Would you like this law? - Manatory life in prison for DUIs who kill kids?

On 1 Aug 2006 11:11:10 -0700, "
> wrote:

>
>laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>> How can anyone but a criminal coddler argue with that.? Hell -
>> people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
>> harming a kid!!. Surely then a child-KILLER should pay the ultimate
>> penalty.
>
>It scares me, but I have to agree with you on something. Yes, I agree.
> But then, I support the death penalty too. I don't think the life
>sentence or death penalty should only be for DUIs. I believe in it for
>murder. Period. You may want to let off those who shoot or stab, but
>not me.

I never said we should go easy on the shooters and stabbers. But i do
think killer DUIs and killer extreme speeders are as evil as any
convicts in the country. Though not nearly as evil as this
president and congress who lied us into this holocaust in iraq. How
many innocent people have they killed ? 300,000?

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:25:24 GMT, Alan Baker >
wrote:

>In article >,
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>
>> How can anyone but a criminal coddler argue with that.? Hell -
>> people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
>> harming a kid!!. Surely then a child-KILLER should pay the ultimate
>> penalty.
>
>I'm sure you could think of something more stupid, but even you would to
>work at it some.

I see you don't have a rebuttal and can only "respond" with childish
namecalling. Sorry i ruined your day.

In article >,
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:25:24 GMT, Alan Baker >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
> >
> >> How can anyone but a criminal coddler argue with that.? Hell -
> >> people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
> >> harming a kid!!. Surely then a child-KILLER should pay the ultimate
> >> penalty.
> >
> >I'm sure you could think of something more stupid, but even you would to
> >work at it some.
>
> I see you don't have a rebuttal and can only "respond" with childish
> namecalling. Sorry i ruined your day.

I didn't call anyone any names.

You asked me what I thought of your idea, and I told you?

1. Playing on the emotionalism of "think of the children" is no way to
make law. A child's death is no more heinous than anyone else's.

2. Mandatory sentences are bad law in and of themselves. The whole point
of having judges is that they can *judge* all the circumstances of a
crime.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:25:24 GMT, Alan Baker >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>> >
>> >> How can anyone but a criminal coddler argue with that.? Hell -
>> >> people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
>> >> harming a kid!!. Surely then a child-KILLER should pay the ultimate
>> >> penalty.
>> >
>> >I'm sure you could think of something more stupid, but even you would to
>> >work at it some.
>>
>> I see you don't have a rebuttal and can only "respond" with childish
>> namecalling. Sorry i ruined your day.
>
> I didn't call anyone any names.
>
> You asked me what I thought of your idea, and I told you?
>
> 1. Playing on the emotionalism of "think of the children" is no way to
> make law. A child's death is no more heinous than anyone else's.

The precious children!! Are these the same darling ****s who open fire in a
school? Maybe the same ones who kill their parents. These kids are all
****ed in the head and deserve to be run over as much as any adult.

AusWendy wrote:
> "Shawn Hirn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>In most cases, those who cause a fatality out on the road have committed
>>an accident. True, these are horrific accidents, but they're still
>>accidents.
>
>
> I disagree. If you are out driving with over the legal limit of alcohol in
> your system then it is NOT an accident.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to simply provide public transport to and from
all bars than to house everyone who happened to have 3-4 drinks in
prison for years on end?

Or wouldn't it be more sensible to keep idiots off the road in the first
place. I have a theory that most people who cause accidents under the
influence are either horrible drivers sober or are so drunk they can
barely walk let alone drive.



>
> Aus Wendy
>
>

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:20:52 -0400, "Magnulus" >
> wrote:
>
>
>> Alot of "accidents" are caused by people reaching down for something or
>>otherwise being distracted. Are those faultless? I read of one accident
>>that was caused because a woman dropped a cheeseburger on the floor of a
>>car. Another case a man was watching a DVD while driving. Just a good
>>example of why a car should not be a mobile living room/dining
>>room/entertainment center. And why cupholders in cars need to be curtailed
>>to the bare minimum (1 per passenger).
>>
>
>
> There are no accidents to speak of on the highways. Almost always
> somebody did something wrong. Our super-corrupt media is paid by the
> car makers to call every crash an accident. After all, it wouldn't be
> good for the car business if car loons were treated as the psychopaths
> they are.
>

So how about a couple of drivers I encountered recently. Both were
SUVs, but they could just as well have been driving econo-boxes.

