Candian drives drunk and kills and gets 9 months

[Spire]

Today a Candian who drove drunk into a golf cart, killing 1 and injuring one more, get sentences time served with "gain time" (whatever that means) for the crime. The jury exhonorated him from manslaughter. This happened in Ft. Lauderdale. It was in my newspaper, I can't find an online link.

I'm absolutely outraged that somebody can have some a reckless disregard for life, kill somebody, and then spend a matter of months in punishment. Why do people just accept these deaths? Why is there any alcohol allowed in the blood stream at all?

[SamDaBikinMan]

Same stuff happens here in the US Spire. It seems that auto related death is just considered a statistical possibility and not a crime even when a drunk is involved. After all they were not in control of themselves while drunk so how could it be intentional?

The liberal left is to thank for the law having such lacking application in these circumstances. They are so busy feeling sorry for the criminal and their psycological plight rather than the victim and the victims family.

I can hear the jury now. Well this person is dead so it is too late for them, but the poor drunk has to have some personal demons which drove him to drink removing him from all responsibility.

It makes me sick to my stomach to hear this garbage.

[John E]

I agree with you, Sam. MADD has certainly helped, but the penalties for drunk driving are obviously still too light.

[keithnordstrom]

lmao how does this become a "the liberal left is responsible" post? most of the horses' asses i see driving drunk are right wing college frat boys, so pfft. or mebbe i'm just saying that because i'm very, *very* tired of every issue becoming an excuse for someone to push some political agenda! republicans and democrats alike ...

life is not a football game in which we cheer on our favorite political heroes.

want proof? the last time you drove after a drink or two were ya thinkin, "well, i'm drunk but the liberals have made it so i won't get in trouble if i kill someone?" no. you were thinking "i'm ok to drive." and don't tell me you've never done it. just about everyone i've ever met who has ever had a drink has driven home at least once when the law says they shouldn't.

back to topic, it's terrible that the guy's getting away with this. there seems to be a tendency towards a lack of accountability in our culture - and a shameful tendency to view driving as a right rather than a privilege. haha, but nobody gets elected on an increased public transportation/reduced drving platform.

[Chris L]

lmao how does this become a "the liberal left is responsible" post? most of the horses' asses i see driving drunk are right wing college frat boys, so pfft. or mebbe i'm just saying that because i'm very, *very* tired of every issue becoming an excuse for someone to push some political agenda! republicans and democrats alike ... .

Agreed. Why can people never just make up their own mind in individual issues? Why does everything have to be a "liberal v conservative" debate. If no human being is perfect, logically it follows that neither side of politics can be perfect either.

just about everyone i've ever met who has ever had a drink has driven home at least once when the law says they shouldn't.

You can add me to the "exceptions" list -- I neither drink nor drive.

back to topic, it's terrible that the guy's getting away with this. there seems to be a tendency towards a lack of accountability in our culture - and a shameful tendency to view driving as a right rather than a privilege.

It's the latter tendency that is more relevant here. If this guy had used a gun or a knife, do you think he'd only be getting nine months? Somehow I think under those circumstances, the sentence would have been considerably harsher. The problem is with this whole "accident" culture that seems to have sprung up around automobile deaths.

As a child, I was raised under the impression that an "accident" occurred due to unforseen circumstances where unexpected things go wrong, perhaps where you've done your best in a situation that was unwinnable. "Accident" does not mean attempting to do something where it is patently obvious that there are possible, nay, likely consequences (and serious ones at that).

While ever situations like this continue to be mis interpreted as "accidents" rather than the crimes they really are, we will never get appropriate sentences.

haha, but nobody gets elected on an increased public transportation/reduced drving platform.

This issue has nothing to do with increased public transport/reduced driving. It is simply an accountability issue.

