Pretty much.
It seems like you’d prefer to see him dead even now.
I’m guessing Duderdude’s straightedge and has never done anything foolish or the slightest bit illegal. It’s the only scenario I can imagine that would explain the tone of his posts. And isn’t Reeder a recovering alcoholic? You would think that he’d hope the guy would use this as a moment of clarity like spooje posted but no. Instead, he’s sulking because he didn’t die.
I’m as against drunk driving as anyone but not to the point where I think people guilty of it should be killed. Cripple him with fines or put him in lockup for thirty days… don’t fucking mutter about how he should have died like it was coming to him or something. Ridiculous.
(from the linked article, emphasis added)
Og help me, but I actually see Reeder’s point here. If this story would have concluded the way it seemingly was intended, this would have been an amusing cautionary tale about driving drunk, at which we all would have snickered under our breath about what an absolute dumb ass this driver was.
As it is though, the driver loses his car, gets arrested, and hopefully learns a lesson. The McJobber gets the good feeling of a job well done, and the rush of saving a life. I’d say this one slipped through Darwins’ fingers alright.
The driver was 20 years old. Okay, everyone here who never drank and drove at that age, raise your hand…I’ve had to kick a few young asses and tell them they can drink themselves into the gutter, but the minute they get behind the wheel, they might as well start shooting a gun. I’m glad nobody was hurt.
If the driver had been 40 and had a history of drunken driving, it would be different. I hope this young man has learned a good lesson this Christmas.
Perhaps you should not. It depends on what you wish your life, and the world you live in to be like. If you want a world of love, or if you want your own spirit to be one of love, then it is an obvious choice. There is no material gain in it for you, though.
Merry Christmas.
Tris
What state do you live in? One of my co workers is still mourning the loss of her 5 y.o. grandson to a five time drunk driver who has yet to do ANY time!
More to the point of the OP, I sometimes forget that random selection is part of the process as well. Lucky drunk!
I have to agree with the OP and DuderDude2 on this one. I don’t believe either one of them wished death on that 20 yo halfwit. However, his actions imperiled not only his own life, but the lives of others and IF he had died as a result of his actions, then the gene pool would be better for it. To quote a favorite author “Stupidity is the only universal capital crime. The sentence is carried out automatically and without pity.” — Robert Heinlein.
Personally, I don’t believe there should be any penalties for DUI. However, if you damage someone else’s property or cause them physical harm as a result of DUI, the penalties should be extremely severe. And killing someone else while driving impaired should be treated as capital murder including a death sentence. I think that would be a far better deterrent than our current system.
So now they have Fry Gods.
In my day were were called the Fry Guy.
I don’t believe it would be a better deterrent. Far too many people think that their driving isn’t affected by alcohol, and so don’t believe that there would be any likelihood of murdering someone as a result of their drinking. Throw them in jail on their second offence (doing it on their second offence provides all the opportunity necessary to warn them of their stupidity) and suspend their license for a long time.
dmartin is right. No threat of punishment is not a deterrent. It’s like saying it’s ok to wave a gun around, as long as you don’t actually SHOOT anyone. :rolleyes:
I say put 'em to work for victims families. Make 'em work for free for the time you’d spend puttin 'em in jail. Win-win.
I’m with buttonjockey. If the guy had gone into the canal and died, there would have been a thread titled “One More for the Darwin Awards” or something like that, and some of us (including myself) would have snickered over it. Does this mean that I want all drunk drivers dead, or that I myself would have let this guy slide into the canal without a second thought? Of course not. But I might have cracked a few jokes all the same. Maybe I’m a deviant. Or maybe laughter in the face of death is a normal human impulse. I just don’t see how this thread is all that offensive.
Oh, and I can raise my hand as someone who has never driven drunk - not at 20, not now, not ever. How about we do a corresponding show of hands for people who have never laughed at a Darwin Awards thread?
Let me clarify. By extreme penalties I mean things like triple or quadruple compensation to the victim out of your own pocket (cannot be covered by insurance). Suspension of driving priveleges for a year or more. Automatic jail time of at least 6 months for first offense. Triple the above for each repeat offense. How likely are you to risk that?
Yes, that is essentially what I am saying. Threatening to shoot someone is a crime. Accidentally shooting someone is a crime. Threatening to kill someone with your car, drunk or sober, is a crime. Accidentally killing someone with your car is a crime. If sober, the penalties are slight or even none. If drunk, the penalty is death. I am saying that driving while intoxicated is stupid, but not criminal. Causing harm to others while intoxicated is.
By extension, an accident caused by the driver talking on their cell phone, putting on make-up, spilling hot coffee in their lap, etc. should also be treated as a serious crime. Doing any of the above and not causing an accident shouldn’t. In both cases, the driver intentionally impaired their ability to drive safely, and should be held responsible for their actions.
Please show me where I stated that I want the “instant death penalty for anyone who has driven drunk.” You may not see a distinction, but as the one who you’ve misundestood, there’s a significant one.
We’re not talking about a slightly intoxicated driver. The guy we’re talking about drove into a canal. Am I the only who finds this to be appalling? Someone dying as a result of their own actions is not analogous to killing someone because of their actions, which is what you’re insinuating.
I have no idea what the hell you just said. Either way, I’d rather live in a world where people didn’t recklessly put other’s lives at risk.
Let’s put it another way: Do you wish that the McDonald’s worker hadn’t saved this guy? Would that be what you’d prefer? Because it sure as hell sounds like it. Sounds like you think it would be far, far better for drunken drivers such as this to die.
What I’m saying is if he has died, he would have been justified. What I don’t understand is why you feel he deseves a second chance after he could have killed someone.
Oh, and just to make a slight correction to something I said earlier: He was going to end up in a canal, as opposed to already being in it, though I don’t see a difference.
*Has=Had
It was a long night.
It was a simple yes or no question: Do you wish that the McDonald’s worker had failed in saving this guy’s life? Would that be a better ending to this story as far as you’re concerned? Yes or no question.
<hand up>
I’ve never driven drunk, or even under the influence of as little as one beer. If I drink (back when I drank), I don’t drive. If I drive, I don’t drink. It’s as simple as that.
</hand up>
Now, what’s the point of the question? Stupidity is stupidity, no matter what age the person being stupid, and should not be protected or promoted in any way.