In the first case, I was making a legal lane change and was 80% of the
way into the lane when I noticed the other driver (who was slightly
behind me) in the lane to the right of me (separated by 2 solid white
lines which converged further up the road and turned to a dashed white
line - again, further up the road) crossing into my lane. I honked to
make him aware I was already there. He looked at me - and just kept on
coming.

Now, had I not been paying attention to road conditions (which included
this idiot) an accident (or collision, if you prefer) probably would
have occurred.

How many years should that guy have served in prison?

I say his license should simply be revoked (along with a fine) - not
simply for his oblivious illegal lane change, but for his obstinance in
continuing it when he saw that he was on a collision course.

It seems to me that he expected me to defer to the size of his SUV and
retreat from my nearly completed legal lane change so he could commence
with his.

A week after that happened, I was safely driving in the right lane of a
40 MPH road (2 lanes each way) and was about 1.5 car lengths behind an
SUV in the left lane when that vehicle suddenly swerved into my lane and
came to a complete stop.

For a second or two, I was sure I was going to be unable to avoid
hitting them, but fortunately a conventional sized coupe can stop faster
than an SUV and I was able to do so without hitting him (or her - I
couldn't tell).

Mystified by this behavior I looked around, expecting to see an
ambulance or other emergency vehicle approaching from behind, but there
was none. In fact, there were no other cars anywhere near us. Over the
next few seconds, I pondered whether to go around them, whether to get
out and demand to know WTF they were doing, or some other action when
they simply drove off.

How many years should that driver spend in prison?

I say they should simply pay a fine and lose their license. They're
obviously too dangerous to be on the road.

I have no reason to believe that either of those drivers were drunk -
the first was simply oblivious and overly aggressive. The 2nd was
oblivious and I can only speculate as to why they did what they did, but
my best guess is some soccer mom pulling over to get some unruly brat
under control. Either way, neither of them should be driving and I know
that even if a cop had witnessed either event, the worst that would have
happened to them would have been a citation for reckless driving.

Just get the idiots (sober or otherwise) off the road and we'll all be a
lot safer.

How many people have died due to people like these? Why don't you
crusade against their ilk? I suspect it's because you are one of them,
bald tires and all.

"barking pumpkin" > wrote in message
news
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:20:52 -0400, "Magnulus" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Alot of "accidents" are caused by people reaching down for something or
>>> otherwise being distracted. Are those faultless? I read of one
>>> accident that was caused because a woman dropped a cheeseburger on the
>>> floor of a car. Another case a man was watching a DVD while driving.
>>> Just a good example of why a car should not be a mobile living
>>> room/dining room/entertainment center. And why cupholders in cars need
>>> to be curtailed to the bare minimum (1 per passenger).
>>
>>
>> There are no accidents to speak of on the highways. Almost always
>> somebody did something wrong. Our super-corrupt media is paid by the
>> car makers to call every crash an accident. After all, it wouldn't be
>> good for the car business if car loons were treated as the psychopaths
>> they are.
>>
>
> So how about a couple of drivers I encountered recently. Both were SUVs,
> but they could just as well have been driving econo-boxes.
>
> In the first case, I was making a legal lane change and was 80% of the way
> into the lane when I noticed the other driver (who was slightly behind me)
> in the lane to the right of me (separated by 2 solid white lines which
> converged further up the road and turned to a dashed white line - again,
> further up the road) crossing into my lane. I honked to make him aware I
> was already there. He looked at me - and just kept on coming.
>
> Now, had I not been paying attention to road conditions (which included
> this idiot) an accident (or collision, if you prefer) probably would have
> occurred.
>
> How many years should that guy have served in prison?
>
> I say his license should simply be revoked (along with a fine) - not
> simply for his oblivious illegal lane change, but for his obstinance in
> continuing it when he saw that he was on a collision course.
>
> It seems to me that he expected me to defer to the size of his SUV and
> retreat from my nearly completed legal lane change so he could commence
> with his.
>
> A week after that happened, I was safely driving

These things keep happening to you and of course it is always you who is
driving safely. Maybe you're a ****ing idiot driver causing this to happen.
It always seems to be those SUV's also. I bet you hate SUV's as you putt
putt down the road in your midget mobile.