[nathank]

The liberal left is to thank for the law having such lacking application in these circumstances. They are so busy feeling sorry for the criminal and their psycological plight rather than the victim and the victims family.
well, some others have already objected, but i felt like i had to add some more...

while it may be true that in many cases sympathetic juries have led to lax decisions and defense attournies play this up, this has as i see it NO CONNECTION with the "liberal" politics. as far as i know there are almost no "liberals" fighting against stiffer enforcement of DUI (ok, i admit i haven't researched the subject)

and if it were have to make a judgement "who" tolerates drunk driving more and who believes in greater punishment, i would be of the opinion that the opposite is true; namey that "liberals" as Sam calls them have in general supported cracking down on DUI more than conservatives who are more likely to either support the "good old boy" idea that such things are alright and nobody's getting hurt cause it's just all in fun AND they don't want they gub'ment telling them what to do 'cause it's a free country... --- rural constituents tend to be more conservative and also more inclined to consider drinking-and-driving ok (my opinion). and maybe it's not right, but i associate the pro-gun groups (definitely not liberal) with the same people against stricter drunk driving enforcement.

anyhow, regardless of the politics, it is mostly b/c of groups like MADD (which as far as i know don't have a major party affiliation) that have led to the massive improvements in drunk driving treatment in the US.

and at a fundamental level, the "liberal" philosophy would more strongly support drunk-driving control as it is an action "damaging to others in society" and should thus be tightly controlled and some limitation of a person's rights (not being able to drink-and-drive and make your own judgement if you are ok to drive) is warranted for the general good --- i don't want to go to deeply into the philosophy, but "conservatives" tend to be less strong on this point at the fundamental level --- consider gun control as an example.

the laws are now there for the most part, but it still takes time for the social attitudes to fully change (takes a generation or so) and for normal people to "learn" that it is not OK to have a few beers and then hop in the car and drive home (cause you know the route and you're not THAT drunk or you've done it 100 times already and you're a good driver --- there are so many excuses).

[nathank]

Originally Posted by keithnordstrom
haha, but nobody gets elected on an increased public transportation/reduced drving platform.


This issue has nothing to do with increased public transport/reduced driving. It is simply an accountability issue.

i agree in both cases:
* yes, unfortunately noboy gets elected on an increased public transportation/reduced drving platform.
* but this is not the issue --- it is tolerance and acceptance of driving as a haphazard "right" where the consequences of many deaths and injuries are accepted. Actually, considering the over-obsession Americans have with personal safety, particularly that of children, i think this issue could potentially be marketed by a politician to win ---- not to necessarily reduce driving (although that might not be bad) but to increase public safety by more forcefully enforcing exhisting laws, influencing the public to take responsibility for their actions and crafting new laws to back up the attitude --- so that drivers could expect a much safer environment in which they and their children could travel (what huge group of voters would be opposed to that?) --- and virtually every American knows someone personally who has been injured or killed by an irresponsible motorist, drunk or just plain inattentive/in a hurry...

[Spire]

Could somebody please tell me why the blood alcohol limit is anything other than 0.00%?

I wholeheartedly agree with Nathank.

[SamDaBikinMan]

Liberals are champions of lax punishment in our legal system folks. They defy capitol punishment at every turn of the road, they continually champion special programs versus hard punishment. They consider drinking problems a social disease and not in a criminal category. This leads to luke warm and even non existent punishment for CRIME

I'm done with this topic now so everyone can just take my opinion with a grain of salt if you wish. Better yet just ki$$ my *** if you are a heavy drinker and pray you never hurt or kill one of my loved ones.

And if most of your friends and buddies drink too much and have driven home drunk then you are a poor judge of who you hang out with. I hope one of your friends never runs you over while driving drunk because then you won't be around to defend them.

[jester69]

Liberals are champions of lax punishment in our legal system folks. They defy capitol punishment at every turn of the road, they continually champion special programs versus hard punishment.

Shouldn't this CRAP be in the political forum.

take care,

Jester

A liberal that opposes capital punishment and advocates MUCH stiffer drunk driving laws. The two aren't related.

[SamDaBikinMan]

Could somebody please tell me why the blood alcohol limit is anything other than 0.00%?

I wholeheartedly agree with Nathank.

BRAVO Spire

That is the best thing I have ever read that came out of your keyboard Spire. Thank you.

Absolutly no alcohol shopuld be in anyone system before driving. But while we are at lowering the limit to 0 we need to dish out seriuos punishment for these mobile murderers.

And it does become a political issue since our lawmakers are in a position to make these very changes so our roads are safer for us all.

