New ignition lock laws aim to foil drunk drivers

[club33az]

And an IID is far from the punishment a hardned criminal should expect.

And it's also far from the punishment that a first time offender should expect.

In regards to DUI's only. There is no excuse because the excuse is the same. No one goes out with the intent of vehicular manslaughter via driving while drunk. Everyone has the same excuse.

EVERYONE???? Really. I didn't know you've heard every single excuse from every single person charged with a DUI. Sorry to burst your well insulated bubble, but there are extenuating circumstances in every case. That's why every single case is heard.

Or should we do away with that particular little part of liberty as well?

[Tiggerlives]

Name me one person in this thread that said that.

A few...

Quote:
Originally Posted by refurbmike
The risk is not the point. The result is. You are doing something extremely dangerous and putting other people's lives at risk. And you believe this should be punished by a hand slap.

Spokker replies: Texting is more dangerous than drinking and driving and the punishment is a slap on the wrist.

Implication being that texting should have a punishment more severe than drinking and driving since it is more dangerous....thus drinking and driving should have less than a handslap.

Club said:

It just seems a little draconian for a first offense. Everyone makes mistakes

99 percent of the population doesn't make the 'mistake' of drinking and driving. So, no...everyone does not just make this simple 'mistake.' What's that you said about an insular bubble?

[Tiggerlives]

And it's also far from the punishment that a first time offender should expect

According to whom? You, spokker and LB? Everyone else seems pretty on board with the idea.

You're making a grievous mistake if you get behind the wheel drunk. Why is it some people are trivializing this error in judgment? An error that 99 percent of the population somehow manages to avoid?

Sorry to burst your well insulated bubble, but there are extenuating circumstances in every case.

Please, enlighten me with the 'good' reasons to drive drunk?

[club33az]

According to whom? You, spokker and LB? Everyone else seems pretty on board with the idea.

Well, then by all means, lets all jump off the cliff together since everyone seems to be "on board."

You're making a grievous mistake if you get behind the wheel drunk. Why is it some people are trivializing this error in judgment? An error that 99 percent of the population somehow manages to avoid?

Please, enlighten me with the 'good' reasons to drive drunk?

Ok, you know what? You're not even worth arguing with anymore. At least even Wrong Way has something of substance to come back with.

How in the freaking world are you translating "extenuating" reasons with "good" reasons?? And you actually went so far to put quotes around "good", like I somehow said there was a "good" reason for driving drunk. You're "argument", if that's what you want to call it, is a joke, dude!

[Tiggerlives]

How in the freaking world are you translating "extenuating" reasons with "good" reasons?? And you actually went so far to put quotes around "good", like I somehow said there was a "good" reason for driving drunk. You're "argument", if that's what you want to call it, is a joke, dude!

OK, so if it's not a good reason, then what is an extenuating circumstance? Seriously, I want to know. You didn't know you were drinking? You were being held at gunpoint?

What are these unusal facts that lead one to drink and drive?

Oh, wait. You have none. So you don't answer.


And sorry, reasons should have been 'excuses,' which was my mistake.

[refurbmike]

Name me one person in this thread that said that.

I support a slap on the wrist for the first DUI offense, and massive penalties for the 2nd offense, including revocation of your license for up to 10 or 20 years. (emphasis added)

*tap, tap* Is this thing on?

[club33az]

You're right. I don't have one. CAUSE I'VE NEVER DRIVEN DRUNK! Ask someone who has.

And since you're too lazy to look it up, here's the definition of extenuating. From websters.com:
"ex⋅ten⋅u⋅ate <SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "60", "18", "<img src=\"http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" />", "6"); interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high"); interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t"); interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictiona ry%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FE04%2FE0426300.mp3"); interfaceflash.write(); </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT> /ɪkˈstɛnyuˌeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ik-sten-yoo-eyt] Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), -at⋅ed, -at⋅ing. <TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dnindex>1.</TD><TD>to represent (a fault, offense, etc.) as less serious: to extenuate a crime. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dnindex>2.</TD><TD>to serve to make (a fault, offense, etc.) seem less serious.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dnindex>3.</TD><TD>to underestimate, underrate, or make light of: Do not extenuate the difficulties we are in. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dnindex>4.</TD><TD>Archaic. <TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dnindex>4. a.</TD><TD>to make thin, lean, or emaciated.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dnindex>b.</TD><TD>to reduce the consistency or density of."

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Hmmmm........don't see "good" in there at all.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I want you to give me a good reason why, under your narrow view of judicial procedure, any case of DUI is even given a trial. Why? There's no excuse. There's no excuse that hasn't been heard before. Why even have a trial?

[Tiggerlives]

Why given a trial? Easy, to prove the innocence or guilt of the DUI.

What can go wrong? The breathalizer used in the field could have been faulty. The officer could have been a rookie who didn't know how to properly administer the test.

All of which can prove INNOCENCE to the DUI.

You replied with extenuating circumstances when I retorted that everyone has an excuse for their DUI. Maybe I was unclear, but I was talking about those found guilty of a DUI.

This should have been clear, since we are talking about the penalties for DUIs and whether or not additional penalities are needed. If your officer used a faulty breathalizer, for instance, you aren't given a DUI and are given NO penalties.

So, again, when found guilty of a DUI what extenuating circumstances are there that should limit the penalties for some but not others?

[club33az]

Easy, to prove the innocence or guilt of the DUI.

All of which can prove INNOCENCE to the DUI

First, no one has to prove innocence. The prosecution has to the prove guilt. Or do you have a problem with that too?

And the #1 extenuating circumstance that comes up for me is having the same punishment for a first offense for someone who blows a .09 as someone who blows a reading showing serious impairment.

[club33az]

*tap, tap* Is this thing on?

Quiet you.