You're assuming that ALL people all like to go out together to drink. Some people like to go out by themselves and drink, which, if you're tired of being around people and having to deal with the shenanigans, I don't find it any surprise why you'd want to be alone, and why you'd want to drink, for that matter.

True, but the thing is, you'd have to wait for a person to get a DUI before you installed a breathalyzer in their car, if not take their license away permanently. Of course, at that point, it's not really any longer your car, and the government's invaded it.

But I'm saying, if you REALLY wanted to be a communist, but REALLY want to prevent drunk driving, you could have breathalyzers installed in ALL cars, regardless of whether a person has committed DUI or not. You're pre-empting the offense before the person even has a chance to commit it. After all, we're interested in preventative measures, right? Or do we all really want to sit around and wait for someone to act like an idiot before we actually do something about them?

See where I'm saying how the law can become really invasive, and we lose certain freedoms and liberties?

I don't know if you ever took any political science classes, but most people would argue that you necessarily lose certain "liberties" whenever you live in any society. Otherwise, you have anarchy. Is driving a freedom? Is it a civil liberty? You're free to drive and do what you want so long as it doesn't hurt others. Driving drunk and putting the lives of other people in jeopardy is not a liberty nor freedom.

Furthermore, you could argue that laws forcing you to wear seat belts (which I believe are enforced in all 50 states) is invasive. If not wearing a seat belt was dangerous only to the driver, then I would have no problem with people not wearing seat belts. However, numerous times people have been killed by people flying through cars and slamming into others after a head-on collision. Thus, we have seat belt laws.

I really don't see how having breathalysers is substantially different than seat belts in terms of invasiveness. In fact, I'm not quite sure why there are no mandatory breathalyser laws. If I had to guess, I would say it's because there's a powerful alcohol lobby, and many drunks in Congress. I suppose people think breathalysers are a nuisance, until someone they know is killed by a drunk driver...

And you're right, there is no way to 100% stop drunk drivers, but there are steps that can and should be done to minimize the damage they do.

-avatar!

On my way home town just a bit ago, I remembered a story that kind of lends itself to this discussion.

When I was in grade school (4th~6th grade, can't remember the exact year/grade) a drunk driver plowed into my father work truck outside our house - which was parked in the drive way and not on the side of the road. I remember waking up to the loud boom at like 2 in the morning. Anyway, the guy DID NOT receive a DUI. Why? The local fire station was the first on the scene and they removed his open/unopened containers of alcohol from his truck and put them on our back porch (which we discovered the following day) before the cops came because "he" was their "buddy." So, yeah, Bernhardt is right when there are *some* public servants that are corrupt. Still, I think *most* people in these positions are honest people.

However, because the above, to this day I do not support the local fire department. I get a donation request in the mail? Throw it away. They're out in the middle of the road doing a boot drive? I take the back road. If it makes me a jerk, so be it, but I don't consider them an honest organization. Also, I thought it was unfair how they practically crucified the former fire chief over a lame ass, redneck/white trash argument that started at the last gun raffle.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/25/us/oklaho … index.html

"Adacia Chambers is being held in jail on four counts of second-degree murder for Saturday's deadly crash, which killed four people and injured dozens more. If convicted, she could face life in prison, police said."

Good! I hope she gets life in prison. Watch her get it, and then her lawyers will appeal and appeal and appeal...  Hell, here in the USA there are NUMEROUS soulless lawyers waiting to "help" (which is there way of saying "ka-ching!")
http://www.drunkdrivinglaws.org/duiappeals.html

These lawyers are the lowest of the low. So, what circle of hell would Dante place them in?

Sad thing is this woman already lawyered up and her "excuse" is pretty sad.

Plenty of people suffer from her supposed infliction but they don't run cars into people and kill them.

Maybe it wasn't alcohol, but it may have been other drugs. Still, DUI is not limited to alcohol. Of course her attorney is blabbing, that's what attorneys do when lots of $$$ is on the line.

If she wasn't sober, throw her a** in the slammer.

Seventh and up, depending.

Funny, I'm actually reading the Divine Comedy right now.

All of it, or just Inferno? Also, make sure you have some notes to follow. It's mostly a political allegory after all!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/us/oklaho … nto-crowd/

"Based upon the Probable Cause Affidavit and information presented by the police, the state believes the acts alleged demonstrate a depraved mind and indifference to human life. The evidence suggests this was an intentional act, not an accident."

OK, so even worse than a drunk driver! She apparently purposely did this!! Of course, the father just made a statement saying she is a "kind, loving, caring person" -who you know, just happens to have purposely sped into people during a parade, killing four and maiming over a dozen.

The article also clearly states that she had mental health issues, and treatment of mental health is notoriously bad in the US (and a lot of other countries). She could very well have been a kind, loving, and caring person, but if she was suffering from some kind of mental affliction, there's no telling what can happen.

What if she had taken a gun and started shooting people? Would all of a sudden she not be seen in the same light? How is that any different than purposely slamming your into a crowd of people? I think the "mental health" issue is true for really any murderer. You can't purposely want to kill someone you've never had a grudge against, someone you've never met, and be sane. This does not excuse her actions. She's a danger to society.

Absolutely, I'm not denying that.
I'm just saying, people who are mentally unstable are not evil, heartless creatures.

In general, of course I absolutely agree. In her particular case, I would argue she certainly appears to be evil and heartless.

Maybe I can shed some light on your guys-es argument.

I agree with you both... and while I'm not looking for sympathy I'm pretty sure my last thread (as well as a few threads in the past) have probably made it clear that I have problems.

Ramza was correct, I am bipolar.

The reason I'm saying this is while I have problems with myself, get frustrated with how I "operate" and other worldly problems other people would shrug off I'm sorry, I still feel there is NO EXCUSE to make your problem someone else's problem with a selfish act (key words) such as this or something like a shooting.

I'd like to think that if I did something dumb like this I'd accept responsibility for it... but at the same time you kind of have to acknowledge it's human nature to try and weasel out of things (responsibilities), especially when your freedom is on the line.

Most people have some issues in their life, and in fact a huge percentage of the world's population suffers from some sort of mental illness, be it OCD, ADHD, autism, bipolar disorder, etc. and in all these cases it can be extremely mild, or quite severe.
And yes, when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar, there's often a knee jerk reaction to say it wasn't you, when clearly it was. All that said, in the 99.99% of cases people know right from wrong. There are of course debates about this, but in rare cases when people clearly don't know right from wrong is when they have dementia or something of that nature. In this case, she just didn't care.