TBone, you misunderstood. Max didn't try to say one was good and the other bad or ones right and the other wrong. The defense tries to create multiple possibilities which in turn creates reasonable doubt in the juries minds. The prosecution tries to lead the jury towards just one line of thought. Lawyers are liars from either side but they are still as Max stated, liberal defense and conservative prosecution.
A car is a deadly weapon and has been found to be just that many times in court cases. The device used is irrelevant.
your saying that a car isnt EVER as deadly as a gun? wiether someone is wreckless with a automobile or wreckless with a pistol and you get killed by the wreckless acts of that person........EITHER WAY YOUR JUST AS DEAD!
ok, who started this up again?
Well Tom, given your view of politics, my example (and your breakdown of it) parallel your reality so closely its frightening.
I never said that the prosecuter led the jury towards the truth (he's a lawyer after all), I simply said he led them towards ONE POSSIBILITY. This does not necessarily mean he lied, but it sure opens the door, doesn't it? Keep mind, lawyers switch sides all the time.
No Tom, thats what you desperately want to believe. Simply being open minded doesn't indicate intelligence, as it can also indicate indecisiveness, or stupidity. But I didn't say the liberal was open minded, I said he sought to find a range of possibility, which could be seen as being deceptive and misleading, a liar. Simply looking for one possibility doesn't indicate idiocy, as it can indicate logical evaluation of facts, and a drive for the truth.
But depends on which side you are on. Sadly, in your world, there are only two sides, your side, where everyone agrees with your every word, and the other side, where anyone else is. Interestingly, this is a closed minded approach, meaning (in your definitions) you are what you hate so much, a conservative.
More irrelevant BS from you miles. A car is an automobile and is defined as a means of transportation. A gun is a deadly weapon any way that you try and spin it and its purpose is to hurt or kill, nothing more, nothing less. A car CAN BE USED as a deadly weapon as can be just about anything if you know how but is not defined as one. Firing a gun into the air on public streets is a crime in itself and doing it while drunk is yet another crime on top of that so again, apples to rocks.
demonstrate
No, actually a car can be far deadlier than a gun but unlike the gun, that is not what it was designed to do.
Yea, but the difference is that the pistol was designed to be deadly even if used correctly so using it recklessly makes it even worse.
Newsgroups: alt.autos.dodge.trucks From: "TBone" - Find messages by this author Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:10:41 GMT Local: Sat, Dec 3 2005 8:10 am Subject: Re: accident report Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
No Budd, your lawyer just sucked.
-- If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
Really, Tom?
You were there? You do remember that in 73, the year of my divorce, most divorce cases were predecided against the husband . . .no husband rights back then.
Budd
It is? I own a gun. Shoot quite often and have never once killed anything with it. I target shoot as do numerous others. A gun CAN BE USED as a deadly weapon.
actually, a gun is a deadly weapon. a car would be a dangerous weapon.
Given your medical history probably not.
Sorry to burst your bubble miles but a gun IS a deadly weapon that you are using for target practice. Like you say a car can be used for purposes other than what it was intended for, so can a gun and just about anything else for that matter but the primary purpose for a gun is to stop or kill someone or something.
Good. I didn't think you would resort to insults.
But I think the discussion is over anyway.
Nice chatting, Roy. Merry Christmans.
Budd
If I had there wouldn't be any question.
Yup, it was going nowhere.
Same to you and yours.
Roy
You are correct, I misunderstood what he was saying.
I agree 100% but the punishment has to fit the crime. Being an idiot and getting someone killed is not the same thing as going out with the intent to kill for whatever reason. As for the smoking, I was referring to people only seeing what they want to see, not that there was a law against it.
Again, I'm in full agreement but we are talking about the specifics of murder 1, not just breaking the law.
Now this makes you sound either ignorant or bitter Budd. Life itself is a gray area and if you just dole out punnisshment without understanding or compassion, you might as well be Saddam because that is exactly what he did.
There is no spin here Budd. How can you prove that the person knew that they would get drunk. Alcohol affects different people differently just like any other drug and while some may know that they had too much at .081% blood alcohol, another may not feel it at all and have no idea yet by your judgment, they both go to jail for life or are executed for the crime. Does this really make much sense to you?
My heavy drinking days are behind me now and I don't drive while drinking although in my younger days that was not always the case. A .08 BAC does not effect everyone in a fully detrimental way as at one time it was .1 before they realized that there was a significant portion of the population that was still incapacitated there and they needed to lower it. Either way, by trying to make this a murder 1 thing, you are discounting the seriousness of the crime and that is a really bad thing.
I agree 100% but the punishment has to fit the crime. Being an idiot and getting someone killed is not the same thing as going out with the intent to kill for whatever reason.
If you know you plan to get drunk it is not being an idiot, it's intended with forethought. Letting yourself get drunk, when you let your friends buy you"just one more", you show a lack of responsibility because you probably let it happen before.
only seeing what they want to see, not that there was a law against it.
