Shoplifting a $159 Jacket: LIFE IN PRISON

[ErnestLynch]

I'll give you one because you're a lazy ignorant . The CDC. 31% of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...factsheet.html

[ErnestLynch]

Here's another one doing some simple math. Of all the people arrested for DWI in 2010, just arrested, since there are multiple more not arrested, as you stated. .007% of the those arrested caused a fatality. Actually it would be slightly less since you can't arrest a dead person. But that amount would be infinitesimal.

.007

So, if it's like you say that a drunk driver has driven, lets say 10 times previously drunk that year. That means.... drunk drivers kill when they get behind the wheel ...

7.428714285714 to the -4exp. In other words.... it's point so many ing zeros that a calculator can't display it decimally.

In other words, if you, or your family get killed by a drunk driver, most consider an act that unlikely to happen, like being struck by lighting and killed, ...7 times...to be an act of god. If you could die 7 times.

Not to mention, that if a completely sober person ran into and killed a drunk driver, statistically that is an alcohol related automobile death. OR, that something else could have been the primary factor....

When you start to melt away the layers, drunk drivers are about as dangerous to the public as ...anything else that causes 10,400 deaths per year. 5% of road fatalities are caused by a drunk driver killing someone other than themselves, which is the vast majority of drunk driving fatalities.

That leaves 520 people a year are killed by a drunk driver that again, is not themselves. 520. And of that 520, some of those are passengers of said drunk driver who often, drunk themselves, willingly got in the car with them.

So, using that 'math thing' again, drunk drivers kill .000001625% of the population each year if you exclude the drunk driver themselves as a death.

.000001625%

The odds are 7 times higher that you will be killed by lightening than by a drunk driver unless that drunk driver is YOU. Then you have a 3.4313 times greater chance of dying than being struck by lightening.

I did another calculation from the CDC website. 48% of those killed were passengers of the drunk driver. Which leaves... lets see 270 people per year are killed in the other car, or as a pedestrian, by a drunk driver.

270 people per year that you could truly call 'innocent victims'. All of this, over 270 people per year.

So, you're odds are about double the 7 times I stated of being killed by lightening as being killed by a drunk driver. 14 times.

AND even with that I was unable to find how many of those were part of that group that the sober person killed the drunk driver in the accident. Remember, it doesn't necessarily have to be the 'drunk drivers' fault to make the statistic of drunk driver 'related' deaths. So it's probably lower than THAT.

Them's the facts using a calculator and the stats from the Centers for Disease Control. Sorry man.

DUI laws are based on myth by tea toting bible thumpers that would bring back prohibition if they could.

The politicians go along with it because it's an income racket for the states and communities. Get a clue.

Hey, watch out...next thing I'll show you how the big 'sex offender' scare is a huge myth as well and how they've used laws against these people to take away YOUR rights without you even being aware of it. You think you have protection from ex post facto, article 1 section 9...well THINK AGAIN...our illustrious Chief Justice Roberts, in his final arguments before the SC before being appointed to the court, made sure that no longer exists.

Like people aren't aware that their 4th amendment rights to illegal search and seizure, have been suspended in the Patriot Act if you live within 100 miles of an international border or the coast, which is most of the population of the US.

God all mighty...wake up people. They're using scare tactics, and lies, with nothing behind it, to make you give up your rights. I've never seen anything like it.

zero tolerance
mandatory sentencing
prisons for profit
'registering' people
dwi 'roadblocks/checkpoints'

Good god...I'm an old fart I guess but I was naive enough to think I'd never see this day...and I was wrong. But I never thought the 'public' would be so...ilinformed and uneducated.

And it's worse than this...there's more. A lot more. Being a free people, in a republic, requires an educated aware public and I just don't think we have that any more. You have to read between the lines, people. Work a calculator, figure the %'s and you see just what a scam much of this stuff is.

[ErnestLynch]

DP

[ErnestLynch]

And a lot of those stats, some 'regions' and cities have a bigger problem than others. Like ours....

I have a theory that all politicians should use when passing laws. The lightning theory. Don't pass a law to protect people from something that they have a higher chance of being killed by lightning. Simple as that.

'The Lightning Law'.

Pass it around.

[TSA]

The lightning law. Will share with family and friends.


Will boutons return after this spanking by lynch?

