-er, me, by way of Tyrion LannisterI drink, and I cut things.
Personally, I tend to agree with what you are saying; personal responsibility is the right approach. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way in the legal system.Clip wrote:I'll admit that I don't know the circumstances and I can't make that call. I'm not sure if the sender was told prior to the driver driving or by the driver during that he was, in fact, driving. Still, I'm of the opinion that the responsibility lies with the driver alone. Lawyers are another matter, some of them can't be controlled
I can agree that party hosts should be responsible when underage guests are served alcohol and later drive, but I think it's a gray area when everyone is of legal age. It is the host's or the bar's responsibility to cut someone off if they've had enough and arrange for them to sober up or to arrange transportation, but I think their responsibility ends at the door. In some ways, I wonder if I prefer people to have common sense and not try to pass the buck,or if it's just me trying to wash my hands of the situation.
Sage words, on any given day even a good driver can make a mistake and other drivers act to avoid an accident. It is a much safer road with all drivers paying complete attention to driving defensively and looking out for one another.defenestrate wrote:I rarely operate a cell when driving, and when I have it has always taken second place to paying attention to the road. Between being young and dumb once, I also have more driving under my belt than a lot of folks (both personal and professional under all manner of conditions), and I have avoided a ton of accidents with people who were paying more attention to things other than their driving. I still am not perfect, but I have learned to give myself and others some room for error whenever possible, something that texting would often make more difficult. I agree that driving should be a right, but there are so many oblivious, inexperienced and downright incapable drivers that I don't think there is a good one-size-fits-all approach to this.
I heard the guy in the topic got 2 years. It's lousy, but he killed someone because his phone was too **** important to watch the road. I have heard of many other cases, but in terms of being a big legal story this is fairly recent.
If you look at the law like this then I guess in your eyes whatever you feel that you need to do is a right. So if someone pisses you off, then just shoot them.FroOchie wrote:I understand that the Government says it's a privilege as I understand you're taking their word without question. What I'm saying is that you should question the premise of that whole scenario.
Easy to say unless you're the one with the missing leg--though I do agree that this one is a stretch, could be the the the sender is joined to compel access to her phone and testimony too.jzmtl wrote:Been done before doesn't make it right, it doesn't matter if she knew the other party is driving or not, just out of control lawyers who would do anything for a buck.
I am not sure what you mean jzmtl. I am not out for blood and have no axe to grind.jzmtl wrote:Maybe, but any involved person's viewpoint is even more skewed because they are out for blood and wants to drag down anyone they can, as you and BAL's post above have already demonstrated.
BINGO. Great comments Anonymous.Anonymous wrote:I can't believe some of the people in this thread. It's pretty obvious that some people cannot grasp the severity of murder even if it wasn't intentional. If you asked these same people how they would feel if I got blackout drunk and murdered someone their opinion would change if I had to guess....even if I didn't mean to murder the person.
Maybe some of the people are guilty of texting and driving and are just trying to justify it.