hot, he was drunk and had been seen, along with his
car, at a bar a few miles down the road only 30 minutes prior to the
police's visit. Fair cop, bang to rights, he received a 2 year ban.
That's a little different from someone drying out while trying to avoid
hypothermia due to weather conditions by leaving thier car running... it's
really down to the police to be fair when applying laws... and i'd like to
believe most are.
[ahem]
ctc...@hotmail.com
> >
> >Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instruction CR 6-20
> >http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=813
>
> Yepper, Been there -- done that..
>
> It is called an APC = Actual Physical control. If you have access tot
> the keys and you are anywhere in the car, they got you.
So if you are not actually in physical control of the car, then it is
called actual physical control. That sounds about right.
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
tooloud
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:58:22 -0500, "tooloud" <nospa...@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
>> groo wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> call a tow truck. The driver picked him up in the tow truck and
>>>> they returned to the car. A cop was waiting there and gave him a
>>>> breath test and arrested him for DWI, though there was absolutely
>>>> no proof that my buddy was drunk at the time of the incident,
>>>> there was six inches of snow on the ground, and the tow truck
>>>> driver verified that my buddy was drinking a beer at home when he
>>>> picked him up. The charge stuck.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't follow the logic here. Did your buddy claim that someone
>>> stole his car and put it in the ditch?
>>
>> No, he claimed that he had several beers in the time it took for the
>> tow truck driver to pick him up after he walked home from the scene.
>> When he showed up at the scene again (an hour or two later), he was
>> arrested for drunk driving with no proof that he was even drunk at
>> the time of the accident, which most likely happened because of the
>> slippery conditions.
>
>
> that he had been drinking.
I wouldn't say that I "admitted" anything, so much as I just told you.
Here's a timeline for those having trouble following along:
1) Buddy drinks with some friends
2) Leaves for home in snowy conditions; isn't acting like a drunk person
might (slurrring, stumbling, etc.)
3) Puts car in ditch
4) Goes home; drinks some more
5) Tow truck driver picks him up
6) Gets arrested for OWI
The point isn't so much that he *was* drinking earlier--it's that the
previous drinking seems rather irrelevant if no one proved he was drunk at
the time of the incident. However, someone *was* able to verify that he was
drinking after the incident, which may imply that the drunkenness occurred
after the incident.
Here's an easier way to look at it: say you ditch your Suzuki in some
obscure place and the cops don't come to your house to ask you about it for
an entire day. Can they arrest you for DWI because you're drunk *now*, even
though there's no evidence you were drinking when the vehicle was ditched?
Just food for thought...
--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...
tooloud
There's also a difference between "drinking" and "drunk", especially when no
one's around to prove otherwise.
tooloud
> tooloud <nospa...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> No, he claimed that he had several beers in the time it took for the
>> tow truck driver to pick him up after he walked home from the scene.
>> When he showed up at the scene again (an hour or two later), he was
>> arrested for drunk driving with no proof that he was even drunk at
>> the time of the accident, which most likely happened because of the
>> slippery conditions.
>
> Except for your admission in your original post that he had been
> drinking before he got into the car.
Admission? I'm not denying that he was drinking, but then again, you're
aware that drinking isn't the same as drunk, right?
Anyway, if he hadn't been drinking before the accident, it wouldn't really
change anything; the cops still wouldn't be able to prove he was over the
legal limit when the car was ditched.
> And if your friend thinks it's a good idea to knock back 'several
> beers' while in the midst of handling a car accident, I'd say he's
> got a pretty significant alcohol problem there.
I don't know where you're from, Pat, but anyone living in a rural area that
gets a lot of snow will probably agree with me that sliding the right two
wheels off a rock road in six inches of snow isn't considered an accident.
It's more like a way of life--usually you just wave down the first guy that
comes along that happens to have a 4WD and a log chain. People around here
are so nice about things like that that they usually thank you for allowing
them to help you.
