Drunk drivers should burn in hell

[MsWhatsit]

Yes, because if they were picking up Bibles from the 7-11, then their horrific deaths would be the fault of the drunk asshole that swerved into their lane. But since they are teenagers – who, as we all know, are probably drinking and up to no good at any given moment of the day, and especially if the sun has gone down – they were basically just asking for a drunk asshole to swerve into their lane and kill them. Maybe they should have thought about the possibility of a drunk asshole veering into oncoming traffic before they had the nerve to go driving their car in the proper lane at the speed limit.

The next time I see someone driving in their proper lane and doing the speed limit, I’m calling the highway patrol right away to let them know that there are some jackasses out there just asking for an accident!

[Covered_In_Bees]

Maybe they should have thought about the possibility of a drunk asshole veering into oncoming traffic before they had the nerve to go driving their car in the proper lane at the speed limit.

You forgot the most horrific part and I don’t blame you: With their seatbelts on too!!!

dramatic music and gasps of terror from the audience

[SenorBeef]

To clarify this point:

Let’s say the teenagers were perfectly sober. The driver was driving to the best of his ability - driving the speed limit, in his lane, alert. Suddenly a drunk swerves on the wrong side of the road and there’s no way to get off the road and they get hit.

Are the teenagers still responsible because hey, if they were well-parented and/or good people, they’d have been at home at that time of night?

[woodstockbirdybird]

@SenorBeef

To clarify this point:

Let’s say the teenagers were perfectly sober. The driver was driving to the best of his ability - driving the speed limit, in his lane, alert. Suddenly a drunk swerves on the wrong side of the road and there’s no way to get off the road and they get hit.

Are the teenagers still responsible because hey, if they were well-parented and/or good people, they’d have been at home at that time of night?

That seems to be the consensus among the shockingly puritanical dipshits bringing it up as an issue. If any of said dipshits would like to try to clarify, I’m listening.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@woodstockbirdybird

That seems to be the consensus among the shockingly puritanical dipshits bringing it up as an issue. If any of said dipshits would like to try to clarify, I’m listening.

I’d like to try. I am in no way saying that these teenagers are at fault for the cause of the accident. What I am saying is that they shouldn’t have been (at least in the case of the 15 and 16 year olds) in that situation to begin with due to a curfew.

I do also realize that curfews are broken all the time by young people, and most of the time, nothing happens.

Parents also have some small culpability because they are either not enforcing a law that actually protects their children, or the teenagers lied to their parents in some type of “I’m spending the night at so-and-so’s” scheme, so then they get a meagre parcel of “blame”.

It’s sad, it’s tragic, the drunk driver was completely at fault, and yet…if they hadn’t been where they were, it wouldn’t have happened to them. It likely would have happened to an older person, whom of course could easily be absolved of all blame as they were over the curfew age limit…

OK, that last bit was pure snark. I have to admit something: news like this scares the shit out of me, because I am a father and my sons, while 7 and 3 now, are not going to be 7 and 3 forever. Inevitably I will allow them to drive the family car or allow them to buy their own, with some serious restrictions.

I simply want to point out that (20/20 hindsight and all) if they were my children killed, I’d be heartbroken that they were where they weren’t (legally) supposed to be and that is preventable.

But I cannot find in it my heart, having once been a rowdy youngster myself, to blame them. So far by all accounts, other than the curfew violation, they were doing nothing wrong.

I don’t know anymore. I am tired of hearing about these instances of preventable, premature deaths.

If I were a parent of one of them, I would feel guilt because of the mitigating circumstances.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Euphonious_Polemic

My big font is my cite!

You win the thread.

@Covered_In_Bees

Those nefarious teens were probably trying to take over the world again! Death to them all!

And they would have gotten away with it, if it wasn’t for those meddling k… wait a minute…

[SenorBeef]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I’d like to try. I am in no way saying that these teenagers are at fault for the cause of the accident. What I am saying is that they shouldn’t have been (at least in the case of the 15 and 16 year olds) in that situation to begin with due to a curfew.

So if they were 2 years older, and therefore legal to be out, but drived the same way at the same time, and got killed by that drunk - now they’re blameless?

This sounds just like “she shouldn’t have been walking in that part of town” blaming a rape victim.

