posted 10-04-2001 11:21            

quote:

---

marcel:Even if he WAS guilty of the first 2 DUI's we really should NOT put people in jail for drug offences. Our legal system is after all, far too harsh on substance abusers.
Right Bex?

---

Counterpoint: Marcel, you ignorant slut.

I don't know if you're just baiting us with feigned obtuseness, or if you really are as dense as hammered snot, but no one here has ever {crossing fingers, as opposed to reading every post on the board to verify} stated that someone should be absolved of committing a crime because they were under the influance of any substance, legal or not.

What many here have stated or implied (including yourself) is that the criminalization of drug use - and other activities that are not inherrantly detrimental to the physical well-being and Constitutional rights of others - should probably not be illegal, and definitely should not be punished more severly than crimes that DO involve harming or endangering others.

Here's a little primer, in simple format for small minds:

Drinking/toking/shooting-up and driving = Dargerous to others.

Drinking/toking/shooting-up and sitting in your basement watching Montey Python movies = Dangerous to no-one but (possibly) yourself.

Stabbing a shopkeeper while jacked-up on yellow crack = Dangerous to others

Stabbing a shopkeeper while clean & sober = dangerous to others (sorry, that was a trick question)

posted 10-04-2001 12:33            

quote:

---

Originally posted by joshy:
I don't know if you're just baiting us with feigned obtuseness, or if you really are as dense as hammered snot...

---

posted 10-04-2001 16:55            

This is his THIRD DUI. This is the third time they have both caught and charged him with it. He has been caught at least five times driving with a revoked license. He is listed as a habitual traffic offender. I would assume he has gone through drug programs and driver safety classes prior to this incident.

One does not drive at high speeds for over 6 miles through downtown if one really gives a shit about traffic laws and public safety.

If I had entered that intersection a second or two earlier, he would have hit my driver side (in a little Toyota Corolla) at speeds of about 40mph. I would have been either seriously injured or killed because my car does not have airbags and he was in a station wagon that has more mass than my car.

My back still hurts, we lost over a thousand dollars on the car, a day's wages and a $250 insurance deductible.

You really want to know what I think should be done to this guy?

Jesus fucking christ. Ask a stupid question.

posted 10-04-2001 18:56            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bex:
This is his THIRD DUI. This is the third time they have both caught and charged him with it. He has been caught at least five times driving with a revoked license. He is listed as a habitual traffic offender.

---

And there, at the heart of it, is the REAL problem - he's a habitual traffic offender. Who GIVES a fuck if he's a menace drunk or a menace sober... the point is, he's a fucking menace.

I'd say about a five year prison sentence, personally - hopefully at some sort of labor productive enough to apply a share of the profits out to cover Bex's (and Clem's) losses, both in personal property and medical bills.

posted 10-04-2001 21:35            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jumper42:
what's a nubian?

---

posted 10-04-2001 21:45            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
Bitch, you almost made me laugh.

---

posted 10-04-2001 23:54            

quote:

---

Originally posted by marcel:
Welllllll. Ya know he was probably "set up" on the first 2 DUI's and actually innocent.
Even if he WAS guilty of the first 2 DUI's we really should NOT put people in jail for drug offences. Our legal system is after all, far too harsh on substance abusers.
Right Bex?

---

Grrrrr.

It is far to harsh on users of marijuana, for sure... UNLESS THEY'RE FUCKING GOING OUT WHILE HIGH AND ALMOST KILLING PEOPLE.

This was cocaine though... not exactly a soft drug. Also: HE IS LISTED AS A HABITUAL TRAFFIC OFFENDER!

Let me break this down for you:

--Operating while intoxicated: 3rd offense.
...thats while intoxicated... not under the influence.

--Operating after revocation: 5th offense.

--He stole the license plates for the car he was driving.

--There was cocaine in the car and other paraphenelia on his person.

--THIS WAS A FUCKING HIGH SPEED CHASE! HE WAS 'ELUDING' OFFICERS AT 50MPH ON CITY STREETS!

So... again... drug offenders may in fact be punished too hard... but this guy faces a maximum of a year in jail, and he'll probably be let out early under a "work program".