In this case, there apparently was no one around and my buddy happened to
have a AAA card in his pocket, so he took that route instead. He wasn't
"handling a car accident" so much as he was sitting around taking a ribbing
from his family for sliding the car into the ditch. It wasn't that big a
deal, really.
Please don't turn this into one of those threads in which two dozen people
step up on soapboxes and proclaim that anyone that has a couple of drinks
with dinner and drives home is a horrible, horrible person and deserves to
die. There's really too many of those people already.
Jeff Lanam
<cdim...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>My late father-in-law told of an incident in a little town in western
>Missouri where a much-disliked person was murdered in broad daylight
>in the middle of town and nobody remembered seeing a thing.
>
>Charles
"Judge, he needed killin'."
tooloud
<snip>
> I know someone who tried to argue that he wasn't drunk at the time he
> was driving even though he tested positive. His contention was that
> he had few shots just before leaving the bar that didn't affect his
> driving, but kicked in after he was stopped. He might have been
> right, but it's not much of a defense.
No, that's not much of a defense, but it's not the same situation either.
> David
groo
news:2qrrk0F...@uni-berlin.de:
At the very least, the guy deserved at least a fine for stupidity. At the
most, he deserved a DUI conviction.
And when the tow truck driver took him back to the car, wasn't the plan
just to pull the car out of the ditch and drive it home? Or did he decide
to get too drunk to drive since he'd have a tow truck there to take him
home anyway?
--
"I was trapped in the body of a woman. Best New Year's Eve I ever
spent." - John Dean, afca
groo
news:2qrsfgF...@uni-berlin.de:
> Please don't turn this into one of those threads in which two dozen
> people step up on soapboxes and proclaim that anyone that has a couple
> of drinks with dinner and drives home is a horrible, horrible person
> and deserves to die. There's really too many of those people already.
Yeah, those people all suck. They deserve to die, there are really too many
of them already.
groo
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Tedthecat85 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You have a right to operate a motor vehicle and you have a right to
>>>get drunk. You just don't have the right to get behind the wheel of
>>>a running motor vehicle when you are plastered. As you say, this
>>>drunken man was just one step away from pulling out on the street
>>>and posing a mortal danger to any drivers in his vicinity.
>>
>>
>> He'd have been better off to try and make it home, rather than try to
>> sleep it off harmelessly and get bagged for *that* by a nosy
>> bystander.
>
> Not nosy, concerned. If I had known the guy was just sleeping (drunk
> or not), I would have let him be. We were afraid that something was
> wrong with him; that he might need medical attention.
I have to admit, I'm was a bit puzzled by that. You see a guy with his
eyes closed in a car outside a topless bar, late at night. You didn't
even consider that he might be sleeping it off? You didn't even give
that enough consideration to knock on the window?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think you did anything wrong. It just seemed
odd.
kay w
>I have to admit, I'm was a bit puzzled by that. You see a guy with his
>eyes closed in a car outside a topless bar, late at night. You didn't
>even consider that he might be sleeping it off?
Or having a tryst?
--
"If I had to live my life again, I'd make the same mistakes, only sooner."
Tallulah Bankhead
Asterbark
>
>ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote in message
>news:<ctbishop-140...@user-2ivfmo5.dialup.mindspring.com>...
>> In article <tecfk0t7t9h4j5riu...@4ax.com>, Bob Ward
>> <bob...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:46:49 GMT, ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles
>> >Bishop) wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <884fk05eekn3fndng...@4ax.com>, Les Albert
>> >><lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>I will bet a dollar to a digital donut that there must be proof of
>> >>>*driving* in all state DWI laws.
>> >>
>> >>I'll let others provide the proof and collect the dd, but there have been
>> >>cases of people drunk in their cars, without keys in the ignition, that
>> >>have been prosecuted and convicted for DUI. This is not to say you
>> >>couldn't have gotten him off (but I seriously doubt this) but I think
>> >>you're arguing the unfairness of the situation and not what the law and
>> >>tenor of the courts are.