If the teenagers were drunk, or goofing around and distracted, or did something else that contributed to the accident - then sure, they’re partially at fault. But to blame them for simply driving on the road is ridiculous.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@SenorBeef

So if they were 2 years older, and therefore legal to be out, but drived the same way at the same time, and got killed by that drunk - now they’re blameless?

I hear it’s illegal to bang a 15-year-old if you’re an adult… but you can nail all the 17-year-olds you can get your hands on. Hmmm. Wonder what’s up with that?

[SenorBeef]

Age of consent laws are designed to protect children who society considers unable to consent to certain activities from adults. Curfew laws are not analogous.

Let me put it another way. A group of 25 year olds is driving doing the exact same thing as the teenagers in this scenario. Driving at the same speed, with the same attentitiveness and driving skill. If you tinted the car windows, you couldn’t tell whether it was 16 year olds or 50 year olds in there. A drunk swerves into the wrong lane and hits them. The 25 year olds are blameless, whereas the 16 year olds are guilty?

Or, to take it another direction, people with green eyes aren’t allowed to drive after midnight. So this drunk hits some guy who had green eyes. It’s the victim’s fault now, because people with green eyes aren’t supposed to be out driving after midnight.

There’s no real connection between the curfew laws and what happened here.

[Jolly_Roger]

Has there been any real information on whether the teens were doing anything wrong or not? Or is this all just a “blame the victim"fest”? Is there a curfew where they were, BTW?

[Carol_Stream]

@SenorBeef

If the teenagers were drunk, or goofing around and distracted, or did something else that contributed to the accident - then sure, they’re partially at fault. But to blame them for simply driving on the road is ridiculous.

Five teenagers in a car is, practically by definition, distracting. And also illegal in many places. As is being out at 12AM. Their parents have a non-zero level of responsibility for what happened.

[MsWhatsit]

@Carol_Stream

Five teenagers in a car is, practically by definition, distracting. And also illegal in many places. As is being out at 12AM. Their parents have a non-zero level of responsibility for what happened.

Wow, one of the parents was the drunk asshole who swerved into the kids’ lane? You’d think that shocking twist would have warranted a mention in the news story.

[Gatopescado]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I don’t think IQ can drop into the negatives.

I felt “slighted” till I took a gander at your username.

Really! When will this wank-fest come to an end?

Me? I blame Henry Ford (mass-production of automobiles), Hitler (work in the Autobahn somehow), The United States Supreme Court (for allowing abortions, and thereby, *not outlawing them *-- think about this for a minute) and Jimmy Buffet.

Mostly Jimmy Buffet, though.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@SenorBeef

So if they were 2 years older, and therefore legal to be out, but drived the same way at the same time, and got killed by that drunk - now they’re blameless?

This sounds just like “she shouldn’t have been walking in that part of town” blaming a rape victim.

If the teenagers were drunk, or goofing around and distracted, or did something else that contributed to the accident - then sure, they’re partially at fault. But to blame them for simply driving on the road is ridiculous.

What does it matter? I am not placing the blame of the dead on anyone other than the drunk. However, 2 years older makes no difference except with regards to the curfew laws, which, as far as I can tell, actually do help protect lives that are young, dumb and full of cum.

I don’t think the driving age in this country (USA) should be below 18, and I also think that all other “adult” laws should apply at this age. Join the Army? Sure! Drink beer? Why not? Vote? Yep. Earn the privledge of driving? Yes.

I am not sure where I am failing to communicate here. I want both sides to at least share some responsibility, even if 99.8% of it is on the drunk driver. Curfews are put in place for a reason, even if responsible teens break it and uphold the law in every other way. It’s either their fault for doing so, or their parents for not enforcing it, or both.

And again: why is this fucking guy smiling in his mug shot? It’s creepy.

And also: it’s the drunk driver’s fault, not the kids. I was trying to remonstrate how if they hadn’t been out after curfew, they wouldn’t have died, but maybe it would have been someone else.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Jolly_Roger

Has there been any real information on whether the teens were doing anything wrong or not? Or is this all just a “blame the victim"fest”? Is there a curfew where they were, BTW?

From the previous page:

@Me

New Mexico has a statewide curfew for 16-year-old drivers from 12 am to 5 am. In some municipalities it starts a bit earlier.