Cocaine. Running from Police. 5 times caught driving w/o license. Gee... now that I think about it you're right Marcel: I guess that the police are singling out a white guy in a station wagon as being worthy of harrassing.

I cannot bear to here more of this "its the law, so be it" bullshit when he's going to get off with 5 months and probation after this long of a history.

-Chris

*edit because bold tags should be closed.*

posted 10-04-2001 23:56            

His first name is "Zeke"

.

.

posted 10-05-2001 07:18         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clme:

I cannot bear to here more of this "its the law, so be it" bullshit when he's going to get off with 5 months and probation after this long of a history.

---

I think all would agree that our legal system in inept in dealing with repeat offenders of this type.

Here a major tragedy within our legal system.
The careless fucking over of otherwise decent law abiding people by people who have no regard/respect for others or themselves.

Crimes in which people are victimized and have little recourse for restitution are an abomination to our to our society. This is the ass raping of our society by people who have no regard for others.

Yet we spend most of out time and energy discussing why the legal system has created laws mandating fines for schedule one substances. Is it REALLY an issue that we can be levied a $100.00 fine for smoking a joint? Especially in comparison to the above example?

We should rather spend time and effort to amend the current laws mandating much stiffer penalties for the perpetrators who victimize others.

What about repeat rapists, child molesters?
Statistics show they will probably do it again after release. Remember statistics only show the numbers on perps who were CAUGHT,
the incidence rate is probably substantially higher.

It's clear that our legal system needs a major overhaul. Time and energy should be
directed to the areas of greatest concern, which in my opinion is the area of victimized crime. Not, amending drug laws.
[If you can't afford the $100.00 pot ticket, you probably shouldn't be smoking it.]

Finally, it should be noted that the perps of victimized and violent crime are in a large percentage of cases, stoked on some sort of legal or illegal drug. If ANYONE wants to argue this one, I will gladly provide the links.

BEX:
If you do have input regarding this guy’s penalty. Why not a lien on his wages for the total of your losses? If he EVER gets his shit together in the future and goes to work you will be awarded restitution thru a mandatory payroll lien.

posted 10-05-2001 07:54            

That's the way I would do it, if I were Queen.

I mean, come on, Bex should at least get some bounty, dammit!

posted 10-05-2001 08:02            

And Marcel, YOU'RE the one who decided to make a smartass remark implying that we were all idiots for disagreeing with you about drug laws, and do so IN this thread about Bex getting rammed by some jackass running from cops. So don't act like WE'RE the ones that brought it up, eh?

posted 10-05-2001 08:17         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tawny:
Why not take all the fines the pot smokers have donated and buy Clme a new car? That's the way I would do it, if I were Queen.

---

posted 10-05-2001 08:31            

quote:

---

Originally posted by marcel:
That's the ticket. Direct victimless crime proceeds to the otherwise non-compensated victims of crime.

---

It fucking KILLS me that people can use the phrase "victimless crime" with a straight face. What the hell ever happened to "no harm no foul?"

posted 10-05-2001 09:10         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
It fucking KILLS me that people can use the phrase "victimless crime" with a straight face. What the hell ever happened to "no harm no foul?"

---

The perp IS the victim in your example.
Additionally, the perp had knowledge of the potential fallout of his/her actions, BEFORE the crime was [electively] committed.

The difference in a "non-victimless" crime is that the "victim" had no previous knowledge of the crime nor did they elect to participate in the crime.
VERY fundamental differences in those examples.

If the burner on the stove is hot and I willingly put my hand on it, I get burned,
and reap what I sow.

If someone flagrantly pushes my hand on the burner and I get burned I'm a victim.

We can argue all day if the burner should be hot or not.

Again, it boils down to fen's summation in a previous thread:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenomas:

Could we simplify this a bit?
Everyone: Drug laws are fucked up and we don't agree with them.
Jimbo: Therefore, I am sympathetic to people in jail for drugs. They did something they know shouldn't be illegal.
Marcel: However, I'm not sympathetic to people in jail for drugs. They did something they knew was illegal.
Is there a point of contention beyond this one?
fen

---

If the

posted 10-05-2001 20:47         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
Am I the only one that had trouble making heads or tails out of that?

---