As do you. You're only seeing what you want to see in this thread.
Again, I'm in full agreement but we are talking about the specifics of murder 1, not just breaking the law.
Isn't murder 1 breaking the law?
Now this makes you sound either ignorant or bitter Budd.
Name calling, Tom? I'm neither.
gray area and if you just dole out punnisshment without understanding or compassion, you might as well be Saddam because that is exactly what he did.
Comparing me to Saddam now, are we? Too bad you aren't where I could deck you for that insult.
There is no spin here Budd.
Yes, you are ignoring what I say and substituting your words.
they would get drunk.
I used to drink and I knew before I took each first drink I was going to drink, either just before or many hours before. BTDT, Tom.
like any other drug and while some may know that they had too much at .081% blood alcohol, another may not feel it at all and have no idea yet by your judgment, they both go to jail for life or are executed for the crime. Does this really make much sense to you?
Yep, but your liberalism won't let it make sense to you.
My heavy drinking days are behind me now and I don't drive while drinking although in my younger days that was not always the case.
Same here except I no longer drink. No desire to and I'm on medications that turn deadlyt when combined with alcohol, not for others, me.
not effect everyone in a fully detrimental way as at one time it was .1
before they realized that there was a significant portion of the population that was still incapacitated there and they needed to lower it.
Tom, you know less than you think about alcohol. One beer or one shot is enough to make measurable differences in 99% of the human population.
by trying to make this a murder 1 thing, you are discounting the seriousness of the crime and that is a really bad thing.
HUH??? If I'm trying to count a crime as a more severe crime, I'M discounting the seriousness??? Spin and doublespeak from you, Tom.
Budd
Budd... I gotta ask you here... what about someone who's talking on a cellphone, and accidentally hits and kills someone? 1st degree murder there, too? I mean - we all know the dangers of using a cellphone while driving. Most states now prohibit it, and can fine a driver caught doing so. There are many studies that claim using a cellphone causes just as much impairment to driving ability as a .08% BAC. Do we execute these people?
How about the people who drive while exhausted? Ever been driving and fighting to stay awake? We all know about the dangers of driving and falling asleep... heck, in my state, it's even illegal to do so (don't ask me how this is enforced - it's a relatively new experiment in socialization). So - work a double shift, doze off at the wheel, cause an accident, somebody dies... get thrown in the gas chamber?
How are the above scenarios different than driving with an elevated BAC?
How many states have laws against cell phone usage while driving?
there, too?
Why not if you know it's against the law to talk on the cell while driving? I and my brother both pull over to answer the cellphone because we neither want to take the risk.
Do we????? Just the other day while riding with my brother, a cell user pulled out in front of us, blowing a stop sign, yelling at someone on the phone. Now look how much this topic has been in the media and tell me they had no chance to have ever heard the warnings. . . .
Have you ever looked at the laws directed at semi-truck drivers caught driving while exhausted? I had a CDL for a while and CO was strict . . .on paper. However, the law was often un-enforcible.
Yep, and I even fell asleep at the wheel, but I didn't hit anyone and it was also before my change in attitude about some vehicular laws.
Me neither, but how many un-enforcible laws are there now?
All you guys keep switching the conditions . . . .all I was talking about was deliberately getting drunk and then driving. Can't anyone stay on the subject besides me?
A lot, but no one sees it but me.
I'm done discussing it. Many of you alreadty consider me to be over the edge, so it's nothing new.
Budd
NY and NJ, for starters...
You seem to be advocating a capital sentence (1st deg. murder) for pretty much anyone who takes the life of another while in the act of something they know is prohibited - regardless of intent. Let's take another example - straight from my local newspaper the other day:
A worker was doing some work in a company parking lot overnight. He dug a good-sized hole, about 5 feet deep. He failed to mark it off. An employee arrived to work early the next morning, and while walking across the parking lot, fell into the hole. Now, she was injured - but for the sake of argument, let's say she was killed. The worker knew that a hole like that was a danger to others, right? Is he now guilty of 1st degree murder?
So, with how you feel now, had you hit someone back then, you should have been executed as a murderer?
Too damn many... but that's a whole 'nother discussion :)
I think that's part of the point... you change the way one particular scenario is treated - others have to follow. You're making the argument that a person who causes the death of another, while engaged in an activity that is illegal, should be guilty of murder in the 1st degree. If you're saying that only drunk driving falls under this, well, that begs the questions put forth here (ie. why isn't doing just as bad as DUI?)
I'm trying to understand. I'm not trying to bust your balls, Budd... I'm just discussing it, with an admittedly different viewpoint than yours. Heck - if we all have the same views about everything, it would be pretty boring :)
I'm not one of them. I find your views on this particular subject a little extreme, perhaps - but that doesn't make you a nut. I suspect there's something more significant that's caused you to view this as you do, but if you're not going to talk about it, I'm not going to ask.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.