Accident on Granville St. Bridge southbound this morning

[nma]

Originally Posted by underscore

^ agreed.



Getting drunk and then driving fast enough to be able to smash the rear end of a del Sol hard enough to kill the occupant is far, far beyond a mistake/bad decision, anyone willing to do that is a worthless piece of trash who should be treated as such.

I'd agree with you if he was sober. The decisions you make while intoxicated aren't really a portrayal of who you are. The horrid mistake was that he drove while being drunk. What happens behind the wheel drunk is now just a gamble. I guess it depends on whether he's a passive or aggressive drunk, or who was in the car with him. His decisions making is HEAVILY impaired (I.E his friend is pushing him to have fun and drive faster, he does so because he is wasted).

Once again, this is an absolutely devastating event. The fact that he drives drunk is the terrible decision here. What happens next is pretty much luck. If anyone did that being sober I'd be all aboard this lynch mob. Regardless he's obviously guilty and his decisions will have a big impact on his life.

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by nma

I'd agree with you if he was sober. The decisions you make while intoxicated aren't really a portrayal of who you are. The horrid mistake was that he drove while being drunk. What happens behind the wheel drunk is now just a gamble. I guess it depends on whether he's a passive or aggressive drunk, or who was in the car with him. His decisions making is HEAVILY impaired (I.E his friend is pushing him to have fun and drive faster, he does so because he is wasted).

The POS useless fuck was sober BEFORE he started drinking. Should have made plans to get home before he drove somewhere to drink.

[nma]

Originally Posted by dangonay

The POS useless fuck was sober BEFORE he started drinking. Should have made plans to get home before he drove somewhere to drink.

Yeah, so the obvious mistake is him lacking planning out his night better, and risking driving intoxicated. What happens when you are intoxicated has no limits. You might get home safe, or you may cause an accident and kill someone.

In this case, he ended up killing someone. However, he made the decision to speed and drive recklessly because he was drunk. By that logic, anyone who gets behind the wheel impaired deserves to die.

[freakshow]

I love watching people start an argument, realize they're wrong, and instead of conceding, hopelessly try to continue to defend their flawed position.

[6o4__boi]

If you came here expecting sympathy for the idiot drunk driver, you're gonna have a bad time.

[nma]

Originally Posted by freakshow

I love watching people start an argument, realize they're wrong, and instead of conceding, hopelessly try to continue to defend their flawed position.

How is this an argument? I'm simply stating people in fact have very flawed logic. There's a lynch mob because someone died. Using that logic, there should be a lynch mob against anyone who gets behind the seat impaired.

I haven't even discussed what impaired means. Did you know that your judgement and reaction time is heavily influenced by other thing that don't even involve alcohol?

How many people here smoke weed? Take prescription drugs? Don't get enough sleep?

I don't want to start a whole other shit storm.. My point was that you shouldn't wish death on him because there were fatalities. What happens when you get behind the wheel drunk is simply a GAMBLE. If you think he deserves to die, then anyone who gets behind the wheel impaired is risking the exact same thing he risked, and also deserves to die.


Edit: I should probably note that I don't actually wish death on anyone, I'm applying other people's logic...

[b0unce. [?]]

I drove past the scene this morning around 6AM, boy, it was brutal to look at. RIP to del sol driver.

[underscore]

It's not a gamble, your driving is going to be shit if you're impaired.

Originally Posted by nma

In this case, he ended up killing someone. However, he made the decision to speed and drive recklessly because he was drunk. By that logic, anyone who gets behind the wheel impaired deserves to die.

Anyone who gets behind the wheel impaired is worthless, I'm sorry but you have the weakest argument imaginable, it's your responsibility to ensure that you won't be doing things like driving BEFORE you start drinking. Even if it impaired decisions weren't still your responsibility you can't say that the decision isn't as bad because it was made while impaired because this decision was made well before the driver took their first sip, because there's no way this was the first time buddy drove drunk so they knew full well that they would drive while drunk. Someone that isn't a selfish asshole would recognize they'll try to drive and take appropriate steps to ensure that they won't drive.

I think it was the Simpsons that made this joke but I never thought anyone would take this logic seriously:

"I'm drunk, I shouldn't drive. Oh what do I know, I'm drunk, I shouldn't be listening to myself" *drives off*

[nma]

Originally Posted by underscore

It's not a gamble, your driving is going to be shit if you're impaired.



