This guy can DIAF

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mb

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Newbian
Ehh, the ducklings one isn't that bad since it's no different then hitting a bird while driving or the random Seinfeld episode jogger stepping on them.

The 2nd one is something else.

The thing is, you don't normally run over birds intentionally.

Yeah it's not like he had to make a decision to slam on his brakes and get rear ended or swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid killing some ducks crossing the road.

my guess is he got frustrated by people stopped in front of him in parking lot, didn't know why (couldn't see ducks) and swerved around blindly to pass, creaming the ducks.

no excuse for it, as most sane people realize that people stop tend to stop for a reason. Hell, I can't mention how many times when driving through the city, I'm stopped at a crosswalk with someone walking directly in front of my car and some POS sits behind me blaring their horn. They'd prefer I just nail the pedestrian so they can get on with their precious lives?

Exactly. He most likely did not intentionally slay the ducks. But deserved whatever punishment he got. We don't need people like that driving around.

Those ducks could have easily been a little kid. Even if he didn't know they were there, it's a highly dangerous move and the fine and punishment are totally appropriate.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
except that the person who "runs over an animal simply b/c they're impatient" is no different than the person who "beats their dog b/c they want too."

I don't see how you can logically differentiate the two personalities--it baffles the mind.

Seek help there, little rebel.

Don't blame me be cause you cannot ascertain reality.

But here, I'll be nice and literally spell it out for you... read slowly and follow along.

Guy who beats his dog. Did he want to beat his dog. Yes. He voluntarily committed the act.

Guy who passed other stopped drivers and runs over little duckies. Did he want to run over the ducks. Not necessarily (I do not believe he did, but we have no proof either way). It was most likely something tied into the act.

They are completely different.

Also, I do find it amusing that you think I should seek help when there are others saying to tie this guy up in the middle of a road and have crazy teen drivers run him over.

EDIT:

Originally posted by: dainthomas
Those ducks could have easily been a little kid. Even if he didn't know they were there, it's a highly dangerous move and the fine and punishment are totally appropriate.

I actually agree with you that his passing was a dangerous manuever, but people here are making the crime that he ran the ducks over.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: palswim

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Finally, another person who thought this guy might just have lost his patience and tried to pass all of the cars that had stopped ahead of him for no apparent reason (and not have seen the ducks until too late or not at all). He can still plead guilty for that.

For some reason, I can't picture the guy thinking "I really want to play Duck Hunt, but I'm stuck here in my car. Poor, poor me. What shall I... Oh, excellent!"

That's what I was thinking may have happened.

I still hate animal cruelty but given the situation I think a semi-large fine is minor enough to not ruin his life but major enough to make him be more careful.

And like dainthomas mentioned, it could have been a kid.

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: palswim

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Finally, another person who thought this guy might just have lost his patience and tried to pass all of the cars that had stopped ahead of him for no apparent reason (and not have seen the ducks until too late or not at all). He can still plead guilty for that.

For some reason, I can't picture the guy thinking "I really want to play Duck Hunt, but I'm stuck here in my car. Poor, poor me. What shall I... Oh, excellent!"

That's what I was thinking may have happened.

I still hate animal cruelty but given the situation I think a semi-large fine is minor enough to not ruin his life but major enough to make him be more careful.

And like dainthomas mentioned, it could have been a kid.

I was thinking this as well the first time I read it. The story didn't make it sound like he did it on purpose, and any news organization would make sure people knew if that was the case.

 

[xboxist]

Originally posted by: racolvin
I truly believe that in cases like this we ought to be able to subject them to the same level of violence that they inflicted, all the while asking "so, how do YOU like it?"

Same, and it disgusts me that the legal system doesn't agree. 100% serious.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: zinfamous
except that the person who "runs over an animal simply b/c they're impatient" is no different than the person who "beats their dog b/c they want too."

I don't see how you can logically differentiate the two personalities--it baffles the mind.

Seek help there, little rebel.

Don't blame me be cause you cannot ascertain reality.

But here, I'll be nice and literally spell it out for you... read slowly and follow along.

Guy who beats his dog. Did he want to beat his dog. Yes. He voluntarily committed the act.

Guy who passed other stopped drivers and runs over little duckies. Did he want to run over the ducks. Not necessarily (I do not believe he did, but we have no proof either way). It was most likely something tied into the act.

They are completely different.

Also, I do find it amusing that you think I should seek help when there are others saying to tie this guy up in the middle of a road and have crazy teen drivers run him over.

EDIT:

Originally posted by: dainthomas
Those ducks could have easily been a little kid. Even if he didn't know they were there, it's a highly dangerous move and the fine and punishment are totally appropriate.

I actually agree with you that his passing was a dangerous manuever, but people here are making the crime that he ran the ducks over.

How should he have been punished if his impatience led to his running over a kid?

Would it be best to punish him severely now, convincing him that his impatience is a serious problem, in the hopes of preventing him from hitting kids next time?

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
How should he have been punished if his impatience led to his running over a kid?

Would it be best to punish him severely now, convincing him that his impatience is a serious problem, in the hopes of preventing him from hitting kids next time?

The article (ahem... blurb) is about punishing him for running over ducks... not his poor driving choices. So I guess you agree with me now ^_^.

Although, to be honest... I think the guy would rather have the charge of running over ducks on his record, 'cause I don't think that'd affect your insurance, but being charged with a moving violation would and may amount to more than $1000 over time.

 

[CptCrunch]

fucking idiots, may they rot in jail

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
Any sane person would believe he was simply some impatient 20 year old that didn't want to wait and didn't give a shit that there were ducks in the way.

My example is right in what you said about him being impatient and intentionally running the ducks over (you said this earlier above that there is nothing really wrong even if he meant to knowing full well what was going to happen). In that scenario that you brought up, I think is pretty much akin to disregarding the lives of other animals callously (ie. hitting them for amusement, just for the hell of it). That is what I was trying to get at. Quit trying to change your stance on it. You specifically said earlier that it didn't matter even if he intended too, and now you're saying "Oh, if he didn't intend to, my point still stands.."

If you believe what he did was wrong (running over by mistake, etc) then don't complain when he gets stung in the pocket for breaking the law.

The cost of "replacing" the ducks have little to do with how much the fine will be. The fact that you keep seeing the ducks as an object that can be "replaced" like that speaks volumes.


here is the "full" article. States that the fine can be reduced if he volunteers like Aikouka said should've happened.

Text

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: racolvin
I truly believe that in cases like this we ought to be able to subject them to the same level of violence that they inflicted, all the while asking "so, how do YOU like it?"

+1. I would PAY to watch someone get killed or seriously harmed to match what that person did to an animal.

And only 1k? That's retarded. At least it's SOMETHING, but come on. If I had done something bad and the authorities were involved, if all I had to do was pay 1k to end it all, I'd be more then happy... That's not really a big punishment. The fine for passing a school bus is 5k, and nobody will get hurt then (there is a chance, but it's not 100%).

I would love to personally kill animal abusers with a butter knife.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Yeah, it's great to run over baby birds, just like huntin'! :roll:

WTF is wrong with you?

Maybe because I'm not some bleeding hearted hippy who sees it as a big deal? Yeah, I think it's cruel to do, but fining someone a $1000 for it? Fucking retarded. Especially when you have the idiots here talking about an eye for an eye... for running over a fucking duck.

Are you going to make me sit in a road because I ran over a squirrel once?

EDIT:

You can also add in the fact that ducks aren't even fucking close to being endangered... it's not like there was truly a crime committed. Being a cruel person, sure, but a fucking crime? Damn hippies.

People are not endangered either.