Drunks are dangerous if you let them have keys to a car, Drunks are dangerous if you let them do practically anything. That's true. But for the people that ARE responsible, as in, not all drunks are irresponsible, then why do they have to suffer. Why can't a mutual agreement on this issue be resolved, instead of the man saying "This is how it is, deal with it."
The elder scrolls thing is a decent example. Saying here's you're gun and don't shoot anybody makes no sense in this. Reason being is because it's not limiting what you can do with the gun in a decent comparison to the limiting of the drinking.
Saying you can only play a game for a few minutes is similar to saying you can only have a few drinks.
I will say one thing, an opinionated statement is never wrong, so please don't tell me I'm wrong. My opinion may differ from yours, but that doesn't mean it's wrong in any way shape or form.
Texas arresting "drunks" in bars
1) It wasn't an opinionated statement, you said bars are for drinking, there's no opinion in that statement.
2) the Elder Scrolls analogy doesn't work because you aren't involving the key variable DANGER, the gun example may not have been entirely accurate, it was just meant to show that danger needs to somehow be incorporated.
3)
4)
5)
6) Fiona, I was talking only to Siberys
2) the Elder Scrolls analogy doesn't work because you aren't involving the key variable DANGER, the gun example may not have been entirely accurate, it was just meant to show that danger needs to somehow be incorporated.
3)
Drunks are dangerous if you let them do practically anything. That's true.
That is a beautiful contradiction you've got right there *applause*as in, not all drunks are irresponsible
4)
Are you joking me? do you have any idea whatsoever of how almost any legal system works? Yah, also, why don't we just come to a compromise on the act of raping a woman? (an offense very often associated with a drunk offender)Why can't a mutual agreement on this issue be resolved, instead of the man saying "This is how it is, deal with it."
5)
They aren't, if they're being responsible the undercover agents (whose discretion is the entire deciding factor in this system) just won't arrest them, duh.But for the people that ARE responsible...then why do they have to suffer
6) Fiona, I was talking only to Siberys
-
Siberys
- Posts: 6207
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:16 pm
- Location: I live in that one place with the thing
- Contact:
The fact that I think this can be resolved a different way is the opinion.
Yes, I forgot to add in "SOME drunks are dangerous." Nice of you to resort to semantics in plain wording, you and I both know you knew exactly what I meant.
The agreement thing, where in the world did you pull Raping women out of that. Drinking and raping women are two totally different things. I was more saying "Let drunks be drunks and have someone take there keys to their cars."
Is that really wrong? If they did that, they'd be preventing a MAJOR problem, drinking and driving, so taking the keys means no driving, I think that's pretty obvious.
Look, I don't know why you believe that anybody who drinks is automatically irresponsible, but that's not at all true. I know a good 20 or 30 people around my neighborhood, JUST my neighborhood who drink and have never, and I mean NEVER gotten arrested or pulled over for drinking and driving, for being irresponsible with drinking, for doing anything violent while under intoxication.
Now, as said, it's my opinion that this shouldn't happen, you can argue it all you want, but it's not going to change my view on it, so I'm done.
Yes, I forgot to add in "SOME drunks are dangerous." Nice of you to resort to semantics in plain wording, you and I both know you knew exactly what I meant.
The agreement thing, where in the world did you pull Raping women out of that. Drinking and raping women are two totally different things. I was more saying "Let drunks be drunks and have someone take there keys to their cars."
Is that really wrong? If they did that, they'd be preventing a MAJOR problem, drinking and driving, so taking the keys means no driving, I think that's pretty obvious.
Look, I don't know why you believe that anybody who drinks is automatically irresponsible, but that's not at all true. I know a good 20 or 30 people around my neighborhood, JUST my neighborhood who drink and have never, and I mean NEVER gotten arrested or pulled over for drinking and driving, for being irresponsible with drinking, for doing anything violent while under intoxication.
Now, as said, it's my opinion that this shouldn't happen, you can argue it all you want, but it's not going to change my view on it, so I'm done.
Listen up maggots, Mr. Popo's 'bout to teach you the pecking order.