Anyone who gets behind the wheel impaired is worthless, I'm sorry but you have the weakest argument imaginable, it's your responsibility to ensure that you won't be doing things like driving BEFORE you start drinking. I think it was the Simpsons that made this joke but I never thought anyone would take this logic seriously:

"I'm drunk, I shouldn't drive. Oh what do I know, I'm drunk, I shouldn't be listening to myself" *drives off*

The gamble is in what happens, not if your driving is going to be shit. Of course it is.

I don't understand how you say my argument is weak when I pretty much agree with what you're saying. I just don't agree that people deserve to die as a result of driving impaired.

As stupid as that Simpsons joke might be, it's actually true. When some people drink they think they're superhuman and fine to drive.

[underscore]

They deserve to die because they repeatedly make the decision to risk the lives of innocent people. Their life is worth very little if they're willing to repeatedly make that decision.

[6o4__boi]

They deserve to die because knowing how the wheels of justice turns in cases like these, he'd get away with nothing but a slap on the wrist...hell, he'd probably appeal that slap on the wrist.

a la Carol Berner - that dumb piece of shit bitchfuckface who even APPEALED her already pathetic sentence

[underscore]

Originally Posted by nma

As stupid as that Simpsons joke might be, it's actually true. When some people drink they think they're superhuman and fine to drive.

And those people need to recognize that they will try to do things like drive while drunk and take actions to prevent it ahead of time, because it never happens only once. If they are unable to take the steps to prevent it then "drinking responsibly" for them might mean not drinking at all.

[nma]

Originally Posted by underscore

And those people need to recognize that they will try to do things like drive while drunk and take actions to prevent it ahead of time, because it never happens only once. If they are unable to take the steps to prevent it then "drinking responsibly" for them might mean not drinking at all.

Totally agree

[twitchyzero]

using the gambling perspective is not a great argument because it can be applied to just about any vice/bad judgetment calls.

smoking is a gamble, because you're not guaranteed to have cancer
sharing dirty needles is a gamble, you're not guaranteed to contract non-treatable diseases

the only difference here is your bad choices directly affect others, in this case fatality of an innocent life. You can also say the same thing about 2nd hand smoking or passing on a disease to your unaware sexual partner.

I agree with you that D&D has a much much stronger stigma than driving tired/high/texting/putting on makeup and that's not always fair but as you said that's a different discussion altogether.

[trollguy]

drove by just after 9 this morning unknowingly what had happened.. saw the exact same positioning of vehicles that eff-1 had posted in his pic..

didnt think too much, then i saw emerg crew members trying to cut open the tarped del sol and an empty stretcher beside it.... figured it was a fatality based on that

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by meme405

I have made many stupid decisions in my lifetime, the difference here is that my stupid decisions never resulted in the death of an innocent bystander.

As discussed in like every other thread on DUI, impaired driving goes beyond "just a stupid mistake", it is an active decision made generally by idiots.

An eye for an eye, is what I say.

I've made some stupid decisions in my life (including twice driving home when I shouldn't have) and I consider myself LUCKY that it didn't result in the death of an innocent bystander. The odds that a stupid act by oneself leading to the death of an innocent bystanders are very low - we are just lucky we're not the statistic. The margins are so slim between nothing happening and disaster happening sometimes.

It's like the stories of parents who forget their kids in a hot car - we grab our pitchforks and declare those parents unworthy when the truth is that it's remarkably easy to forget that your child is in the car and we're very lucky it doesn't happen more often. (Just google "forgetting child in car" and you'll see legions of stories on this topic. Example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest...a52_story.html).

I'm not of the "nobody's perfect" temple, I'm of the "we need to have the ability to forgive" temple. Sometimes that forgiveness means forgoing vengeance. Sometimes it means forgoing anger and sometimes it means even forgoing punishment.

In this particular case something incredibly sad has happened and it involves some degree of very poor judgment. I feel terrible for the loss of life and for the families that are affected (on both sides).

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by nma

Yeah, so the obvious mistake is him lacking planning out his night better, and risking driving intoxicated. What happens when you are intoxicated has no limits. You might get home safe, or you may cause an accident and kill someone.

In this case, he ended up killing someone. However, he made the decision to speed and drive recklessly because he was drunk. By that logic, anyone who gets behind the wheel impaired deserves to die.

Where the hell did I say someone who drives impaired deserves to die? Again with putting words in someone else's mouth.

He deserves to spend time in prison.

[nma]

Originally Posted by dangonay

Where the hell did I say someone who drives impaired deserves to die? Again with putting words in someone else's mouth.

He deserves to spend time in prison.

Have you even read the other posts? I was referring to others..

[Grim]

I have a tingly feeling that NMA knows the drunk driver.
just sayin

[nma]

No, I don't have any idea who he is. You guys are completely missing the point.

