|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,850
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,850 |
Quote:
Think the roadside tests were just fine.. It's about physical ability, and 1 drink for one person has a completely different reaction to someone else. People's bodies just process it all differently.
Back in the day (OK over 20 years ago)  I took part in a drunk driving demonstration course. Sponsered by the local schools, and police departments. You drive around a obsticle course sober, then continue to drink and drive the course as you drink. It's designed to show people how much booze affects your driving skills. They made me quit drinking at .24 and I was still passing the test  but NO I didn't drive home. Getting plastered and driving is just to stupid. 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 626
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 626 |
Quote:
I know you weren't and I appreciate that.  It is germane to me however, in the light of the fact that the drunk is legally "more protected" than the victim is morally. It is what is. I accept that.
I don't mean to make this personal, and I'm sorry for your loss, truly. But you are assuming two things that are incorrect:
1. That the "drunk" is guilty before proven so. How can you deny him his right to counsel until it is proven he was drunk in the first place? If he was sober, he would forfeit his right to a lawyer just because he was accused of being drunk. Not in America thank you very much.
2. That the victim's rights aren't protected. They are. In the exact same fashion that the driver's are. We are all treated equally under the law. Or that's how it's supposed to be. The victim or victim's family has a right to a lawyer to sue the driver, and if any of them ever get arrested, they get a right to a lawyer too.
I understand you are biased in this situation, and I dont' blame you at all. But your circumstances are not the only side to this coin, and thankfully the law reflects that.
I also assume you've never had a family member go through a trial and be convicted for a crime he didn't commit. The world isn't black and white. I hope, despite the tragedy you have experienced, you can keep that truth with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
Quote:
I know you weren't and I appreciate that. It is germane to me however, in the light of the fact that the drunk is legally "more protected" than the victim is morally. It is what is. I accept that.
I don't mean to make this personal, and I'm sorry for your loss, truly. But you are assuming two things that are incorrect:
1. That the "drunk" is guilty before proven so. How can you deny him his right to counsel until it is proven he was drunk in the first place? If he was sober, he would forfeit his right to a lawyer just because he was accused of being drunk. Not in America thank you very much.
2. That the victim's rights aren't protected. They are. In the exact same fashion that the driver's are. We are all treated equally under the law. Or that's how it's supposed to be. The victim or victim's family has a right to a lawyer to sue the driver, and if any of them ever get arrested, they get a right to a lawyer too.
I understand you are biased in this situation, and I dont' blame you at all. But your circumstances are not the only side to this coin, and thankfully the law reflects that.
I also assume you've never had a family member go through a trial and be convicted for a crime he didn't commit. The world isn't black and white. I hope, despite the tragedy you have experienced, you can keep that truth with you.
Thanks, but no thanks, for your response,....in misinterpreting my opinion without knowing the facts, you assume I want every drunk driver stripped of his rights. That is not the case. The problem is more often than not, these rights and the situations they occur in, allow the protection of the drunk in violation of the truth for the victim. I reserve my right to question our Constitution and its "protection." I believe in the Constitution and spent many hours defending it. That however doesn't make it all-empowering correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223 |
I too was nailed by a drunk driver coming home from work late one night.
I knew I was in trouble when I saw the car rounding a bend. For those familiar with the Youngstown area, I was driving through the Millcreek Park area on Bears Den.
Quite a big 'S' curve on that road. Anyways, this car came flying around that bend, easily doing 50 when they couldn't make the bend, hit the curb, riccocheted off of it and head on into my driver's side.
My car start spinning into a 360 and came to a stop. Her car flipped, and a witness hanging out in the park for some reason said it flipped about 6 or 7 times. It landed in someone's front lawn near the porch.
I was able to immediately get out of my car. Not a scratch. Not a bruise. Not a mark. I thank God that I got away like that. It was a pretty ugly accident but walked away unscathed. She looked to be in bad shape. She was unconscious at the scene and never woke.
The bad part of the story was she had no insurance. She actually didn't even have a license. And it wasn't her car. And the person who's car she was driving didn't have insurance either. She did end up surviving, but I didn't find out she didn't have insurance until over a week later, when she awoke in ICU and was able to talk with police.
I just let it go at that, didn't pursue anything, and just felt fortunate enough that I survived and was not even injured. Others aren't so fortunate.
I'm sorry for the loss of your brother. It's always a shame to see people die young at the hand of another human being like that.
![[Linked Image from pic18.picturetrail.com]](http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL905/3216203/6567769/349897772.jpg) "The Browns' defense is kicking mucho dupa."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 626
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 626 |
Quote:
The problem is more often than not, these rights and the situations they occur in, allow the protection of the drunk in violation of the truth for the victim.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, particularly "in violation of truth for the victim."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
Quote:
The problem is more often than not, these rights and the situations they occur in, allow the protection of the drunk in violation of the truth for the victim.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, particularly "in violation of truth for the victim."
Sorry that wasn't clear. As we're liberally interpreting the Constitution to allow drunks to drive, I interpret "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to mean having the truth exposed,....not hidden while we wait for "counsel" to show up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 626
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 626 |
I don't think anyone is interpreting the constitution to allow drunks to drive. It is illegal in every state to drive drunk.
I am interpreting the Constitution to allow drunks (or non drunks) accused of driving drunk the right to counsel. And that's not a liberal interpretation. It's spelled out pretty clearly and literally in the Sixth Amendment.
I'm just curious, and by all means if you don't want to discuss it, I completely understand, but in your brothers case, did the driver not get convicted of anything? Did the defense counsel do something you feel was untoward or side stepped the legal system?
In my experience, it is very rare indeed that a drunk driver who causes a fatality gets off without a conviction.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Donte Stallworth detained after
pedestrian fatality
|
|