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
[QUOTE=Napoleon]5) They aren't, if they're being responsible the undercover agents (whose discretion is the entire deciding factor in this system) just won't arrest them, duh.[/QUOTE]Unless of course, he's black/jewish/gay/white... and the officer in question doesn't like blacks/jews/gays/whites... in which case the officer in question can vent his petty bigotry and get away with "because the person was drunk".
The discretion of a law enforcing officer should be anything but "the entire deciding factor". As little as possible should be left to the officer and the law and application of it should be clear and predictable.
The discretion of a law enforcing officer should be anything but "the entire deciding factor". As little as possible should be left to the officer and the law and application of it should be clear and predictable.
I think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability.
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
it's also not what I said was absolutely wrongSiberys wrote:The fact that I think this can be resolved a different way is the opinion.
Yes, I forgot to add in "SOME drunks are dangerous." Nice of you to resort to semantics in plain wording, you and I both know you knew exactly what I meant.
The agreement thing, where in the world did you pull Raping women out of that. Drinking and raping women are two totally different things. I was more saying "Let drunks be drunks and have someone take there keys to their cars."
Is that really wrong? If they did that, they'd be preventing a MAJOR problem, drinking and driving, so taking the keys means no driving, I think that's pretty obvious.
Look, I don't know why you believe that anybody who drinks is automatically irresponsible, but that's not at all true. I know a good 20 or 30 people around my neighborhood, JUST my neighborhood who drink and have never, and I mean NEVER gotten arrested or pulled over for drinking and driving, for being irresponsible with drinking, for doing anything violent while under intoxication.
Now, as said, it's my opinion that this shouldn't happen, you can argue it all you want, but it's not going to change my view on it, so I'm done.
No, no I really didn't, although I suppose at fault of my own stupidity
What I'm trying to say with the raping women thing, and actually almost all of my posts here, is that DRIVING is NOT the only problem caused by drinking
I don't, its everyone who drinks to the point of being unable to properly control oneself (theoretically the point at which they are arrested)
Yes, I suppose I'm done as well lol
We really can't get into that though, officers of the law are put through (at least where I'm from) very rigorous psychological examinations to ensure that this isn't the case, and when it comes to our officers, we absolutely have to give them the benefit the doubt or risk undermining their authority and ruining ourUnless of course, he's black/jewish/gay/white... and the officer in question doesn't like blacks/jews/gays/whites... in which case the officer in question can vent his petty bigotry and get away with "because the person was drunk".
The discretion of a law enforcing officer should be anything but "the entire deciding factor". As little as possible should be left to the officer and the law and application of it should be clear and predictable.
entire judicial system
-
Fiona
[QUOTE=Napoleon]
We really can't get into that though, officers of the law are put through (at least where I'm from) very rigorous psychological examinations to ensure that this isn't the case, and when it comes to our officers, we absolutely have to give them the benefit the doubt or risk undermining their authority and ruining our
entire judicial system[/QUOTE]
*speechless*
We really can't get into that though, officers of the law are put through (at least where I'm from) very rigorous psychological examinations to ensure that this isn't the case, and when it comes to our officers, we absolutely have to give them the benefit the doubt or risk undermining their authority and ruining our
entire judicial system[/QUOTE]
*speechless*
-
Fiona
@ Napoleon. Ok
1. You have a touching and naive faith in the "rigorous psychological examinations"
2. Even if they are terribly accurate; valid and reliable you cannot surely believe people don't change or that power does not ever corrupt?
3. Nothing undermines the rule of law quicker than the arbitrary exercise of power. Lestat has already covered this point, and you have not answered it really. To keep the respect of the people I would almost go so far as to say that the officer must NEVER be given the benefit of any doubt
1. You have a touching and naive faith in the "rigorous psychological examinations"
2. Even if they are terribly accurate; valid and reliable you cannot surely believe people don't change or that power does not ever corrupt?