My heart goes out to the family of this pooor victim and at the same time the criminal needs to be hung by the neck until dead on the town square.

[Michel Gagnon]

Could somebody please tell me why the blood alcohol limit is anything other than 0.00%?


A few reasons:

1. There is a minimum detectable level. So actually, 0 would be something like 0.01 or 0.005%, or whatever the lower limit of most breathalizers.

2. Many medications either contain alcohol or agents that have a similar effect on breathalizers. If you took 1 or 2 teaspoons of cough syrup, you might have a level of 0,003 or 0,005% (depending on brand, how much you have eaten before, etc.).
There are cases where you shouldn't drive when sick or medicated, but that's usually not because of alcohol per se. Likewise, diabetic coma should not be confused with alcoholism, and that might happen with a very low level.

3. Alcohol in blood takes a lot of time to get out of the body, especially at the end. If you take a single glass of wine at lunch, there will be minute traces of alcohol in your blood after dinner, 5 or 6 hours later.


The effect of alcohol is gradual. At 0,005 or 0,01%, there probably is no measurable effect -- IOW, if you are driving improperly, it's because you are sleepy. Conversely, at 0,1 or 0,2% (yes, that's quite over the legal limit), you are so drunk that you can't be criminally responsible for the collision, including deaths if that happens, because you aren't in control of your movements. However, you are criminally responsabile for the simple fact you drove while intoxicated. In other words, at such a high level, whatever punishment we give (life in prison? death by starvation?) should be the same whether a person kills someone or is "lucky" enough not to kill anyone.

Regards,

[DanFromDetroit]

Could somebody please tell me why the blood alcohol limit is anything other than 0.00%?

I think the answer to that is technical. I think it has to do with the nature of the test equipment and how alcohol is processed by the human body.

Bearing in mind that I am not an MD and have no special knowlege of BAC measuring gear...

There is not a linear relationship between BAC and time for a specific amount of alcohol consumed by a person. That is to say that the amount of time it takes to move BAC from .10% to .05% is not the same as the amount of time it takes for BAC to move from .05% to .00%. I am told it takes longer to remove the last traces of alcohol, possibly much longer. During this time (with a BAC lower than .05% at say .001%) you may be able to drive just fine.

Also common over the counter products such as mouthwash and cough syrups, and certain foods contain trace amounts of alcohol. These things do not necessarily impair your driving ability.

Down near .00% at some point your equipment becomes an issue. These are vanishingly small amounts of alcohol. If you are going to fine and jail someone for .001% BAC, the gear had better be bulletproof on the bottom end.

I think strict enforcement of existing laws would be a good place to start, followed by a lowering of the BAC to .05%. This seems to be effective in Europe. It should work here as well.

Dan

[Spire]

Some points have been made about other sources of alcohol and I will assume that they are true (they seem credible enough).

My point is that it is acceptable to have a "couple" drinks and drive and this leads to the excuse of "I've only had a couple drinks". The notion has to be instilled that you can have NO drinks and drive. Set the limit to something above 0.00 but below 1 beer for a 300lbs man. I suspect the alcohol lobby is too strong to let this happen...

[nathank]

i agree with the comments that a 0.00% level is not practical...

i also agree that it should be low enough that pretty much anyone who drinks a beer or whatever should be over the limit... and there should be sever punishment for drinking and driving (namely suspension and/or loss of license + fines --- fines often are not a deterrant (say rich kids) but losing your license is a very good deterrant)

and guess what the LIBERAL governments of Europe have legally allowable Blood-Alcohol levels about half of what the US has AND punishment is VERY strict. i'm not familiar with each country, but most have immediate suspension of your license for anything over the limit. plus there is very little social toleratance of drinking and driving: remember Jan Ulrich's antics last year?

anyhow, i'll try and stop with the Politcal discussion, but i just couldn't let Sam's comment go unanswered. sorry Sam, i respect you, but i find no basis of facts to support your statement.