>> >>
>> >>I got villified the last time I said this, but I think[1] that just
>> >>driving while drunk, without any consequences of same, should not be
>> >>enough to get punishment. I do think that if a drunk driver hurts or
>kills
>> >>someone, it should be severely dealt with. There should be no mitigation
>> >>because of impairment.
>> >>
>> >>charles
>> >>
>> >>[1] I'm not sure I can defend real world consequences of this, but
>> >>philosophicaly I'm there
>> >
>> >
>> >So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages to
>> >miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
>>
>> This came up last time and it bothered me then and bothers me now. My
>> inclination is to say yes, but am leaning toward some form of punishment.
>>
>> Remember when drunks were funny? People laughed at them and actors and
>> comics got laughs playing them-Foster Brooks and Dean Martin come to mind.
>> People were killed by drunk drivers and the drunk drivers got a small
>> amount of punishment, under, I think the belief that they were "impaired"
>> and couldn't make good judgments and so weren't in full control. Or
>> perhaps because a lot of the judges and lawyers drank and thought, "there
>> but for the grace of god".
>>
>> Then, people realized how much damage (chronic) drinking could cause, or
>> even being drunk. But rather than severely punishing those who commited
>> felonies while drunk (because this is difficult) there was punishment for
>> everyone, because, "they could hurt someone while drunk."
>>
>> I won't argue that they couldn't, but if possible harm becomes part of the
>> law, then what about driving while angry? I don't think it will ever come
>> to this, and do think the severe punishments for drunk driving are a case
>> of the pendulum swinging too far the other way.
>
>Possible harm has always been part of the law. Look up "reckless
>endangerment". While I appreciate a libertarian streak, it is
>misplaced here. Consider the gun in the crowd scenario. Suppose the
>bullet hits and kills somebody. Yes, we all agree that the shooter
>would be severely punished. But that doesn't bring the victim back to
>life. Yes, a civil suit might result in the survivors being
>compensated. But that doesn't bring the victim back to life. Legal
>action after the fact simply cannot repair the damage, legal fictions
>to the contrary notwithstanding. We can infer from this that the
>right of people walking down the street to not have random bullets
>flying about them is a stronger imperative than the right of other
>people to shoot random bullets near pedestrians. Whether or not those
>bullets happen to hit or miss anyone really is not the point. The
>drunk driving argument is exactly the same. Even from a libertarian
>viewpoint, the right of people to reasonably safe roads outweighs the
>right of people to make those roads unreasonably unsafe.
>
>Taking this from a non-libertarian perspective, the result is the
>same. People tend to do stupid things. Feedback is important: you
>only have to put your hand on a hot stove once to learn to be careful,
>but many kids require that first time. This system breaks down if
>there is a low(ish) probability of an undesirable result, but that
>result is very very bad. So suppose that a drunk driver can get home
>safely 99 times out of a hundred. Eventually the odds will catch up
>to him. From a social engineering perspective it makes more sense to
>prevent the mayhem by outlawing all drunk driving than waiting for a
>catastrophe and then punishing the driver.
>
>This is a happy case where social engineering and libertarian
>considerations reach the same solution. Sit back and enjoy it.
This all reminds me of common situations where there ought to be a sign or a
light at any given intersection and yet there isn't, until someone dies in an
accident at that intersection, and even then, there has to be a petition.
--
Aster
Jordan Abel
> And when the tow truck driver took him back to the car, wasn't the plan
> just to pull the car out of the ditch and drive it home?
He didn't say that. Where do you see that?
Bob Ward
wrote:
>
>Here's an easier way to look at it: say you ditch your Suzuki in some
>obscure place and the cops don't come to your house to ask you about it for
>an entire day. Can they arrest you for DWI because you're drunk *now*, even
>though there's no evidence you were drinking when the vehicle was ditched?
>
>Just food for thought...
If they showed up when I was drunk and trying to get the Suzuki out of
the ditch, I think it would be a much closer approximation of a
comparison.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>Please don't turn this into one of those threads in which two dozen people
>step up on soapboxes and proclaim that anyone that has a couple of drinks
>with dinner and drives home is a horrible, horrible person and deserves to
>die. There's really too many of those people already.