3. Nothing undermines the rule of law quicker than the arbitrary exercise of power. Lestat has already covered this point, and you have not answered it really. To keep the respect of the people I would almost go so far as to say that the officer must NEVER be given the benefit of any doubt
[QUOTE=Napoleon]We really can't get into that though, officers of the law are put through (at least where I'm from) very rigorous psychological examinations to ensure that this isn't the case, and when it comes to our officers, we absolutely have to give them the benefit the doubt or risk undermining their authority and ruining our
entire judicial system[/QUOTE]
In an ideal world, yes, that's true, but in reality...haven't you seen the countless reports of corrupt police officers who do have prejudices and biases who pervert the course of justice?
entire judicial system[/QUOTE]
In an ideal world, yes, that's true, but in reality...haven't you seen the countless reports of corrupt police officers who do have prejudices and biases who pervert the course of justice?
@ Fiona : LOL
@ Napoleon: Police officers are there to make people respect the law, and for people to respect the law they need to know what the law is: it should be clear and spelled out and not left to whims of the individual officer.
"be a responsible drunk" leaves too much room for interpretation and arbitrariness, and opens the door wide for abuse and "justice à la tête du client" (sorry don't find adequate translation).
I do not say that all police officers are bigots (hell, some of my acquaintances are in the police ), but psychological testing is not exactly fool proof and a certain percentage of officers is bound to be bigoted, or powertripper, or maybe just mildly prejudiced. Seen "Crash" by the way?
@ Napoleon: Police officers are there to make people respect the law, and for people to respect the law they need to know what the law is: it should be clear and spelled out and not left to whims of the individual officer.
"be a responsible drunk" leaves too much room for interpretation and arbitrariness, and opens the door wide for abuse and "justice à la tête du client" (sorry don't find adequate translation).
I do not say that all police officers are bigots (hell, some of my acquaintances are in the police
), but psychological testing is not exactly fool proof and a certain percentage of officers is bound to be bigoted, or powertripper, or maybe just mildly prejudiced. Seen "Crash" by the way?I think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability.
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
@ Fiona
1 & 2, I don't actually have faith in the system to the extent I seem to have portrayed, I was just stating it was there and that we do try.
3, the benefit of the doubt needs to be there, I'm saying its the entire cornerstone of our system (not saying it SHOULD be, but it is) think about without it, just an example: an officer gives me a ticket for say...public indecency, if he doesn't have the benefit of the doubt(and a number of other factors of course such as witnesses not being present) I can just say no I wasn't, and I don't get the ticket.
its all about checks and balances, you CAN go to court and fight tickets you know, and the courts are the checks and balances to the discretion of the police officers. So I suppose when I said ENTIRELY up to the discretion of the officers I meant the intitial ticket or whatever, you can always go to court after that though.
Finally, whenever I say OUR system or whatever, I'd like everyone to know I'm from Canada, but I think our systems and the states' systems are very similar.
1 & 2, I don't actually have faith in the system to the extent I seem to have portrayed, I was just stating it was there and that we do try.
3, the benefit of the doubt needs to be there, I'm saying its the entire cornerstone of our system (not saying it SHOULD be, but it is) think about without it, just an example: an officer gives me a ticket for say...public indecency, if he doesn't have the benefit of the doubt(and a number of other factors of course such as witnesses not being present) I can just say no I wasn't, and I don't get the ticket.
its all about checks and balances, you CAN go to court and fight tickets you know, and the courts are the checks and balances to the discretion of the police officers. So I suppose when I said ENTIRELY up to the discretion of the officers I meant the intitial ticket or whatever, you can always go to court after that though.
Finally, whenever I say OUR system or whatever, I'd like everyone to know I'm from Canada, but I think our systems and the states' systems are very similar.
[QUOTE=Lestat]@ Fiona : LOL
@ Napoleon: Police officers are there to make people respect the law, and for people to respect the law they need to know what the law is: it should be clear and spelled out and not left to whims of the individual officer.
"be a responsible drunk" leaves too much room for interpretation and arbitrariness, and opens the door wide for abuse and "justice à la tête du client" (sorry don't find adequate translation).
