60 years in prison for his 10th conviction of driving while intoxicated !!

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

why didnt they just take his license after a couple times? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

 

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

Whatever slippery slope fallacy even means. My point is this. His problem is alcoholism. He wasn't trying to just be a criminal, he probably just has a drinking problem. Yes, he probably shoulda stayed off the road, but the problem lies with his alcoholism...
I would prefer to treat the problem, rather than throw someone in jail, and I guess I'm in the minority here.

he has an extensive criminal record. did you even read the article? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

as for treating the problem, read my other reply. the legal system has tried repeatedly to treat the problem, it is not treatable. so it must be solved another way.

 

[97gp 5,000+ posts]

why didnt they just take his license after a couple times? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

So he wouldent drive if he didn't have a license.

 

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

And I think you're retarded. I've seen people KILL people while driving drunk and get less time. Yet this man gets even more time than people who have actually killed, *****, armed robbed, etc just for being drunk on the road? That's stupid, and I'm the stupid one for thinking so? Wow, what has this country come to...

you are stupid because you fail to see that it is a habitual problem, its not his first offense...

what do you do when you have kids and they misbehave. do you continue to give them the same punishment over and over and over again, even though it isnt working at all?

no, you step up to something more severe.

i also agree that you are an idiot for posting your half cooked theory...

 

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

Lock him up for the rest of his life for being a drunk, who cares, it's not you.

if you actually believe this garbage you area spewing from your mouth, you are dumber than i even gave you credit for...

no one is locking him up because he is a drunk... they are locking him up because he is a habitual nuissance, a hinder to the judicial system, the public, and the safety of others who may in fact be innocent.

this is the problem with america, there is a problem and no one wants to man up and solve the problem. just want to ignore it.

people as liberal as you should be beaten. matter of fact, your parents should have done it...

 

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

you arent even worth explaining it to anymore...

you cant see the forest, for the trees... you are looking at one small fragment of his convictions sheet, the rest of us are looking at the whole page(s) of what he has been convicted of...

if you seriously dont believe that punishments should get more severe the more times you commit the same crime or similar crimes, you are not worth carrying a conversation of this nature with.

i really hope you never have anything to do with politics because your ideas/theory's/policy's are awful. like said before, liberals like you should be beaten.

 

[2002XLT 5,000+ posts]

So that hippy that has 10 pot violations didn't learn his lesson so he needs to go down for 60 years. He's nothing but a drain on the legal system, and because the previous (lighter) punishments hadn't worked, he must be punished with his life behind bars. To me that doesn't make sense, but whatever.

no but i bet he would get stiffer and stiffer penalties/longer probation/and yes longer sentences.

 

[MyFartsStink 10+ year member]

half cooked theory? theory about what? lol. I'm just stating facts. He has not harmed anyone. As a libertarian, he should not be punished until he has actually done harm to someone. You, as an "idiot", want to punish him because you're afraid he's going to harm someone. It's like that movie with Tom Cruise where they punish people before they commit a crime. Yes, driving while drunk is a crime, but he hadn't actually harmed anyone. It's my view that until he actually hurts someone, he shouldn't be punished. Yes, it's a minority view I guess, but it's the way I feel.
According to your statement, just because smokin weed is illegal, and someone continues to smoke it, despite being caught for it multiple times, that he should be locked up for 60 years too. I mean, after the 10th time of smokin pot, he didn't learn his lesson, might as well step it up right?

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/ban.gif.ce8465566702ef9f72e97e794ed1c86a.gif

 

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

no but i bet he would get stiffer and stiffer penalties/longer probation/and yes longer sentences.

thank you. im glad to find out i wasnt the only person with brains enough to figure this out... cheesemind just lacks some serious mental powers to process concepts like these.

 

[97gp 5,000+ posts]

I wish they let him out and he crashed into your family and killed them while drunk.

 

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

I wish they let him out and he crashed into your family and killed them while drunk.

FTW.

im gonna go rub one out now.

 

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

but that only applies to laws that are just.

so you dont think that drunk driving should be illegal? you are saying that the law banning DUI is un-just?

...

go talk to tapout, let him show you the results of drinking and driving. if you still feel this way, then i again am all for a drunk driver taking out you and your family. or better yet, you driving drunk and taking yourself out of the gene pool...

how can you even consider this an un-just law... thats just idiocracy at its finest.

Back in the olden days, when common law was the law of the land, driving while drunk wouldn't have even been a crime.

back in the olden days we rode horses... or we were just discovering about cars... go talk to your parents or older relatives about drinking and driving. they will tell you that they used to go out hammered and drive, because they didnt think anything of it. then they will say something like "man we were idiots" or "we had no right to be doing that" or maybe even "what were we thinking"

you have to crawl before you can walk, and learning from your mistakes is part of the process. which is why in the "olden" days drinking and driving wasnt a crime, people didnt know better.

this is different than modern times when we know the results of it... this was a better effort than you had prevoiusly, ill give you that. but still not an applicable argument.

 

[Scoobydoo 5,000+ posts]

sad that a drunk driver gets 60 years when smokers endanger innocent lives everyday and they get nothing

 

[UberAudio 10+ year member]

We are talking about DRIVING while drunk.

so your argument about the pothead is wrong.

if the pothead was DRIVING while stoned the punishment would have been just as severe...

and it is 60 years because of the past offenses the term is compounded.

 

[ssj2xxgotenxx 10+ year member]

half cooked theory? theory about what? lol. I'm just stating facts. He has not harmed anyone. As a libertarian, he should not be punished until he has actually done harm to someone. You, as an "idiot", want to punish him because you're afraid he's going to harm someone. It's like that movie with Tom Cruise where they punish people before they commit a crime. Yes, driving while drunk is a crime, but he hadn't actually harmed anyone. It's my view that until he actually hurts someone, he shouldn't be punished. Yes, it's a minority view I guess, but it's the way I feel.
According to your statement, just because smokin weed is illegal, and someone continues to smoke it, despite being caught for it multiple times, that he should be locked up for 60 years too. I mean, after the 10th time of smokin pot, he didn't learn his lesson, might as well step it up right?

Whatever, you guys are flat out wrong. If he would have killed someone while driving drunk, then yes, give that much time. But for just being drunk, wtf. Some people can drive perfectly fine while drunk. You're just assuming he's going to hit someone while drunk and punishing him as if he already had.
I don't even drink, I can't stand alcohol, but as a libertarian, it's against my beliefs to punish someone for what you "think" is going to happen, rather than what factually happened.

The fact that you guys think he deserves a life sentence for driving while intoxicated scares me alot more than him actually being on the road intoxicated.

The punishment is just, and was given by a judge who has studied and understands the laws of our system, not some kid on the internet named Cheesemind. It's completely reasonable to assume he will end up hurting someone because drinking and driving DO NOT mix, dispite what you say about some people who have the unique ability to drink and drive perfectly.

If you wait for him to actually commit the act of harming someone in a DUI, then it's already too late, and it's unfair to the victim, the victim's family, and the society as a whole. He's been given his chances, and the law has been more than forgiving.

Smoking marijuana and drinking are two completely different ball games. There is no legitimate proof of marijuana affecting a users ability to drive or perform other activities that requires coordination.