• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How is this murder?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
TheSiege said:
So does that mean everyone who drives drunk is guilty of murder? Not vehicular homicide or manslaughter?
Click to expand...

They better hope murder is the charge if they kill a member of my family as the safest place for them will be in prison.

Seriously. I fucking hate drunk drivers and especially the repeat offenders.
 
People in the US are way too lax when it comes to drunk driving.

If you get caught drunk driving once, you should lose your license forever. Period. If you get caught again, you should go to jail for years. If you get caught a third time, death penalty. This should go for any form of DWI.

Driving is not a right and it requires you to be responsible. If you cannot be responsible while driving, you should not drive. There is no excuse.
 
drebo said:
People in the US are way too lax when it comes to drunk driving.

If you get caught drunk driving once, you should lose your license forever. Period. If you get caught again, you should go to jail for years. If you get caught a third time, death penalty. This should go for any form of DWI.
Click to expand...
That's too extreme considering 50%+ of Americans drink alcohol on a regular basis.
Most of these people drink it in social situations (dinner, parties, etc.).
Our infrastructure is such that you must drive to these social events (not many trains or buses).
Thus, if you drink socially, you are very likely to drive under the influence to some degree.
This amount of influence is highly dependent on your size, metabolism, amount consumed, duration, etc.
Even if you have 1 beer with dinner and drive home 2 hours later, you will be influence ever so slightly.
This is why there are laws that set the limit.
Most people are responsible enough to drink very little. The laws are such that the limits are extremely low (.08 in most states).

I think the laws are fine the way they are and society agrees with me.
 
i really can't stand when people call things like this an "accident". it was far from an accident. it was some dipshit driving drunk out of choice.

in general i hate how "car accidents" are called that. 99% of car "accidents" aren't accidents at all. they are someone being a fucking moron while driving a pile of metal weighing over a ton that could have easily been avoided had that idiot just been paying attention.
 
Most likely they have a "depraved heart" or "depraved indifference" statute in which unusually reckless behavior gives rise to the mens rea to be charged with murder, which is probably a variation of 2nd degree. Some states actually call it "depraved heart" murder and have a specific murder charge for it.
 
Prosecutor argued depraved indifference. If he proves that theory and it looks like he did then it is murder. Fact that he was drunk no longer has any bearing at this point. This was murder due to depraved indifference. Even if he was cold sober and committed the exact same act it would still be murder due to depraved indifference.

Case Closed one more a##hole that will never see the light of day again.
 
edro said:
That's too extreme considering 50%+ of Americans drink alcohol on a regular basis.
Most of these people drink it in social situations (dinner, parties, etc.).
Our infrastructure is such that you must drive to these social events (not many trains or buses).
Thus, if you drink socially, you are very likely to drive under the influence to some degree.
This amount of influence is highly dependent on your size, metabolism, amount consumed, duration, etc.
Even if you have 1 beer with dinner and drive home 2 hours later, you will be influence ever so slightly.
This is why there are laws that set the limit.
Most people are responsible enough to drink very little. The laws are such that the limits are extremely low (.08 in most states).

I think the laws are fine the way they are and society agrees with me.
Click to expand...
Call a cab or don't drink if you can't handle your shit.

There's no excuse, and your convinience is not an excuse to endanger other people.
 
Thompson was found to have a blood-alcohol level of 0.22, almost three times the legal limit of 0.08.
Click to expand...

So if he was a woman, and had sex, being that drunk it would be rape. And it wouldn't matter what else he did or said, he would be legally incapable of giving consent.

However a man that gets that drunk, receives full weight of the law just like a completely sober man would.

Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is a scumbag and glad he received the sentence that he did. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the law. Of course, that is certainly nothing new.

-KeithP
 
KeithP said:
So if he was a woman, and had sex, being that drunk it would be rape. And it wouldn't matter what else he did or said, he would be legally incapable of giving consent.

However a man that gets that drunk, receives full weight of the law just like a completely sober man would.

Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is a scumbag and glad he received the sentence that he did. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the law. Of course, that is certainly nothing new.

-KeithP
Click to expand...

You do realize there's a difference between being in a state of poor judgment/self-control, and doing something to a person in a state of poor judgment/self-control, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top