I do not say that all police officers are bigots (hell, some of my acquaintances are in the police ), but psychological testing is not exactly fool proof and a certain percentage of officers is bound to be bigoted, or powertripper, or maybe just mildly prejudiced. Seen "Crash" by the way?[/QUOTE]
Good point about it being clear, the problem with that in this specific case is how to implement that, I think that's what they're trying to do with the field sobriety test. Yah, I know that test isn't all that accurate as I can't do half that stuff sober lol, I'm saying thats what they're TRYING to do.
about that certain percent of officers, I think I addressed in my previous post about going to court. Maybe. if I haven't just yell at me or something.
I haven't seen Crash, unfortunately, I'd love to though.
Edit: sorry about the double post
@ Napoleon: Police officers are there to make people respect the law, and for people to respect the law they need to know what the law is: it should be clear and spelled out and not left to whims of the individual officer.
"be a responsible drunk" leaves too much room for interpretation and arbitrariness, and opens the door wide for abuse and "justice à la tête du client" (sorry don't find adequate translation).
I do not say that all police officers are bigots (hell, some of my acquaintances are in the police
), but psychological testing is not exactly fool proof and a certain percentage of officers is bound to be bigoted, or powertripper, or maybe just mildly prejudiced. Seen "Crash" by the way?[/QUOTE]Good point about it being clear, the problem with that in this specific case is how to implement that, I think that's what they're trying to do with the field sobriety test. Yah, I know that test isn't all that accurate as I can't do half that stuff sober lol, I'm saying thats what they're TRYING to do.
about that certain percent of officers, I think I addressed in my previous post about going to court. Maybe. if I haven't just yell at me or something.
I haven't seen Crash, unfortunately, I'd love to though.
Edit: sorry about the double post
-
Fiona
Well do you or don't you? Sorry, Napoleon, but that is just not enough. I am sure that the tests exist. Do you wonder why the attempt is made? Perhaps police officers are just people with the same flaws and faults as everyone else? Maybe some of them are people who are little more authoritarian than the average, or more certain they are right. I hasten to emphasise I am not typecasting: it takes most sorts to make a police force. But they are not saints to start with and in every profession where you see a lot of bad stuff there is a danger that will corrupt you. It is not easy to resist that process, and there have been a lot of reports here about "the canteen culture" which makes sexism and racism in the police force a major problem. It is related to the dependence the police have on each other and the bonds that inevitably forms, for one thing amongst othersNapoleon wrote:@ Fiona
1 & 2, I don't actually have faith in the system to the extent I seem to have portrayed, I was just stating it was there and that we do try.
I don't quite know where to start. Are you saying it is ok for one officer, with no evidence and no witness or corroboration, to issue a ticket which will involve me in having to go to court to defend myself? Losing time and perhaps wages, not to mention the smear on my reputation etc from the "no smoke without fire brigade"?3, the benefit of the doubt needs to be there, I'm saying its the entire cornerstone of our system (not saying it SHOULD be, but it is) think about without it, just an example: an officer gives me a ticket for say...public indecency, if he doesn't have the benefit of the doubt(and a number of other factors of course such as witnesses not being present) I can just say no I wasn't, and I don't get the ticket.
Are you saying it is fine for the courts to have to deal with things which cannot possibly lead to conviction because there is no evidence to lead in the case? How quickly would that undermine the judicial system, do you imagine? Not to mention the cost?
Are you saying the benefit of the doubt is in play up to the door of the court and stops there? Have you no concern that a society which always gives the police the benefit of the doubt might not actually throw such a case out and in fact convict the innocent on that basis? Would that possibility not also undermine confidence in the police and the judiciary?
With the best will in the world, why the hell should I? I should not even be questioned about what I do unless there is evidence (not some jack in office's idea, but real evidence) that I have done something which is against the law. And that has to apply to everyone equally. Courts are not always level playing fields, Napoleon. I don't know how often you have been there but you must know that they are often in the position of judging between different accounts of events. The police are experienced in the setting and are taught to present their case; the defendent is not. If it comes down to credibility the police are streets ahead because of that amongst other things. And that is unfortunately very influential in court cases. If there is no independently corroborated evidence there is no safeguard under the rules you seem to propose.its all about checks and balances, you CAN go to court and fight tickets you know, and the courts are the checks and balances to the discretion of the police officers. So I suppose when I said ENTIRELY up to the discretion of the officers I meant the intitial ticket or whatever, you can always go to court after that though.
