New ignition lock laws aim to foil drunk drivers

[Tiggerlives]

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

The bar is set at a level which has been determined to cause serious impairment.

Besides which, maybe you need to look up extenuating circumstances instead of extenuating?

In law, extenuating circumstances are criminal cases in which, though an offence has been committed without legal justification or excuse, its gravity, from the point of view of punishment or moral opprobrium, is mitigated or reduced by reason of unusual or extreme facts leading up to or attending the commission of the offence.

The amount of one's consumption is not an extreme or unusual fact leading up to the DUI. Try again.

Or did you mean mitigating circumstances?

[refurbmike]

And since you're too lazy to look it up,

Keep it civil, please.

[Tiggerlives]

Look, I think as LB says we're just running around in circles.

The crux of the matter is whether you feel drinking and driving is a serious offense or not. Some do. Some think it's like texting and that only absolute drunk driving is the serious offense. I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind =)

[club33az]

The bar is set at a level which has been determined to cause serious impairment.

Besides which, maybe you need to look up extenuating circumstances instead of extenuating?



The amount of one's consumption is not an extreme or unusual fact leading up to the DUI. Try again.

Or did you mean mitigating circumstances?

Maybe you should read your posts before you hit the button.
And I'm not arrogant enough to think I know all the circumstances of every single case. If that was the situation, there would be no point of having a trial. Equipment or officer deficiencies could be known without a trial.
But fine, lets assume I used the wrong word. Extenuating vs. mitigating. There are still reasons you don't sentence every one charged with the same crime the same way. YOU try again. The amount of one's consumption is definitely taken into account with sentencing.

Keep it civil, please.

If you have a problem with my posts, report them and I'll deal with the mods. Until then, back off.

[Tiggerlives]

The amount of one's consumption is definitely taken into account with sentencing

Apparently not in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska and Washington. And I think this all started because Minnesota joined the ranks.

Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska and Washington state began Jan. 1 requiring the devices for all motorists convicted of first-time drunken driving.

[refurbmike]

If you have a problem with my posts, report them and I'll deal with the mods. Until then, back off.

I was trying to do you a favor. Insults are the lowest form of debate, and usually signify when somebody is losing. But if that's the image you want to portray, so be it.

I'm still waiting for you to counter many of my points, btw. It seems as though you're passing over the good arguments and targeting the straw mans.

[club33az]

Apparently not in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska and Washington. And I think this all started because Minnesota joined the ranks.

6 states out of 50.

Yeah, I'm thinking the majority still do take into account the amount of consumption as a mitigating factor. As they should.

It's like someone getting a harsher sentence for being on a cell phone when they hit someone (which was being debated in a lot of state governments).

[club33az]

I was trying to do you a favor. Insults are the lowest form of debate, and usually signify when somebody is losing. But if that's the image you want to portray, so be it.

I'm still waiting for you to counter many of my points, btw. It seems as though you're passing over the good arguments and targeting the straw mans.

Stop offering the straw man arguments and I won't target them. VFaiola is doing the same thing. But that's what happens in debates.

But, please. Re-pose the points you would like me to address.

I was trying to do you a favor. Insults are the lowest form of debate, and usually signify when somebody is losing.

I don't need favors and also, I didn't know this was a race to win or lose. I'm putting forth my arguments.

[refurbmike]

I'm putting forth my arguments.

You're insulting people, which is not arguing the point, but trying to belittle your opposition. It's really show bad taste.

But, please. Re-pose the points you would like me to address.

A. There are many instances where people who commit serious crimes are
restricted from committing those crimes again.


B. Somebody who puts people's lives at risk for their own enjoyment is pretty bad, in my opinion (not sure if I'd call them a "monster", but then again, I wouldn't call many people who've committed murder "monster" either).

We can both post statistics that show how many people are killed by drunk drivers or what not. But I believe we'd both agree on the following points:

1. Automobiles CAN be very deadly and destructive instruments (intentional or not), and therefore operating said vehicles should not be taken lightly.
2. Alcohol impairs judgment and response time, both of which create an unsafe situation when behind the wheel.

Everybody has a chance to drive safely. You get that chance when you take the appropriate classes and pass the appropriate tests. You get more chances every time you sit behind the wheel. When you violate that trust society has put in you to operate an automobile safely, you lose the privilege of operating that automobile freely. Some times, the results is that you lose your license and are not able to operate an automobile again. This law gives you another chance, under regulated stipulations. If you don't wish to agree to those terms, don't operate the vehicle.

[club33az]

You're insulting people, which is not arguing the point, but trying to belittle your opposition. It's really show bad taste.

Thank you, Ms. Manners, but I think this falls under the heading of reporting the post again.

A. There are many instances where people who commit serious crimes are
restricted from committing those crimes again.

You're right. There are. That doesn't and shouldn't apply to everyone all the time, though.
Nor does it.

B. Somebody who puts people's lives at risk for their own enjoyment is pretty bad, in my opinion (not sure if I'd call them a "monster", but then again, I wouldn't call many people who've committed murder "monster" either).

I would agree with this.

We can both post statistics that show how many people are killed by drunk drivers or what not. But I believe we'd both agree on the following points:

1. Automobiles CAN be very deadly and destructive instruments (intentional or not), and therefore operating said vehicles should not be taken lightly.
2. Alcohol impairs judgment and response time, both of which create an unsafe situation when behind the wheel.

Everybody has a chance to drive safely. You get that chance when you take the appropriate classes and pass the appropriate tests. You get more chances every time you sit behind the wheel. When you violate that trust society has put in you to operate an automobile safely, you lose the privilege of operating that automobile freely. Some times, the results is that you lose your license and are not able to operate an automobile again. This law gives you another chance, under regulated stipulations. If you don't wish to agree to those terms, don't operate the vehicle.

Ah, but when does "sometimes" become everytime? And should a sentence be applied to everyone "to the fullest extent of the law" in every case? I don't think so.
If so, there goes the plea bargain.

When you violate that trust society has put in you to operate an automobile safely, you lose the privilege of operating that automobile freely.

Shouldn't that apply to speeding then too? When you speed, the amount of speed you are going is very definitely taken into account when you are punished.
How about running a red light? Texting while driving? ALL of which can lead to injury or death.
Also, where does the term "accident" fit in your whole "violating the public trust" deal?

Hope this helps!