Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Was your SCI a result of a DUI? Do you have a webcam? Want to have some fun?

  1. #1

    Was your SCI a result of a DUI? Do you have a webcam? Want to have some fun?

    Due tomorrow on This Week:

    [Cindy] McCain also said beer the distributorship her father built, which is the source of much her family's wealth, typifies the American Dream.

    "My father had nothing. He and my mother sold everything they had to raise $10,000," she said. "I'm proud of what my dad and my mother did and what they built and left me. And I intend to carry their legacy as long as I can." (Source)
    If your accident was the result of a DUI and you have a webcam, would you mind recording the following message and uploading it to YouTube?

    Hi, my name is [insert name here]. In [year injured], I lost the ability to walk due to a drunk driver. I want to join Cindy McCain in saying how proud I am of the beer distributorship her father built.
    If you like, you could even add a toast at the end. Or, if you have pain, you could end with some nice snark: "Oh, and Cindy? Don't worry about that whole painkiller addiction snafu. I totally understand."

    ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

  2. #2

    Thumbs down

    It's not her fault....Blame it on the drunk driver who knew better than to drink and drive...Nobodies interested in your attempts to sway us to your politcal preferences by the use of this dumb analogy.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Les284
    It's not her fault....Blame it on the drunk driver who knew better than to drink and drive...Nobodies interested in your attempts to sway us to your politcal preferences by the use of this dumb analogy.
    A drunk driver doesn't know any better. The first part of the brain alcohol affects is the reasoning center. To suggest a person willfully uses their coherent judgment driving drink is erroneous.


  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Type Fran├žais
    A drunk driver doesn't know any better. The first part of the brain alcohol affects is the reasoning center.
    But if you take this line of reasoning Todd, you are letting the drunk driver off the hook and absolving them of responsibility by saying "they didn't know any better."

    Thankfully the law doesn't agree with you.

    Personally I have no patience or understanding for anybody who chooses to drink and drive. They put every other person on or near the road at risk when they get behind the wheel. And they can and do destroy lives with their recklessness. There is the choice to give your keys to somebody else before you start drinking--before the alcohol starts affecting reasoning. So I think there is absolutely no excuse at all for drunk drivers.

    In the city I live in, just before last Christmas, a drunk driver behind the wheel of a cement truck ploughed into a family of 5 in car waiting at a red light. 2 adults and 3 children were killed instantly, including a 14 month old baby. Would you absolve the driver of that by saying he didn't know any better? Just for the record, he walked away from the crash unhurt.

    I am just trying to understand your reasoning.

    Sorry Steven for going slightly off topic.
    Last edited by orangejello; 08-31-2008 at 11:48 AM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by orangejello
    But if you take this line of reasoning Todd, you are letting the drunk driver off the hook and absolving them of responsibility by saying "they didn't know any better."

    Thankfully the law doesn't agree with you.

    Personally I have no patience or understanding for anybody who chooses to drink and drive. They put every other person on or near the road at risk when they get behind the wheel. And they can and do destroy lives with their recklessness. There is the choice to give your keys to somebody else before you start drinking--before the alcohol starts affecting reasoning. So I think there is absolutely no excuse at all for drunk drivers.

    In the city I live in, just before last Christmas, a drunk driver behind the wheel of a cement truck ploughed into a family of 5 in car waiting at a red light. 2 adults and 3 children were killed instantly, including a 14 month old baby. Would you absolve the driver of that by saying he didn't know any better? Just for the record, he walked away from the crash unhurt.

    I am just trying to understand your reasoning.

    Sorry Steven for going slightly off topic.
    Therein lies the conundrum. I don't believe people should be free to kill people on the road by driving intoxicated without retribution, but how do you lawfully allow people to drink alcohol knowing its effect on the body and hold them accountable?


  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Type Fran├žais
    Therein lies the conundrum. I don't believe people should be free to kill people on the road by driving intoxicated without retribution, but how do you lawfully allow people to drink alcohol knowing its effect on the body and hold them accountable?
    By passing laws that limit how much alcohol you can have in your system and then drive without penalty.

    Breaking the law by drinking and driving is no different from any other crime. People know its going to affect their reasoning before they start drinking. Not making a plan before one starts drinking to get home safely has nothing to do with the alcohol. It's really just showing complete disregard for laws designed to protect themselves and others on the road.

    Steven feel free to move if this discussion is too far OT.
    Last edited by orangejello; 08-31-2008 at 12:42 PM.

  7. #7
    You both have valid points. I had a difficult experience some years ago. I was a jurist. An old man had been kicked nearly to death - he died a few months later, almost undoubtedly due to his wounds - by a drunk. The drunk had broken into the man's house, mistaking it for his own or a friends. There was no doubt whatsoever as to the identity of the suspect, and of the fact that he was blind drunk at the time. We were explicitly instructed by the judge that being intoxicated WAS permitted to be used an an excuse, as in "he didn't realize what he was doing." Very very reluctantly, based on that, we were unable to convict the ba$tard of murder. There was clearly no planning, no forethought, just blind drunken malice. But at least we could convict him of a whole string of related offenses.
    I was surprised by the way the law was written. Indeed, there are good laws about behavior while intoxicated - in particular, driving - but they usually catch offenders too late.
    The man's widow was undoubtedly upset by the verdict. I saw her a year later, when she was a guest at a wedding my quintet was playing for. I hope she didn't recognize me from that unhappy time.
    - Richard

  8. #8
    Moderator jody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    east o the southern warren
    Posts
    8,530
    I have a friend who has a bar. I overheard a woman complaining about her husband having to pay for his breathalizer and how it has upset their lives. that it was so unfair to have one imposed. it cost them $1,500 while my med bills are over a million. that wouldnt even buy one leg brace. I introduced myself as the gimp who set the breathalizer bill into action. as that was my request to the da when he asked me what I wanted as an outcome for the drunk who hit me. my answer, a breathalizer on his car, and and all dui offenders cars. maybe aske her to support a breathalizer law in her state. that would be better than bashing someone for how her father made a living.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by rfbdorf
    You both have valid points. I had a difficult experience some years ago. I was a jurist. An old man had been kicked nearly to death - he died a few months later, almost undoubtedly due to his wounds - by a drunk. The drunk had broken into the man's house, mistaking it for his own or a friends. There was no doubt whatsoever as to the identity of the suspect, and of the fact that he was blind drunk at the time. We were explicitly instructed by the judge that being intoxicated WAS permitted to be used an an excuse, as in "he didn't realize what he was doing." Very very reluctantly, based on that, we were unable to convict the ba$tard of murder. There was clearly no planning, no forethought, just blind drunken malice. But at least we could convict him of a whole string of related offenses.
    I was surprised by the way the law was written. Indeed, there are good laws about behavior while intoxicated - in particular, driving - but they usually catch offenders too late.
    The man's widow was undoubtedly upset by the verdict. I saw her a year later, when she was a guest at a wedding my quintet was playing for. I hope she didn't recognize me from that unhappy time.
    - Richard
    WOW. I can't imagine being forced to not convict when you know as a human being you should. My hat is off to you for being able to keep your composure. This has got to be one of the most frustrating events in life.

  10. #10
    If your accident was the result of a DUI and you have a webcam, would you mind recording the following message and uploading it to YouTube?

    I realize I'm new here and have not had the opportunity to meet you all, but this is what you call fun...WTF...certainly isn't Cindy McCain's fault...I would like to meet those of you who are (like my son) sitting in that chair because of a friggin drunk! judy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •