dfw

blownaltered · 12-19-2012, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

Sometimes in order to get people's attention, you have to do more than tap them on the shoulder. Some people need a sledgehammer over the head. It's your opinion that 30 days is ridicuous. In my opinion it would work because it's so severe it would make a lot of people think twice about doing it. The "ridiculous" is what would make it work.

So you want to punish drunk drivers worse than most violent crimes. Can we do texting and driving the same way. If we are going to throw the book at one you have to do it to everybody. I don't think people should lose everything for a first offense, that's where I think you crazy

**Grandpa** · 12-19-2012, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by blownaltered

So you want to punish drunk drivers worse than most violent crimes. Can we do texting and driving the same way. If we are going to throw the book at one you have to do it to everybody. I don't think people should lose everything for a first offense, that's where I think you crazy

I'm not talking about violent crimes or texting. We're talking about DWI here. Yes, they need to be severely punished. I know you like to go out and have some drinks, don't take my opinion personally.

blownaltered · 12-19-2012, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

I'm not talking about violent crimes or texting. We're talking about DWI here. Yes, they need to be severely punished. I know you like to go out and have some drinks, don't take my opinion personally.

Not taking personally. I just feel you are being a little out of whack on this one. Punishment should be equal with the crime and for a first time dwi that is above the crime. That is something they would give for felony not a mr meaner ( if you don't get that then you won't get it ). In my opinion if you made the bars more liable for letting their patrons leave wasted then there would be a lot less drunk drivers.

**Grandpa** · 12-19-2012, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by blownaltered

Not taking personally. I just feel you are being a little out of whack on this one. Punishment should be equal with the crime and for a first time dwi that is above the crime. That is something they would give for felony not a mr meaner ( if you don't get that then you won't get it ). In my opinion if you made the bars more liable for letting their patrons leave wasted then there would be a lot less drunk drivers.

Its not up to the establishments to police their patrons. They are in busuness to make money. People should be accountable for their own actions and control the amount of consumption. If they fail to do so they should punished accordingly.

blownaltered · 12-19-2012, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

Its not up to the establishments to police their patrons. They are in busuness to make money. People should be accountable for their own actions and control the amount of consumption. If they fail to do so they should punished accordingly.

Correct accordingly not some ridiculous plan you have to bankrupt somebody for having one to many. It's nice to see you on top of your hill looking down on people, since you have never done anything to break the law.

**Grandpa** · 12-20-2012, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by blownaltered

Correct accordingly not some ridiculous plan you have to bankrupt somebody for having one to many. It's nice to see you on top of your hill looking down on people, since you have never done anything to break the law.

Quit being overly dramatic there is no need for it just because we have differing opinions on something. You think it's okay for people to drink and drive, I do not. No need to try to make it an ugly arguement.

You say my plan is to bankrupt someone, it's actually to deter someone from killing themselves or someone else. It is NOT okay to drink and drive in anyway you try to justify it.

blownaltered · 12-20-2012, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by Steve

Quit being overly dramatic there is no need for it just because we have differing opinions on something. You think it's okay for people to drink and drive, I do not. No need to try to make it an ugly arguement.

You say my plan is to bankrupt someone, it's actually to deter someone from killing themselves or someone else. It is NOT okay to drink and drive in anyway you try to justify it.

Not trying to justify drinking in driving. I just saying make the penalty match the crime which your not. Someone with a .08 is no where near the same as someone with a .18 which is double the limit. Every time you hear about some asshole driving the wrong way on the highway that is around their blood level, the cowboy that just killed his buddy was a .18 that's my point. If you are going to through some ridiculous laws out there they should fit the crime. There is a hell of a difference in drinking 4 beers vs a 12 pack. I just don't see how you can't recognize that

**46Tbird** · 12-20-2012, 01:30 AM

People will always drink and drive. The system doesn't want you to STOP drinking and driving, there is too much money in fines, court costs, driving fees, surcharges, SR22 / insurance premiums, and of course legal fees. It costs around ten grand for a first offense. I've got a friend dealing with it now. He's a good guy that doesn't have a drinking problem (fyi, three beers and an hour wait before leaving will get you a .85 at 200lbs) but he does now have a very serious legal problem.

The money keeps the machine turning. There are simple ways to reduce the number of people driving drunk, but how are all these fancy new city halls and Chargers going to get paid for?