[keithnordstrom]

sam, i think my basic point is that *people* are not liberal or conservative, their approach to a given issue is. imho, anybody whose opinions are all liberal or all conservative is not thinking at all - they are spewing the prepackaged views of some political machine.

not only that, but your contribution to this argument has been pretty much ... well, missing. even if this - and every other social ill on the planet - were due to "liberals," you make absolutely no constructive suggestion for how to deal with it. so please stop following the crowd and form your *own* opinions.

incidentally, for the record, the smear tactics don't work either. i hardly ever drink and neither do any of my friends. i *have* drunk in the past, though, in high school and college mostly, and there were probably two occasions then in which i drove when i shouldn't have. this makes me the rule rather than the exception. i would believe a higher incidence of exceptions on this board, but the vast majority of people with a drivers license have driven with a bac that is too high at least once in their lives if they are honest about it. so if too many more people post and say they've never done it, i'm gonna hafta call bull**** lol.

one other point a bit more on topic: i think dan's explanations of why the legal bac is not 0 are very good ones. i might also add that from a practical standpoint, zero tolerance laws have historically not worked very well (eg. prohibition).

it is very easy to get a driver's license in the us. any idiot can get one when they are 16 - in general a terrible age at which to pilot a car - and if they don't screw up too much, they will never have to reapply for that license up until they die. and passing the driving exam is pathetically easy. how many people here studied for their driver's test? lol the concept even seems funny. but in britain, germany, and france (just to name a couple), people study *years* to get their licenses - and they have to periodically retest to make sure they stay on top of their skills.

my girlfriend and i were hit by a car a month ago, a 20 year old kid who wasn't drunk, wasn't being malicious - he just pulled out across two lanes of traffic right in front of us while we were doing 30mph. there was no sun in his eyes and it wasn't dark, i had a yellow jersey and bike and my girlfriend had both a bright shade of red. we had the right of way.

fortunately, we were not injured too badly. but we very well could have been - we both hit headfirst and my girlfriend went over his hood. this kid made a mistake, which is fine - everyone makes em and hopefully learns from em - but he made a mistake with a two ton piece of metal and glass that can rapidly accelerate to 60 mph, a deadly weapon among deadly weapons. there's such a huge outcry about guns here in the us, why not about cars? they kill far more people each year.

i think the driver's license exam should be difficult. it should be much more expensive, but there should be finiancial assistance available for those with demonstrable income below a certain level. it should not be handed out like candy to any teenager who can sort of parallel park.

[lotek]

While I agree that the current limits for blood alcohol are
too high, do we condemn everyone who has a glass of wine with dinner? Or a single beer with lunch or heaven
forbid, after a ride with his buddies? I think not, 0.0 BA is too limiting in the above situations. I do believe however that we (the US) take a zero tolerance stance on DUI for whatever level we finally settle upon (I believe .08 in most states). no appeals, no 2nd chances, loss of license for 1st offense, jail time for any subsequent offense (mandatory) or if anyone is injured in
an accident caused by the DUI driver.

just my unbiased .02 worth.

[nathank]

sam, i think my basic point is that *people* are not liberal or conservative, their approach to a given issue is. imho, anybody whose opinions are all liberal or all conservative is not thinking at all - they are spewing the prepackaged views of some political machine.
well, i get what you're saying --- but i have to make a minor technical disagreement: when you say that "that *people* are not liberal or conservative" i infer that you're referring to the "Party Line" of Liberal/Conservative. One can be quite consistent as well as use one's own judgement and LOTS of thought if one has a consistent PHILOSOPHY that is either liberal or conservative -- actually it makes more sense to be philosophically consistent -- i am a Liberal by the real definition and i tend to back the more liberal parties more often but not always (as politics is an imperfect thing and full of compromises and corruption). anyway, hope you understand the difference and sorry to be nitpicking.

incidentally, for the record, the smear tactics don't work either. i hardly ever drink and neither do any of my friends. i *have* drunk in the past, though, in high school and college mostly, and there were probably two occasions then in which i drove when i shouldn't have. this makes me the rule rather than the exception. i would believe a higher incidence of exceptions on this board, but the vast majority of people with a drivers license have driven with a bac that is too high at least once in their lives if they are honest about it. so if too many more people post and say they've never done it, i'm gonna hafta call bull**** lol.
i agree. i drove once when i was probably over the limit. i was 16 and i was out at a teenage party in rural Texas on a farm and drove like 10 miles on deserted country roads back to my grandmother's house just after midnight. i probably wasn't much over the limit, but at the time i believed taking the risk was worth not having to call my parents for a ride home or explaining why my mom's car wasn't there in the morning if i had gotten a ride home (wrong i didn't yet know my parents were cool and understanding and would rather have had me do the "right" thing). I have never driven drunk since and barring unusual circumstances never will again. the worst thing with teenagers and drunk driving in the US is that they learn to drive BEFORE they learn about alcohol - bad idea!