[ErnestLynch]

He will. I got one thing wrong. The 5% is part of the total not the 31% but it doesn't change things drastically after that since most of the statistical reduction occurs before that. I'll recalculate it when I feel like going through that again. Bottom line is, DWI deaths in the US, barring it not being the driver or passengers of the drunk driver...are insignificant as to the total population. Unless, of course ...it's you or your family. Which is the part they prey on. the emotional part. It statistically is really, when it comes right down to it, an act of god type thing. The odds are outrageous.

It's no excuse to wreck lives legislatively just to collect a buck and soothe the minds of the berieved. It's 'collective punishment'. You get a DWI you're being punished, collectively, for all those drunk drivers who have done all sorts of things. But I ask you this. Since DWI deaths are 31% of the total, where is the 'collective punishment' of everyone else ? Haha...it's coming. It already has. Texting. Which makes more sense than DWI's although a drunk texting is about as bad of a combination as there is. But the texting is the worst part in the studies. It's actually worse, while you're doing it, than being ripped ass drunk at @ .3 something.

My opinion is, from my own experience when I drank...that a person can drive responsibly fairly shcnockered. You're either a responsible person or not. Having a few beers or even a lot..barring too much, shouldn't prohibit you from safely driving under most conditions. As I said, DWI arrests/sentencing the conditions should play a huge role. Driving on the wrong side of the road drunk -vs- 'didn't use a turn signal' are two very different things. Neither here nor there....moving on.

The trend of punishing people for the actions of others collectively as a group rather than on the merits of their actions alone, as our cons uition 'guarantees'...before things like mandatory sentencing...is gone. That's what mandatory sentencing is.And those private prison companies, lobby your senator or representative for stiffer penalties. That's just a fact no matter how they deny it.

We have, in this country, more people in prison, than China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba...you know..those terrible places...combined. But that's all right. Just go on about your way.


It ain't over....

[DMC]

A friend of my brothers got his 3rd DWI and is being sentenced on a felony next month. He's 57, owns a business, 2 school age kids. He got his first one in 1976, the second one in 1980, both in another state. He never thought anything of it and it was just something that happened a long time ago, over 30 years. Well, in Texas, they used to not go back past 12 years. He found out that is no longer the case, they can go back for life. So now he's got this mandatory 4 year thing, how much will be suspended he doesn't know. And he's a convicted felon. He blew .09 after leaving a bar after happy hour. So, be aware, they can now go back for LIFE. So if you've had 2, no matter how long ago, you get another and it's an automatic felony that by law, can't be plead down to a misdemeanor. I don't know. I get the whole 'drunk driving' thing but I'm not too keen on this. Oh well. Sucks to be him.

Dude never learns. It's not like DWI became legal suddenly. If he hit and killed a pedestrian, a child, your child... you'd say he had 2 priors and they did nothing. What's the magic number then? 5?

[DMC]

He will. I got one thing wrong. The 5% is part of the total not the 31% but it doesn't change things drastically after that since most of the statistical reduction occurs before that. I'll recalculate it when I feel like going through that again. Bottom line is, DWI deaths in the US, barring it not being the driver or passengers of the drunk driver...are insignificant as to the total population. Unless, of course ...it's you or your family. Which is the part they prey on. the emotional part. It statistically is really, when it comes right down to it, an act of god type thing. The odds are outrageous.

It's no excuse to wreck lives legislatively just to collect a buck and soothe the minds of the berieved. It's 'collective punishment'. You get a DWI you're being punished, collectively, for all those drunk drivers who have done all sorts of things. But I ask you this. Since DWI deaths are 31% of the total, where is the 'collective punishment' of everyone else ? Haha...it's coming. It already has. Texting. Which makes more sense than DWI's although a drunk texting is about as bad of a combination as there is. But the texting is the worst part in the studies. It's actually worse, while you're doing it, than being ripped as drunk at .3.

The trend of punishing people for the actions of others collectively as a group rather than on the merits of their actions alone, as our cons uition 'guarantees'...before things like mandatory sentencing...is gone. That's what mandatory sentencing is.And those private prison companies, lobby your senator or representative for stiffer penalties. That's just a fact no matter how they deny it.

We have, in this country, more people in prison, than China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba...you know..those terrible places...combined. But that's all right. Just go on about your way.


It ain't over....

Jesus are you defending DWI? lol

[ErnestLynch]

I'm opposed to what they do about it and collectively punishing people when they hurt no one. And I say it's not really the problem people think it is. You can read, right ?