Question is, did the family they wiped out on the way home deserve to
die as well?
Bob Ward
Bishop) wrote:
>
>For whatever reason, this current law and punishment doesn't make me as
>uncomfortable as the one against drunk driving does. I don't know exactly
>why, but it might be that someone purposefuly shooting at someone and
>missing is different from someone driving while intoxicated who doesn't
>have the same intent.
But probably the same lack of regard or respect for the safety of
others.
Bob Ward
No, the fact that he missed is equivalent to the fact that the drunk
got home. The fact that the gun was fired would be analogous to the
drunk driving in the first place.
Ron Albright
> We can infer from this that the
> right of people walking down the street to not have random bullets
> flying about them is a stronger imperative than the right of other
> people to shoot random bullets near pedestrians. Whether or not those
> bullets happen to hit or miss anyone really is not the point.
This is a stupid analogy for the simple reason that driving a car
somewhere has productive purpose. Shooting a gun randomly down the
street doesn't.
> The
> drunk driving argument is exactly the same. Even from a libertarian
> viewpoint, the right of people to reasonably safe roads outweighs the
> right of people to make those roads unreasonably unsafe.
This is stupid since ridicules levels of enforcement of overbearing drunk
driving laws contributes very little to making it reasonable safe to
drive. Every day I drive down the DNT in Dallas and every morning I'm
amazed and terrified by the intentional dangerous driving practices of
some of the morons driving down the road. All of this stuff is illegal and
people driving like that kill hundreds every day. Yet they rarely get
ticketed for these practices and when they do there are loop holes that
allow them to get the tickets annulled with just a small fine. Even when
they cause an accident that kills someone they're rarely punished for it.
But anyone driving perfectly safely or even sitting in their parked car
with a .08 blood alcohol level deserves to be thrown in jail. Yeah, this
makes perfect sense.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
SoCalMike
> Hactar <ebe...@tampabay.are-are.com.unmunge> wrote:
>
>>Dunno about that. ISTR a vehicle (brain says it's a Suburban) got
>>stuck in a snowdrift, and the occupants ran it at idle (to run the
>>heater) for something like a dozen days before they ran out of gas.
>
>
> They weren't running the engine the whole time, unless they had a 55
> gallon drum of gas in the back, or dual truck tanks, or something.
>
> Suppose your car idles at 500rpm and gets 20mpg cruising on the freeway
> at 5000rpm going 70mph. That means it only takes you four hours to run
> out of gas. With the engine at 1/10th the speed, assume it takes you 40
> hours to run out of gas. That Subaru would either have to be getting
suburban. pretty big tank and probably just ran it every so often. if i
was in a snowbank, id be worried about carbon monoxide poisoning.
SoCalMike
> As we are all just one step away from posing mortal danger to anyone at
> just about anytime: when we carry a baseball bat to our sons game, when
> ever we drive, who knows we could snap and just start harming people...
especially if youre an angry drunk.
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>Incredible Rhyme Animal wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward bob...@email.com writes:
>>
>>>So, if someone shoots a gun on a crowded street, but he manages to
>>>miss everyone, he gets to keep his gun and go home?
>>
>> Yes. And, if he did hit someone, but no one liked that guy very much, you
>know,
>> like an old man that kept to himself except to yell at people, that would
>be
>> okay, too.
>
>My late father-in-law told of an incident in a little town in western
>Missouri where a much-disliked person was murdered in broad daylight
>in the middle of town and nobody remembered seeing a thing.
So, what, it was some kind of gedankenexperiment or koan, or what?
Patrick M Geahan
> There's also a difference between "drinking" and "drunk", especially when no
> one's around to prove otherwise.
The cop proved otherwise. Your buddy was legally drunk.
He admits to drinking before the accident. He blew drunk after the
accident. And his 'excuse' is that after the accident, but before the tow
truck, he went home and drank a whole bunch more.
