New ignition lock laws aim to foil drunk drivers

[club33az]

Oh, so context matters. Again, I keep forgetting when we apply context and when we don't. Sorry, next time, I'll be sure to skim over the whole text, and only read the parts you want me to read.

I trust people to pull out the pertinent information based on the subject talked about. Next time, I'll put it in fun colors for those of you that can't follow along in a conversation.

Really? You mean you can use preventative restrictions as apart of past offenses?

Unless it's your first offense. Then what past offense are you talking about?

But CERTAINLY not!! After all, we must allow people to make first-time mistakes, right? We can't possibly punish people for merely slipping up on their first time, right? That's so draconian!

You're not even making sense now. I don't know why you can't figure out the difference between someone who is breathing .09 and someone who's so drunk he can't even stand up. I don't know. Maybe you've never been drunk before.

[cinder]

The tone in this thread is offensive and not necessary. If you can't respond to someone without being snarky and rude, then don't. Anything further that fuels the fire, I'm deleting it. Thanks folks!

[refurbmike]

I trust people to pull out the pertinent information based on the subject talked about. Next time, I'll put it in fun colors for those of you that can't follow along in a conversation.

You had a quoted thread, in which you bolded IIDs. When I refered to that bolded quote, you said you were only talking about 'parts' of the bolded quote. Next time, maybe you can... I dunno... not bold parts that you don't agree with? or maybe say "I agree with only part of this quote" or something to that nature?

Unless it's your first offense. Then what past offense are you talking about?

What? I'm talking about putting restrictions on people who commit crimes, to prevent future crimes. This has been a topic I've brought up several times this thread, and you seem to be waffling on the issue. So, I'll ask clearly:

Is it or is it not okay to place restrictions people who commit their first crimes, in an effort to prevent those people from committing the same type of crime again?

You're not even making sense now. I don't know why you can't figure out the difference between someone who is breathing .09 and someone who's so drunk he can't even stand up. I don't know. Maybe you've never been drunk before.

First, no, I've never been drunk. I don't think that's relevant, though.

Second, yes, I do believe there is a difference between the two intoxication levels. However, the law also says that both of them impair one's ability to drive to enough extent that it should be punishable and regulated.

Third, allow me to quote you:

I've never disagreed with sentencing the IID's and/or jail time on second convictions and more. First time offenders, absolutely not.(emphases mine)

But then you said,

extreme DUI's should be given the IID, even on a first offense.

See where the confusion lies?

[club33az]

No, I don't. This entire thread I've said that someone convicted of a first time DUI with a low intoxication should not be given the IID. Re-read the posts if you want to. I'm tired of arguing semantics with you and playing the "gotcha" game. If you have something of substance to debate, bring it. Otherwise, run along.

[Mortimer]

With that being said, we are mutilating the drunk dead horse.

Thread closed.