[ErnestLynch]

Jesus are you defending DWI? lol

Let me ask you this. You've texted while driving. That is more dangerous than a person that is well inebriated. But you did it. And don't answer. I know you have. Most everyone has.

[ErnestLynch]

Rigging a car with a red light to alert drivers when to brake, the magazine Car and Driver tested how long it takes to hit the brake when sober, when legally drunk at .08, when reading and e-mail, and when sending a text. The results are scary. Driving 70 miles per hour on a deserted air strip Car and Driver editor Eddie Alterman was slower and slower reacting and braking when e-mailing and texting.
The results:

• Unimpaired: .54 seconds to brake
• Legally drunk: add 4 feet
• Reading e-mail: add 36 feet
• Sending a text: add 70 feet

SO...texting...email...or reading..a map for example..is more dangerous than being legally drunk. IN FACT, being legally drunk is CLOSER to being sober than the others.

Which is pretty much my entire ing point, loser. .08 is nothing. But it can get you in a whole lot of trouble. Most people that kill on the highway are STONE COLD SOBER and OTHER FACTORS play a larger role in auto deaths than DWI. You sir, are just a ing c@#t sheep that buys into everything you hear.



Now, go yourself, asshole.

[DMC]

Let me ask you this. You've texted while driving. That is more dangerous than a person that is well inebriated. But you did it. And don't answer. I know you have. Most everyone has.

There's a difference between a distraction and impairment and the two are not mutually exclusive. Just because you can show that one act is dangerous, it doesn't make the other less dangerous. There are plenty of things that can distract you while driving, but being well inebriated isn't a distraction, it's an impairment. If a doctor paused his surgery to glance at his phone, that could be dangerous. If he was performing the surgery drunk off his ass, that's a completely different story. Are they equal in your eyes?

For the record, I believe using a cell phone at all, except hands free, should be illegal while driving. Texting especially should be. I see it every single day, and you can tell who's doing it because they weave and they have long pauses when the light turns green. You have to honk at them and they look up. Sometimes they just meander over into your lane and you look over and there she is, Iphone in hand staring at it instead of driving. Yeah, that should be the same as DWI imo.

I am against removing freedoms because we never get them back, however when the average person cannot use common ing sense and they don't give a about anyone around them, we lose freedoms as well we should to have a livable society.

[ErnestLynch]

Well, ok then. Lets do a hypothetical here. You got a call. Your child has been hurt. You get in your car and start driving to the hospital. Your cell phone rings. You pick it up. A cop see's you and pulls you over. You try to explain. He cuffs you up. It's the law. No exceptions.

Still believe ?

[ErnestLynch]

Of course you don't. If you do you're lying. That's what our DUI laws are.

[ErnestLynch]

Wassamatter, can't think of anything ? Of course you can't. Because you're just another of the millions of morons of this nation that get the wool pulled over their eyes over and over and over. Don't worry, if it doesn't catch up to you it'll catch up to your children..or theirs. Hey it's easy to destroy a country. All of you 'responsible' types can just live in this burned down mother er and call it heaven all you want. Enjoy. *I* remember when people weren't whining C@NTS and lived freely and people like you...just lived on the edges of society and sucked in the closet.

[ErnestLynch]

While I'm at it boy, read my signature. Again, go your punk ass self.

[DMC]

Rigging a car with a red light to alert drivers when to brake, the magazine Car and Driver tested how long it takes to hit the brake when sober, when legally drunk at .08, when reading and e-mail, and when sending a text. The results are scary. Driving 70 miles per hour on a deserted air strip Car and Driver editor Eddie Alterman was slower and slower reacting and braking when e-mailing and texting.
The results:

• Unimpaired: .54 seconds to brake
• Legally drunk: add 4 feet
• Reading e-mail: add 36 feet
• Sending a text: add 70 feet

SO...texting...email...or reading..a map for example..is more dangerous than being legally drunk. IN FACT, being legally drunk is CLOSER to being sober than the others.

Which is pretty much my entire ing point, loser. .08 is nothing. But it can get you in a whole lot of trouble. Most people that kill on the highway are STONE COLD SOBER and OTHER FACTORS play a larger role in auto deaths than DWI. You sir, are just a ing c@#t sheep that buys into everything you here.



Now, go yourself, asshole.

Don't equivocate "legally drunk" with "well inebriated". The two are different, even under the law. You used "well inebriated" in your above scenario then went to "legally drunk". How about when a legally intoxicated person texts, or do intoxicated people not do that because they drive so carefully when they drink?