You’re missing the point. Nobody is saying they deserved to die - except possibly STS, who seems a bit off his rocker - but that they shouldn’t have been on the road in the first place. Had they not broken the law, Mr. Drunkypants probably wouldn’t have hit anything, and would not now be guilty of DUI manslaughter or whatever they call it in NM.

Does that excuse his actions? No. Are the kids blameless? No.

@SenorBeef

Age of consent laws are designed to protect children who society considers unable to consent to certain activities from adults. Curfew laws are not analogous.

Let me put it another way. A group of 25 year olds is driving doing the exact same thing as the teenagers in this scenario. Driving at the same speed, with the same attentitiveness and driving skill. If you tinted the car windows, you couldn’t tell whether it was 16 year olds or 50 year olds in there. A drunk swerves into the wrong lane and hits them. The 25 year olds are blameless, whereas the 16 year olds are guilty?

Of course they’re analogous. What do you think age-based curfews are for? To protect minors.

As I’ve noted several times already, I’m not blaming the kids. I hope the guy gets locked up for a long time. I’m simply pointing out that the accident would not have happened if they had not broken the law.

[SenorBeef]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Of course they’re analogous. What do you think age-based curfews are for? To protect minors.

I always thought they were there to protect society from kids who were up to no good causing trouble at night, rather than for the kid’s protection.

Age of consent laws are designed specifically to protect underage kids against sexual advances from adults. I doubt curfew laws are designed to prevent kids who may have been following perfect road safety from being hit by some guy driving down the wrong side of the road.

So yes, if the kids were following the law they wouldn’t have been there - but that’s pretty much just coincidence. If there was a law against women driving, then many deaths by women at the hands of drunk drivers would be prevented too.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@SenorBeef

If there was a law against women driving, then many deaths by women at the hands of drunk drivers would be prevented too.

Well, to be honest, as a man married to a crazy woman (who’s in-laws are also Cleveland Browns fans), that wouldn’t be so bad, would it?

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

New Mexico has a statewide curfew for 16-year-old drivers from 12 am to 5 am. In some municipalities it starts a bit earlier.

You’re missing the point. Nobody is saying they deserved to die - except possibly STS, who seems a bit off his rocker - but that they shouldn’t have been on the road in the first place. Had they not broken the law, Mr. Drunkypants probably wouldn’t have hit anything, and would not now be guilty of DUI manslaughter or whatever they call it in NM.

Does that excuse his actions? No. Are the kids blameless? No.

IF I shoot a jay walker is the jay walker does the jay walker share any of the blame? Che wouldn’t have been in my bullet’s path if they weren’t jay walking.

[MonkeyMensch]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

… Che wouldn’t have been in my bullet’s path if they weren’t jay walking.

Oh great! Now bring in the CIA!

[Kiber]

I know it’s more fun to ignore the facts and cites that I posted earlier and instead try and view everything as black and white. But the bottom line here (supported by facts, not conjecture) is that BOTH drivers took unnecessary risks that night. I’m not going to bother with cites for the increased risk the DD took, since everyone here seems willing to accept that.

But I will post, once again, the fact that the 16 year old driver took significant risk when he got in the car that night and agreed to drive 4 of his friends around after midnight. This has nothing to do with whether he was a good kid, or some punk, whether he was sober or might have been drunk. The basic facts are that simply by having 4 friends in the car with him, he TRIPLED his chances of being killed in an accident. Tripled. And simply by being 16, he had a 2.6 TIMES higher chance of being in an accident, then a 20 year old (hardly the gold standard of driving).

As a parent, I think it’s my responsibility to minimize any activities that triple the chance of death for my children. So yes - I think the parents had some responsibility. But of course, I’m one of those people (rare in this thread) that believe it’s possible for both parties to have contributed to the accident. Likely the DD is at fault legally, but the bottom line is that the 16 year old driver took significant risks with his life, his passengers lives, and the lives of others on the road.

It’s possible to mourn their deaths, feel the tragedy, and also understand that mistakes were made. Hell - it’s even possible to learn from this. But that is harder to do if everyone is busy arguing that one side is pure innocence and light, while the other is evil incarnate.