If he expects people to buy this story, he's an idiot. If this is what
actually happened, he's an even bigger idiot.
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
"You know, this is how the sum total of human knowledge is increased.
Not with idle speculation and meaningless chatter, but with a
medium-sized hammer and some free time." - spa...@pffcu.com, a.f.c-a
Patrick M Geahan
> Admission? I'm not denying that he was drinking, but then again, you're
> aware that drinking isn't the same as drunk, right?
> Anyway, if he hadn't been drinking before the accident, it wouldn't really
> change anything; the cops still wouldn't be able to prove he was over the
> legal limit when the car was ditched.
Your buddy was drinking before the accident and drunk afterwards. Doesn't
take a rocket scientist to put that together.
> I don't know where you're from, Pat, but anyone living in a rural area that
> gets a lot of snow will probably agree with me that sliding the right two
> wheels off a rock road in six inches of snow isn't considered an accident.
I lived in one of the snowiest places in the United States: northern
Michigan. You're right, car accidents happen all the time.
And when they do, if the cops show up, they're gonna make you blow the
breathalyzer. ESPECIALLY if the accident is, say, late at night on a
Friday or Saturday.
Everyone knows this. You'd have to be a complete flaming idiot to think
it's a good idea to buzz home, drink several beers(enough to get drunk),
and then tackle handling the accident.
I, personally, think your friend's story is bullshit. If it isn't, he's
an idiot, and quite probably an alcoholic.
Kajikit
17:15:48 -0600:
>Now I just don't know. Even the most staunch libertarian
>will accept that liberty must stop where it endangers
>another's life, safety, or rights. But where do we draw
>the line?
>
>I know that traffic and DWI laws tend to vary from state
>to state; does anyone know what the rules are in your
>state? Can you be arrested simply for sitting, intoxicated,
>behind the wheel of a car? Does it matter if the engine is
>running or not? If the car is parked in your driveway or
>a public space
That sounds like a DWI to me - he didn't need to have the engine
running to sleep in the car! Sounds like he got in, turned the thing
on, and then passed out, luckily BEFORE pulling out into the traffic!
If he wanted to sleep it off in the car he should have gotten into the
back seat, not the front one!
btw, some time ago in Australia there was a story on one of the
current affairs shows about a young man who was charged with being in
charge of a vehicle while intoxicated - the only problem was that he
didn't even have the keys in the front seat with him - he went out to
celebrate something, got blotto and decided to sleep in the car, so he
tossed his keys into the back seat, got into the passenger side and
put the seat back. A cop came along in the morning and arrested him,
and because he was still a young driver they wanted to take his
license away entirely. Now THAT was clearly unfair...
--
~Karen AKA Kajikit
Lover of shiny things...
Made as of 10th Sept 2004 - 107 cards, 66 SB pages, 10 digital SB pages, 72 decos
Visit my webpage: http://www.kajikitscorner.com
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Peter Boulding
<can...@thelast.mile> wrote:
>>In the UK possession of the keys would probably be enough -
>>certainly if they're in the ignition, whether or not the engine is
>>running - IF you're in a public space. You're OK on your driveway.
>
>For now.
>
>Bwa Ha ha ha ha....
>
>Geez, I hope I'm only joking!
Me too, although with the kind of political climate we have right
now, the joke's not very funny.
I'm pretty sure that Chris Greville is wrong on this one: driving
laws apply only to the public highways. For example, you're not
allowed to drive, even as learner, until you're seventeen years old
but plenty of kids pass their test soon after their seventeenth
birthday, having learned to drive on private land.
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
Jordan Abel
> That sounds like a DWI to me - he didn't need to have the engine
> running to sleep in the car! Sounds like he got in, turned the thing
> on, and then passed out, luckily BEFORE pulling out into the traffic!
> If he wanted to sleep it off in the car he should have gotten into the
> back seat, not the front one!