Edit. I realise reading this I am nearer spluttering than debating. I find it hard to know where to start, this is so wrong. Forgive me if I am inarticulate
-
Fiona
@ Napoleon.
I am sorry if I have upset you. I did not mean this to sound personal, if it did. I intended only to address the points you made; and I was invited, you know. Please do not withdraw on my account. I will leave any future discussion to the more objective faction. In the end we are all only giving our opinions, and that is not a good reason to withdraw. I am sorry if I made you feel that way
I am sorry if I have upset you. I did not mean this to sound personal, if it did. I intended only to address the points you made; and I was invited, you know. Please do not withdraw on my account. I will leave any future discussion to the more objective faction. In the end we are all only giving our opinions, and that is not a good reason to withdraw. I am sorry if I made you feel that way
Just to follow up, here are a few more articles. They don't seem to have many different things to say, but if you read the quotes from TABC officials, it is clear that this isn't just a misunderstanding or a mis-report. In fact I thought it very interesting that they went into hotel bars and arrested people, even though several people had rooms at the hotel and had no plans of leaving the hotel let alone driving.
[url="http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8169246/detail.html"]MSNBC[/url]
[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11965237/"]Another MSNBC[/url]
[url="http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-03-22T230530Z_01_N22388344_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-BARS.XML"]Reuters[/url]
[url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49397"]WorldNetDaily[/url]
[url="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/3744380.html"]Chron.com[/url]
[url="http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8169246/detail.html"]MSNBC[/url]
[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11965237/"]Another MSNBC[/url]
[url="http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-03-22T230530Z_01_N22388344_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-BARS.XML"]Reuters[/url]
[url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49397"]WorldNetDaily[/url]
[url="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/3744380.html"]Chron.com[/url]
[QUOTE=Napoleon]You cans till drink in bars, you just need to be in control, which I think is a perfectly acceptable stipulation. [/QUOTE]
Whenever I drink (75% of the time anyways), I get comepletely ****faced. And I've never done anything near dangerous to other people.
[QUOTE=Napoleon]
And the problem is that people AREN'T responsible enough, the purpose of our laws is to protect society and in case you hadn't noticed, if that means restricting certain people then we'll still do it. [..] it would be more like "Here's your gun, now don't shoot anyone" which I'm sure you'll agree (especially if you're american) is acceptable.[/QUOTE]
"Here's your gun, now don't shoot anyone."
=
"Here's your permission to get completely wasted, now don't hurt anyone."
99% of the people who have guns don't shoot people.
99% of the people who get drunk don't hurt people. (Other than perhaps themselves, which they should of course be allowed to do)
[QUOTE=Napoleon]Drunks are dangerous, and anything that puts society in danger needs to be restricted or controlled.[/QUOTE]
Drunks are not dangerous. Drunks are potentially dangerous. A baseballbat is potentially dangerous. Let's ban all baseballbats that aren't soft like pillows.
Whenever I drink (75% of the time anyways), I get comepletely ****faced. And I've never done anything near dangerous to other people.
[QUOTE=Napoleon]
And the problem is that people AREN'T responsible enough, the purpose of our laws is to protect society and in case you hadn't noticed, if that means restricting certain people then we'll still do it. [..] it would be more like "Here's your gun, now don't shoot anyone" which I'm sure you'll agree (especially if you're american) is acceptable.[/QUOTE]
"Here's your gun, now don't shoot anyone."
=
"Here's your permission to get completely wasted, now don't hurt anyone."
99% of the people who have guns don't shoot people.
99% of the people who get drunk don't hurt people. (Other than perhaps themselves, which they should of course be allowed to do)
[QUOTE=Napoleon]Drunks are dangerous, and anything that puts society in danger needs to be restricted or controlled.[/QUOTE]
Drunks are not dangerous. Drunks are potentially dangerous. A baseballbat is potentially dangerous. Let's ban all baseballbats that aren't soft like pillows.