"I am a MO" > wrote in message
m...
>
>
>
>
> "barking pumpkin" > wrote in message
> news
>> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:20:52 -0400, "Magnulus" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Alot of "accidents" are caused by people reaching down for something
>>>> or otherwise being distracted. Are those faultless? I read of one
>>>> accident that was caused because a woman dropped a cheeseburger on the
>>>> floor of a car. Another case a man was watching a DVD while driving.
>>>> Just a good example of why a car should not be a mobile living
>>>> room/dining room/entertainment center. And why cupholders in cars need
>>>> to be curtailed to the bare minimum (1 per passenger).
>>>
>>>
>>> There are no accidents to speak of on the highways. Almost always
>>> somebody did something wrong. Our super-corrupt media is paid by the
>>> car makers to call every crash an accident. After all, it wouldn't be
>>> good for the car business if car loons were treated as the psychopaths
>>> they are.
>>>
>>
>> So how about a couple of drivers I encountered recently. Both were SUVs,
>> but they could just as well have been driving econo-boxes.
>>
>> In the first case, I was making a legal lane change and was 80% of the
>> way into the lane when I noticed the other driver (who was slightly
>> behind me) in the lane to the right of me (separated by 2 solid white
>> lines which converged further up the road and turned to a dashed white
>> line - again, further up the road) crossing into my lane. I honked to
>> make him aware I was already there. He looked at me - and just kept on
>> coming.
>>
>> Now, had I not been paying attention to road conditions (which included
>> this idiot) an accident (or collision, if you prefer) probably would have
>> occurred.
>>
>> How many years should that guy have served in prison?
>>
>> I say his license should simply be revoked (along with a fine) - not
>> simply for his oblivious illegal lane change, but for his obstinance in
>> continuing it when he saw that he was on a collision course.
>>
>> It seems to me that he expected me to defer to the size of his SUV and
>> retreat from my nearly completed legal lane change so he could commence
>> with his.
>>
>> A week after that happened, I was safely driving
>
> These things keep happening to you and of course it is always you who is
> driving safely. Maybe you're a ****ing idiot driver causing this to
> happen. It always seems to be those SUV's also. I bet you hate SUV's as
> you putt putt down the road in your midget mobile.
>

Do SUV's scare you?

I am a MO wrote:

>
> These things keep happening to you and of course it is always you who is
> driving safely.

I cite 2 examples and you claim this is a habit of mine?

Care to cite any other posts where this has happened? I suppose it's
possible I brought these examples up before and I forgot about it, but
as far as I recall this is the first time I have brought up specific
examples of bad driving that I have witnessed/experienced in this forum.




>Maybe you're a ****ing idiot driver causing this to happen.

How can I cause other drivers to act that way? Is it because I don't
drive a big enough car? It's certainly not an econo-box or a sports car.

What should I have done differently? In the first case, I
out-accelerated the idiot, thus avoiding an accident. In the 2nd case,
I out-braked him

> It always seems to be those SUV's also.

Yes, in the 2 examples I related they both were SUVs, although I did
point out that it could just as well have been econo-boxes, although in
the 2nd story, I was certainly aided by the fact that the SUV couldn't
stop as quickly as I could. An econobox probably would have caused an
accident.


> I bet you hate SUV's

Well, I do dislike them. I don't like driving them and I don't like
driving near them - they block views and are generally slow, however I'm
certainly not in favor of infringing on anyone else's right to buy and
drive them.


> as you putt
> putt down the road in your midget mobile.

Sorry, but my car is hardly a "midget mobile". It ain't huge - it's a
Sebring. Go ahead and criticize it all you want (I know it ain't the
best car on the road, but it's not a midget) and it can out-accelerate
most SUVs and econo-boxes I encounter.

>
>

I am a MO wrote:

>
>
> Do SUV's scare you?
>


No. Idiot drivers who don't look where they're going scare me.