Why was the seat reclined all the way back, then? was there a back seat
at all?
chrisgreville
"Peter Boulding" <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q00jk0dregv4mqe7f...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:54:18 -0400, "can...@thelast.mile"
> <can...@thelast.mile> wrote:
>
> >>In the UK possession of the keys would probably be enough -
> >>certainly if they're in the ignition, whether or not the engine is
> >>running - IF you're in a public space. You're OK on your driveway.
> >
> >For now.
> >
> >Bwa Ha ha ha ha....
> >
> >Geez, I hope I'm only joking!
>
> Me too, although with the kind of political climate we have right
> now, the joke's not very funny.
>
> I'm pretty sure that Chris Greville is wrong on this one: driving
> laws apply only to the public highways.
I probably am, but something in the grey cells say there have been cases
brought when the car is in the drive and the owner is sleeping off a
drinking session.
For example, you're not
> allowed to drive, even as learner, until you're seventeen years old
> but plenty of kids pass their test soon after their seventeenth
> birthday, having learned to drive on private land.
But were they drunk when doing it? :-)
And I learnt to drive on the M1 just after it opened, BTW.
Chris Greville
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:54:18 -0400, "can...@thelast.mile"
> <can...@thelast.mile> wrote:
> >>In the UK possession of the keys would probably be enough -
> >>certainly if they're in the ignition, whether or not the engine is
> >>running - IF you're in a public space. You're OK on your driveway.
> >
> >For now.
> >
> >Bwa Ha ha ha ha....
> >
> >Geez, I hope I'm only joking!
> Me too, although with the kind of political climate we have right
> now, the joke's not very funny.
> I'm pretty sure that Chris Greville is wrong on this one: driving
> laws apply only to the public highways. For example, you're not
> allowed to drive, even as learner, until you're seventeen years old
> but plenty of kids pass their test soon after their seventeenth
> birthday, having learned to drive on private land.
Here in the people's republic of New Jersey, it was ruled that privately
owned driveways are public spaces for certain vehicle operation purposes.
googles.. ah here it is: vehicle emmisions standards. If your vehilce
fails inspection and you try to park it in your driveway untill you have
the money needed for repairs, they can confiscate it.
http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=10845
This led to a rash of people parking their cars on thier lawn followed by
a rash of towns prohibiting parking cars on grass...
In any case, Drunk Drivers were the pedophiles of the '90s, so I could
certanly see laws that made it illegal to sit in a car while drunk. Hell,
I heard a FOAF story of a guy here in NJ who got taged for operating a
motor vehicle while under suspension when his ride-on lawnmower circled
out into the street (got thrown out on appeal tho).
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Peter Boulding
<chrisNooo-s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I probably am, but something in the grey cells say there have been cases
>brought when the car is in the drive and the owner is sleeping off a
>drinking session.
You're right, but such cases hinge on the question of whether the
car had been driven on to the drive before or after the driver got
drunk. The point at issue, IIRC, was whether the police had the
right to breathalyse someone who is no longer on the public highway.
chrisgreville
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:13:29 +0100, "chrisgreville"
> <chrisNooo-s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> You're right, but such cases hinge on the question of whether the
> car had been driven on to the drive before or after the driver got
> drunk. The point at issue, IIRC, was whether the police had the
> right to breathalyse someone who is no longer on the public highway.
>
Not disputed that that was the original point made, but I still think that
there have been cases where police breathalized a driver in their homes. One
(I think) was Geoffrey Archer when he was an MP. If not him, it was someone
equally notor... erm, famous.
Chris Greville
groo
news:2qse59F...@uni-berlin.de:
I don't "see" it anywhere. It was a presumption on my part, which is why
it was phrased as a question, not an assertion. It wasn't clear one way
or the other from the original post.
Quite often, when your car slides off a road into a snow filled ditch,
the only real problem is getting the car back on the road. In such a
situation, most people wouldn't then have the tow truck driver hook the
car up and tow it home, if it was perfectly drivable and the roads
weren't totally iced up.
