This is a proof by assertion fallacy. You yourself are mistaken. Vehicular homicide is different than drunk driving. The former is a crime, the latter is not. GET YOUR LOGIC STRAIGHT!! I demand evidence if you are going to try to slander me like that.

I agree that drawin blood in 'the field' is wrong. However, I wouldn't object to havin blood drawn at an ER when a suspected drunk driver refuses to do a breathalyzer or field sobriety test.

Never said they weren't different. Just saying they are both illegal and rightly so.

Yes you did. You said "Your logic is both flawed and frighteningly blind. I sure hope you only kill yourself when you screw up... Sadly drunk drivers often survive to kill again." You imply that I don't recognize the difference between drunk driving and vehicular homicide, which is of course patently false.

http://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Laws.aspx


Hvnly, if u go to the above site u'll find the law for any of the 50 states which makes it illegal to drive a vehicle while drunk, therefore a crime. Drunk drivin is indeed a crime in all 50 states. When someone is involved in an accident in which they are responsible for the death of someone else an they are drunk at the time they are charged with both Drunk Drivin an Vehicular Manslaughter as they are both CRIMES.

Causation is not correlation until proven. And it's been proven many times over that the two are directly connected. We've spent millions proving what any thinking person could figure out without spending a dime but it need to be proven to people who simply refuse to except facts. Obviously some people still can't except obvious facts and come up with lame excuses to try and dispute the obvious.

I didn't mean that "drunk driving isn't a crime" in the literal sense, as it is clearly on the books (and unjustifiably so). (Your point is also merely an appeal to authority fallacy, btw.) I mean that we cannot logically call the act of driving while intoxicated a crime. (we can use false logic like MADD does, but my goal is to avoid this) A crime in the true sense requires a victim.

Crime, (1) an offense punishable by LAW (2) a foolish or reprehensible act. The definition as taken from the New American Webster Handy College Dictionary.

Crime doesn't require a victim in order to be considered a crime. Any first year Criminal Justice major would know that one.

I can see why you're having such a hard time understanding the obvious, you couldn't even manage to read and understand what I wrote.
The thing that has been proven many times over at great expense to us all is that drunk driving DOES SIGNIFICANTLY, and I cannot stress that enough SIGNIFICANTLY, increases the chances of causing death and or injury. We can very logically call it a crime because you are taking that SIGNIFICANTLY increased risk for every other driver on the road. YOU have no right to make that choice for everyone else out there. There is not fallacy involved here only the delusion that some how people can drive perfectly fine when significantly impaired.

What you have here (and on the other links as well) is what is pathetic. Using the logic in these documents I should be able to take a pistol with one bullet in it, spin the chamber, point it at you and keep pulling the trigger and no one should be able to do anything until it fires. After all I haven't committed the crime of murder until the gun actually fires. Until then I've only increased your risk of being shot, I haven't actually shot you.

Putting a drunk person behind the wheel of a vehicle is the same thing as putting a bullet in the chamber. Maybe you'll kill some one maybe you won't.

It's mostly about the revenue. They'll make it one way or the other.
If you's a po' boi, you get the shaft and the record.
If'n you's a rich Kennedy, you buy your way out and get no record.

I'm still waitin for him to dispute the definition of crime.


Davey, I agree with ur analogy of a gun an a drunk driver

Inconsistent comparison fallacy. While a loaded gun is certain to kill someone if shot at point blank range, a drunk driver is not so certain to commit a crime (even compared to other types of impairments, as I pointed out earlier).

You have brought emotion, not logic or evidence to the debate. I will not bore you with tearing this apart because it will be just more of the same.

Not at all true. It's not certain to commit a crime when there is only one bullet in, or perhaps even none. No on will know if there is a bullet in the chamber till AFTER the trigger is pulled. Unless someone can prove there is a bullet in the chamber by your logic they should not be able to stop me.



I addressed that earlier.



Yeah I'm emotional because ignorance like this kills millions needlessly. You are right about one thing though, it would be more of the same. Some people will never listen to simple logic as long as they can twist it to the point that they can make idiotic claims.

Nice ad hominem, ad populum, and proof by assertion fallacies. And thank you for validating my point(s). Much appreciated. Nice talking to you. I hope you bring proof and reason next time we discuss this. :)

Great point. In my twenties when all these laws weren't around yet, I can tell you that the 'last time' I drove drunk I had no idea how I got home, but I did drive my car and a motorcyle on other occasions before that, perfectly safe, or so I thought, smashed out of my head. I was aware that I took risks I would absolutely not take sober but I still thought I was a good driver because I made it home. So when one night I found myself home and could not remember how the hell I did it, that was it for me. But it took one more thing that night to force my change. My friend who left right after me, never made it home. He thought he was a great driver too.

Anything could have happened, I was simply lucky I didn't kill someone or myself. Drunk driving should be a crime, and I am glad it is.

If they own the car, they do have business getting behind the wheel. They DON'T have business causing harm to others, however. That is the only extent that any law can logically/ethically be applied.

..................

Wow. This is a heated subject and I can not for the life of me understand why anyone would fight for a DRUNK to be able to drive. It is one thing to be drinking,, but drunk actually refers to a perceived lack of function. I think I can understand the point of view that actions should be criminalized when they hurt others and in many areas of law, I do agree. The question is how much safer will it really make us if we stop indicting people who pay for murder (because they didnt actually do the harm), or stop indicting people who ATTEMPT any crime (because they werent successful in committing it). There has to be some point where we are as concerned with preventing deaths as we are with punishing them. Driving drunk should be illegal, I believe the numbers of lives taken by this one senseless act are probably much higher than lives taken by cell phone users driving or make up users driving combined. If you dont have your senses, no reason to be driving. A Car is a DEADLY weapon in the wrong hands.

Hvnly, u keep debatin the same thing, that drunk drivin isn't a crime when it fact I have proven it by providin a link where u can find the laws in all 50 states that make drunk drivin in fact a crime. U've also said that crime has to have a victim in order to be a crime which in fact I have also disproven by providin the definition of crime. I feel that u are ignorin this because I have actually proven ur points to be mute an invalid.

WTF OVER?!

I am sorry, but I have GOT to ask what you are smoking to make this comment. ALL impaired divers, wether it is by drugs and/or alchohol, or cell phones, make up etc etc etc, are a hazard to the road, and drunken/stoned drivers ARE the worst, as it is a medically proven FACT that when you are drunk or stoned to a certain point (differnt for each person yes, based off of their body mass) you can not even SEE in a straight line, let alone drive a straight line. Most chemically impaired persons develop a very bad case of tunnell vision while impaired as well, which literally means they have no peripheral vision.

Come on man, I can agree with yuo about the cops not having a right to draw blood themselves (It has always been legal to issue a warrant have you taken into custody and delivered to a hospital to have it drawn if you refuse a breath test), but to say drunk drivers are safe drivers, even in part is pure and utter nonsense.

Fortunately I doubt I validated your point for any one but you and maybe one or two others who wanted to be convinced. The others I probably didn't need to convince as they already have common sense in their favor. So, I doubt we'll be discussing it again because I'm not big on wasting my time. I've disputed your idiotic claims and that insane website you linked, you're too blinded by your own desire to see it. There will always be those who will ignore common sense in favor of what makes them feel good and there's no winning against that.