[Shark Tank]

How long until we find out the driver in Benz had a N.
I always been afraid of super small cars like del sol, mini, a berth, smart car. You get into a accident in those cars and chances are lot higher you end up screwed.

As much as I hate gas guzzling SUVs, trucks at least they offer more protection if you get hit.

[BrRsn]

I think nma was just trying to point out that while we all say we abide by the laws online, most of us don't. Chances are most people in their 20s have either driven a car after a drink or two, or made the mistake of sitting in one with a driver whose had one or two.


Half the shit we do on a day-to-day basis is impulse based, majority of the time all the circumstances do not align for the 'perfect storm'/worst-case scenario, but it is always a very real possibility.


You could be a fireman, driving home after a long shift of saving lives and serving the public, for whatever reason you don't see the red light and you run it. The question becomes not whether or not the fireman is a good or bad person, but whether the intersection populated or not, by cars, pedestrians, or otherwise. Due to the randomness of the universe (or karma, or whatever the hell you believe in) the intersection was clear and the hypothetical fireman, and everyone else, makes it home safe -- no harm, no foul. However, there is always the small chance that the intersection is populated with someone or something, you hit it, and instantly your life takes a 180 degrees turn and you make the move from average, ordinary citizen to criminal.

That is a real risk you run everyday every time you get behind the wheel. Impaired driving (alcohol, pharmaceuticals or otherwise) increases the risks of such a situation happening. But when you call out for the death of a person for making the mistake and taking the life of another, you are in fact worse than that person in that moment. The person had no intent on intentionally taking a life, yet you in your calm sober mind are okay with the notion of taking a life.

The person who killed the other person did not have the binary choice of:
1 - Kill the person
2 - Do not kill the person

Rather, the person played a game of odds. The odds that they would run into another driver at 4am, the odds of them hitting them, the odds of them responding appropriately to every road hazard presented to them. Their intent was not to go out, crash, and kill another person; they simply needed to get somewhere and made the shitty decision to drive. So, when you say you would kill this person, you are in fact worse than the person who already killed. I am assuming you are sane, at home, in a nice environment -- yet you can still somehow justify taking another person's life? Just because you do not know the person does not mean that their loss won't impact the population in the same way the loss of who they killed did. Our justice system is far from perfect, but I'm pretty proud that Canada doesn't have the death penalty. We aren't gods, how can we deal and justify the ultimate punishment?

These are the same odds most people have taken some time in their life or another -- I guarantee it. If you go out and are social, and attend social gatherings where alcohol is served, sooner or later the probability of you either getting behind the wheel impaired, or sitting alongside an impaired driver is not a possibility but an eventuality. I am very anti-drunk driving yet I know that the majority of my friends have either operated a vehicle intoxicated, or been a passenger in one. I do not have losers/drunkards as friends, the majority of my friends are your average university students with high hopes of one day giving back to society. But, alas, as we are all controlled by our impulses, and we were all young and stupid at one time or another, shit happens.

Anyways, just my 2 cents -- you can continue to flame nma / anyone else, but the fact of the matter is you or a loved one has, at some time or another, been in a similar situation but due solely to the random chaotic nature of the universe, they made it home safe. There is no perfect driver out there, we all run stop signs, run red lights, don't shoulder check, etc -- it's just a matter of whether or not the space where our vehicle ends up when we're negligent is occupied by air, or another driver/pedestrian/cyclist

[freakshow]

For better or worse, our laws are largely based on the consequences of our actions, not our actions themselves. So if you make the choice to drink and drive and get home safe, that is not the same as making the choice to drink and drive, and then end up killing someone.

IMO, it's a poor, if not flawed argument to say that because they chose to impair themselves and didn't know what they were doing at the time, they get a lesser penalty.

The problem is also related to semantics, no one wants to say someone 'deserved' to die, because who are you to say what people 'deserve'?
But who are you to say what people don't deserve? Additionally, many people think way to highly of themselves due to the entitlement and individualism of the culture.

If I drove drunk and killed someone's child/sibling/parent/provider/protector/lover, you know what, I probably do deserve to die. And if I get less than that, I should count myself lucky, and with a debt.

[trollguy]

Originally Posted by dhillon09

I think nma was just trying to point out that while we all say we abide by the laws online, most of us don't. Chances are most people in their 20s have either driven a car after a drink or two, or made the mistake of sitting in one with a driver whose had one or two.

that's the problem with this forum. everyone here is an angel and condone everything bad.

[Dragon-88]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SI_ZgjcmPY

DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE PLEASE