Also, if you knew your next DWI was going to be a felony, why would you drink and drive?

When your friend got his first two DWIs, the legal level was not .08. In fact, in 1976 the legal limit had just been lowered from .15 to .10. Your friend probably got hit on that move. Lesson learned, right? In the early 1980's, the limit was reduced to .08. He gets another DUI just 4 years after his last one.

I don't know about that guy you're referring to, but I can tell you I've been alive for 46 years and I've never gotten a DUI, not once. I certainly haven't gotten two, and three is right out.

Regardless how ty you think it is, how petty, it didn't sneak up on him. Getting a DUI for most is like finding a roach in your kitchen, you know damn well it's not the only one there. Dude drove intoxicated probably dozens if not hundreds of times to get 3 DUIs, and since you've not posted his BAC for the first two offenses, it's possible he was totally ing wasted and it makes me wonder why he was stopped in the 1st place. , I haven't been stopped by a cop 3 times in 30 years.

And being drunk isn't closer to being sober than being distracted. You don't read a map for your entire trip. You don't text for your entire trip. When you get into a vehicle intoxicated, you're setting out on the full trip, impaired. At that moment it's more important to you that you drive than avoid the risk of killing yourself or others, or going to jail. It's a free choice, just not free of consequences.

[DMC]

Well, ok then. Lets do a hypothetical here. You got a call. Your child has been hurt. You get in your car and start driving to the hospital. Your cell phone rings. You pick it up. A cop see's you and pulls you over. You try to explain. He cuffs you up. It's the law. No exceptions.

Still believe ?

Hands free. He'd get me for speeding as well. It happens all the time, that's why they say "is there an emergency"? There's no emergency to drive drunk though, unless we're under attack by aliens and you have the keys and you're in the drivers seat and at that time you can drive, I'll take my chances.

[ErnestLynch]

Says who. Lets say your sitting at your house, had a few, blow .08. Same thing as your 'hands free' example. And we're still beating around the bush here. HAVE YOU TEXTED WHILE DRIVING ? EVER ?

And 'I'll take my chances' ain't a ing answer. What a nutjob. Try to focus.

[DMC]

Wassamatter, can't think of anything ? Of course you can't. Because you're just another of the millions of morons of this nation that get the wool pulled over their eyes over and over and over. Don't worry, if it doesn't catch up to you it'll catch up to your children..or theirs. Hey it's easy to destroy a country. All of you 'responsible' types can just live in this burned down mother er and call it heaven all you want. Enjoy. *I* remember when people weren't whining C@NTS and lived freely and people like you...just lived on the edges of society and sucked in the closet.

Yeah, I've gotten the wool over my eyes. I should wake up and realize driving drunk is ok, because it's Amurica and you cannot stop drinking.

[DMC]

Says who. Lets say your sitting at your house, had a few, blow .08. Same thing as your 'hands free' example. And we're still beating around the bush here. HAVE YOU TEXTED WHILE DRIVING ? EVER ?

911 is your friend. You'll have paramedics at your house before you can get to the hospital in your car, with your drunk ass.

Someone who puts a child in a car and drives drunk is endangering them even more. You do realize we have ambulances, right?

I've never texted while driving. I have voice command texting, so I can both hear and respond to text messages without picking up a phone. Regardless, whether or not I've done it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's dangerous. You're quickly running the full course on fallacies however.

DWI is ok because Texting is bad
DWI is ok because you've texted and drove
DWI is ok because your child could get hurt
DWI is ok because you drive better when drunk

Just admit you're an alcoholic and have to get behind the wheel when you drink and we can proceed.

[ElNono]

I 've never texted while driving. Heck, don't even have a texting plan on my phone.

[ErnestLynch]

I don't drink chump. At all. I believe people should be treated fairly, even if it's not me. I believe people should be treated as our cons ution guarantees, on the merits of their own cir stances and should not be punished for something someone else did. Tough concept I guess. No wonder our nation is dying a slow death.

[ErnestLynch]

I 've never texted while driving. Heck, don't even have a texting plan on my phone.

STFU...I didn't ask you.

[DMC]

I don't drink chump. At all. I believe people should be treated fairly, even if it's not me. I believe people should be treated as our cons ution guarantees, on the merits of their own cir stances and should not be punished for something someone else did. Tough concept I guess. No wonder our nation is dying a slow death.

Your friend was treated fairly. He got two warnings. He's an idiot, maybe you should consider that.