--
"People you agree with are allowed to be sarcastic. People you don't
agree with are just jerks." - Opus T. Penguin on afca
Blinky the Shark
> On 16 Sep 2004 01:12:16 GMT, scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote:
>>Previously, groo wrote, in part:
>>>I have to admit, I'm was a bit puzzled by that. You see a guy with his
>>>eyes closed in a car outside a topless bar, late at night. You didn't
>>>even consider that he might be sleeping it off?
>>Or having a tryst?
> KAy!
Come on baby let's do the tryst
Come on baby let's do the tryst
Take me by my little hand and go like thyst
Ee-oh tryst, tryst baby, tryst
Oooh-yeah just like this
Come on little miss and do the tryst
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Go Blue
Greg Goss
>That sounds like a DWI to me - he didn't need to have the engine
>running to sleep in the car! Sounds like he got in, turned the thing
>on, and then passed out, luckily BEFORE pulling out into the traffic!
>If he wanted to sleep it off in the car he should have gotten into the
>back seat, not the front one!
The back seat is cramped and uncomfortable, and a long ways from the
radio. Why would I want to crawl into the back seat unless I had a
big American-style car and had a friend with me?
Even with a friend, I prefer the front passenger seat (or home).
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Richard R. Hershberger
> In article <82401463.0409...@posting.google.com>,
> rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) wrote:
>
> >ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote in message
> news:<ctbishop-140...@user-2ivfmo5.dialup.mindspring.com>...
> [driving while drunk]
>
> >> I won't argue that they couldn't, but if possible harm becomes part of the
> >> law, then what about driving while angry? I don't think it will ever come
> >> to this, and do think the severe punishments for drunk driving are a case
> >> of the pendulum swinging too far the other way.
> >
> >Possible harm has always been part of the law. Look up "reckless
> >endangerment". While I appreciate a libertarian streak, it is
> >misplaced here. Consider the gun in the crowd scenario. Suppose the
> >bullet hits and kills somebody. Yes, we all agree that the shooter
> >would be severely punished. But that doesn't bring the victim back to
> >life. Yes, a civil suit might result in the survivors being
> >compensated. But that doesn't bring the victim back to life. Legal
> >action after the fact simply cannot repair the damage, legal fictions
> >to the contrary notwithstanding. We can infer from this that the
> >right of people walking down the street to not have random bullets
> >flying about them is a stronger imperative than the right of other
> >people to shoot random bullets near pedestrians. Whether or not those
> >drunk driving argument is exactly the same. Even from a libertarian
> >viewpoint, the right of people to reasonably safe roads outweighs the
> >right of people to make those roads unreasonably unsafe.
>
> have no bearing on the discussion. It's a fact in all cases, but the legal
> system is set up to address this. Civil suits put a dollar value on such
> lives, and the criminal system is set up to punish such crimes. This is
> supposed to be a deterrent to others and punishment for the person
> comitting the crime.
I disagree with this interpretation. There is a legal fiction that
loss of life can be adequately compensated with weregild (to use the
older term) but this is nothing more than a legal fiction. Most
people would rather be not dead than have their survivors be
compensated, and most of those survivors would agree. The
compensation merely serves as a poor substitute for being made
genuinely whole because there is nothing better the law can do. But
preventing the death in the first place is much much better all
around.
>
> The shooting a gun in a crowd argument sounds a little like the flag
> buring ammendment argument-a prohibition against something that isn't
> likely to happen. That is, absent punishment, is it likely that someone
> will choose to shoot a gun in a crowd on the off chance that sie won't hit
> someone? Probably not, so what the current law address is a way of
> punishing someone who fires a gun for another reason, probably trying to
> kill someone, but failing to do so. This currently rates a punishment.
Well, it wasn't my example. But on the other hand people do do this
sort of thing from time to time. And yes, it is illegal to shoot into
a crowd even if you aren't trying to kill someone.
>
> For whatever reason, this current law and punishment doesn't make me as
> uncomfortable as the one against drunk driving does. I don't know exactly
> why, but it might be that someone purposefuly shooting at someone and
> missing is different from someone driving while intoxicated who doesn't
> have the same intent.
