Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Ironbar, Dec 17, 2012.
Driver charged with DUI Marijuana after deadly crash in Vancouve - KPTV - FOX 12
Yup, nobody used pot before it was legal At least people don't drink and dri----nevermind.
Only time will tell if the new law as any effect on the number of incidents like this, all of which are horrible.
As we are facing potential reduction of our 2nd amendment rights, this article in the local news struck me as sad and quite a dichotomy.
Suspect in East Mill Plain pedestrian death appears in court | The Columbian
"A 47-year-old Milwaukie, Ore., man appeared today in Clark County Superior Court on suspicion of striking and killing a 62-year-old pedestrian Monday with his pickup truck while driving under the influence of marijuana....."
Who knows if this happened because of the recent laws legalizing pot, but it sure makes me wonder how those on both sides of the 2nd Amendment discussion would land on this new law and its potential impact on loss of life? I have my feelings and they aren't complementary to those wanting to take away our rights to keep and bear arms.
Driving under the influence is driving under the influence.
Always has been illegal. Always will be.
That's nothing new.
The only comparison is that he chose to violate the law and his irresponsibility resulted in the death of an innocent human. Banning guns, in any form, is not going to bring back responsibility. Murder has been illegal since the beginning of society, but no law or punishment has curbed the behavior. The culture of not being responsible for your own actions has only increased the per-capita murders. No matter what law makers do they won't be able to legislate stupid or crazy.
And I hope they nail the guys a$$ to the wall! No different than someone drunk driving.
However, I am wondering what this has to do with the 2nd A.
While I don't personally use pot or even have strong feelings on it one way or the other; I'm a little disappointed in the arrest. If I'm reading it correctly the 'victim' would have been at fault because he didn't use a signal light to cross the road and stepped out into traffic but because the driver was believed to be under the influence at the time he was at fault. The driver is now going to face jail time and a civil lawsuit over something that really was the pedestrians fault. I don't think justice is being served here.
If you're DUI, your DUI and should be prosecuted for it regardless. There have been many times where someone's been arrested for alcohol related DUI because something happened that was not their fault and then they got "uncovered" and arrested. I don't have any sympathy for anyone who is DUI.
To me it has to do with what I conclude is a new law that will enable more deaths due to others negligence, and it was likely supported by the more liberal left. Based on this assumption of mine, then I really struggle with the left's view on one of our rights. That's it, just another perspective in putting the puzzle pcs together for me. I've learned a long time ago not to confuse logic with reality, but I still muse at it sometimes.
Sorry if this didn't meet with your ideas of a discussion around what is happening with our 2nd amendment rights. The moderators are free to remove it as they see fit.
I agree completely, but I don't hear anyone speaking out about the legality of using the substance in this case. Shooting someone outside of legally protecting oneself or another's, is also illegal, but look at what the response has been.
This is my point exactly, two terrible incidences that ended in loss of life, and in my opinion dealing with two contributing objects, and yet a very different reaction to each.
Just my musings.
You guys are missing the point, we need to ban CARS. Weed and booze are very safe and medicinal.
Don't have the energy to blow holes in every other sentence of this article. Doesn't pass the smell test.
Ic the peep is driving impaired, it doesn't matter what he used to achieve that state. You can be cited for impaired driving if you are too sleepy.
The deceased has significant responsibility for their own safety of course, but the pedestrian also has reasonable expectations that vehicle operators are competent an unimpaired.
Fine cite him for DUI but making him responsible for the death of a pedestrian that otherwise would have been at fault strikes me as out of line.
How do they know he was high? Maybe the person got high a week
ago but it is still in his system.
I think some of us are missing the point the OP is trying to make. He is saying now that weed is legal in Washington, there is gonna be possibly more mishaps, injuries & or deaths. Just as how firearms are obviously legal & should be, but with them there are sometimes more mishaps, injuries & or deaths. Point is Freedom sometimes has a price but its worth it, considering the other alternative of a government taking away your Freedom.
No I don't think prohibition is the answer, just like I don't think restricting the 2nd amendment severely is the answer. For me it's simple, the person is responsible for a loss of life due to his/her actions, and it's not the tools or implements that in no way affect the individual's ability. For mind altering substances, it gets even worse as they do impact the person's ability to think straight. So why would a certain group support legalizing pot not be up in arms after someone dies from that vs these terrible shootings? I'm looking for logic where none seems to exist.
Charges dropped in Vancouver pedestrian fatal | kgw.com Portland