it is very easy to get a driver's license in the us. any idiot can get one when they are 16 [...]
i think the driver's license exam should be difficult. it should be much more expensive, but there should be finiancial assistance available for those with demonstrable income below a certain level. it should not be handed out like candy to any teenager who can sort of parallel park.
i agree 100%. this has been discussed on the board a lot. driver's licenses should be EARNED and require training and re-training and be revoked if someone does not keep up his skills/knowledge or abuses the RIGHT to drive. in the US this is not the case, but as mentioned, Europe is much better (education, actual tests that require a little knowledge, retesting AND revocation upon incidents: accidents or tickets) ---- driving is not a right, but a priviledge!

[ngateguy]

Your more "liberal" Scandinavian Countries have 0 tolerance. This one is definitely not a right/left issue. It really goes more toward by the grace of God go I. People are more forgiving toward behavior they themselves may have done. MADD is doing an excellent job changing this attitude. It is to easy to blame others for whats going on out there then sitting back and not do anything about it. The blame game got to stop, we are not getting anything done by that. Besides lets look at the political make up of the Alcohol and Restaurant lobbying groups I will bet you that it is an equal or close to equal right/left thing.

[keithnordstrom]

nah, i don't think you're being nitpicky - i'm perhaps being too strong in my definitions. people do tend to lean to the left or the right.

it's just that everywhere you go, in the media, the internet, etc. you hear someone preaching about how x issue is all because of the "liberal left" is soft on this. or alternately, you hear about how the soulless rightwingers have bled this country dry. and not a word of this **** helps anyone fix the problem! but it sure helps people trumpet their political ideology, thereby making them feel smarter for having denigrated another's approach.

most of the time nothing's so black-and-white (in fact, i can't remember when i've seen a case in which it was). people are people and are, sociologically speaking, fairly predictable. the fact that we haven't used this predictability to our collective advantage speaks more of corruption in the system, i think, than it does of any one political ideology.

[SD Fixed]

While I agree that the current limits for blood alcohol are
too high, do we condemn everyone who has a glass of wine with dinner? Or a single beer with lunch or heaven
forbid, after a ride with his buddies? I think not, 0.0 BA is too limiting in the above situations. I do believe however that we (the US) take a zero tolerance stance on DUI for whatever level we finally settle upon (I believe .08 in most states). no appeals, no 2nd chances, loss of license for 1st offense, jail time for any subsequent offense (mandatory) or if anyone is injured in
an accident caused by the DUI driver.

just my unbiased .02 worth.

I agree, to a large large extent. One glass with dinner.

I have my personnal rules when I drink, in regards to driving. 75% of the time, it's when my family goes out to eat. My wife and I enjoy a glass of wine with dinner. We play it like this. 1 drink, per hour for safe driving. We have one glass of wine. In the rare event one of us wishes more than one glass, the other is marked driver. This works, and works well. I rarely drink more than two glasses in an evening anymore.

I like Iceland's DUI limits. .05%. If you're caught with keys in your hand at the driver's door, your guilty. Period. Loose liscence for 1 year. And Icelanders, (not in general, but a good amount) can tuck them away very readily. Americans try tooooo hard to be independent, and "get there despite the odds". This mindset, IMHO, seems to doom us, in many ways.

[Chris L]

it's just that everywhere you go, in the media, the internet, etc. you hear someone preaching about how x issue is all because of the "liberal left" is soft on this. or alternately, you hear about how the soulless rightwingers have bled this country dry. and not a word of this **** helps anyone fix the problem! but it sure helps people trumpet their political ideology, thereby making them feel smarter for having denigrated another's approach.

I agree wholeheartedly, I don't know why so many people try to blame the left/right for various issues. It's about time people started making up their own mind on individual issues. Then we might get some practical answers to something.