> >
> >Taking this from a non-libertarian perspective, the result is the
> >same. People tend to do stupid things. Feedback is important: you
> >only have to put your hand on a hot stove once to learn to be careful,
> >but many kids require that first time. This system breaks down if
> >there is a low(ish) probability of an undesirable result, but that
> >result is very very bad. So suppose that a drunk driver can get home
> >safely 99 times out of a hundred. Eventually the odds will catch up
> >to him. From a social engineering perspective it makes more sense to
> >prevent the mayhem by outlawing all drunk driving than waiting for a
> >catastrophe and then punishing the driver.
>
> But changing people's behavior is part of the legal system-you might get
> punished if you commit a crime so you don't. If drunk drivers are
> sufficiently punished-life in prison perhaps-for a death commited while
> drunk, then I think the number of deaths would go down. Would it do down
> as much as if all drunk drivers were arrested, put in jail and punished? I
> don't know.
See, this is why I am not a libertarian, much less a Libertarian, even
though I am intermittantly sympathetic to libertarian ideals. This is
all quite logical: a person sitting in a bar finishing up his eighth
drink of the night will perform a cost-benefit analysis, comparing the
risk of punishment should he get into an accident against the benefit
of driving home. Should the benefit outweigh the risk he will get in
the car and start driving. Should the risk prevail, he will do
something else. It is very logical, and pretty much entirely unlike
the real world.
> >
> >This is a happy case where social engineering and libertarian
> >considerations reach the same solution. Sit back and enjoy it.
>
> I think the libertarian solution is "don't punish someone where no harm is
> done", but I could be wrong.
By your logic, you could take a revolver with one bullet in it, spin
the cylinder, but the revolver to my head against my will, and pull
the trigger. If the gun fires, then the legal system can get
involved. But if it doesn't fire, no harm has been done and I have no
grounds for complaint. I have no right to not have you play Russian
roulette with my life, so there is no reason to infringe upon your
right to pull that trigger. Yes, this in an absurd scenario. But it
is the logical conclusion.
I submit that it in not un-libertartian to recognize the right to be
free from other people's imposing unreasonable risk. Yes, that
"unreasonable" is a messy, subjective word. But I would rather that
than having to dodge drunk drivers whenever I step outside the house.
Richard R. Hershberger
huey.c...@gmail.com
> Kajikit <ka...@labyrinth.net.au> wrote:
> The back seat is cramped and uncomfortable, and a long ways from the
> radio. Why would I want to crawl into the back seat unless I had a
> big American-style car and had a friend with me?
> Even with a friend, I prefer the front passenger seat (or home).
Clearly, you need a bigger car.
--
Huey
Dr H
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Charles Bishop vociferated:
}
}I got villified the last time I said this, but I think[1] that just
}driving while drunk, without any consequences of same, should not be
}enough to get punishment. I do think that if a drunk driver hurts or kills
}someone, it should be severely dealt with. There should be no mitigation
}because of impairment.
}
}charles
}
}[1] I'm not sure I can defend real world consequences of this, but
}philosophicaly I'm there
I agree, to a certain extent anyway. If the guy is in reasonable /control/
of the vehicle and makes it home OK, fine. His judgement was impaierd, sure,
else he wouldn't have been driving, but some people have better physical
control than others.
OTOH, if he's driving and clearly /not/ in control -- weaving all over the
road, blowing stop signs and lights, etc., and is observed doing that,
then he is /clearly/ a danger to others, and should be dinged for DUI.
The problem with contemporary DUI laws is the same problem that occurs
with many laws -- a 'one-size-fits-all' with no room for consideration
of mitigating factors. There really /is/ a difference between downing
6 shots and beers in two hours and then driving through a heavily
trafficked urban area at 8pm, and having three beers in an hour and
driving and driving home dowm a rarely-traveled rural road between two
corn fields at 3am. Unfortunately, the law in most states has no
provision for recognizing the difference.
Dr H