Mags embarrassing themselves yet again

[Dunder Mifflin]

Defending murderers now drunk drivers. They really have no shame do they?

 

[marcusblackcat]

I've always said that is the biggest problem with the drink driving law, the deterrent is not enough, I don't believe anyone gets in a car drunk intending to run someone over and kill them, however if you have the same person drinks 10 pints drives home and crashes in to a lamppost he will get banned and fined and possibly community service, if the same person does exactly the same thing but this time someone is stood in front of the lamppost and they die he goes to jail.
The bloke in question has done exactly the same thing both times, the first time no-one dies but because of his actions they could have so the sentence should be the same, if it was there would be a lot less drunk drivers on the road.
To me it's like going out with a loaded gun and just firing randomly, you might not intend to hit anyone but there's a good chance you will

Unless his dad is a rich councillor of course (experience talking there)

 

[Magnet]

I've always said that is the biggest problem with the drink driving law, the deterrent is not enough, I don't believe anyone gets in a car drunk intending to run someone over and kill them, however if you have the same person drinks 10 pints drives home and crashes in to a lamppost he will get banned and fined and possibly community service, if the same person does exactly the same thing but this time someone is stood in front of the lamppost and they die he goes to jail.
The bloke in question has done exactly the same thing both times, the first time no-one dies but because of his actions they could have so the sentence should be the same, if it was there would be a lot less drunk drivers on the road.
To me it's like going out with a loaded gun and just firing randomly, you might not intend to hit anyone but there's a good chance you will

A good example.

If someone randomly shoots a gun and kills someone he would be charged with murder.

If someone randomly shoots a gun but doesn’t kill anyone or hits anyone should he also be charged with murder?

No.

It’s the same with every criminal offence. To sentence someone the Court takes into account what actually happened as well as what might have happened. Same applies here. That’s all I’m doing before forming a final opinion. A few of you seem to think I don’t think it’s a bad offence. You’re wrong, I do. Through my job I have come across exactly this and other criminal offences hundreds of times. Through that experience I have learned it is always necessary to get as full a picture as you can before finalising an opinion. That’s all I’m doing. There are differing degrees of ‘bad’ and all I’m doing is waiting for some more facts which will come out and then deciding for my self how bad this is.

 

[Smug in Boots]

Who is talking about “wiggle room”?

Just a simple case of getting all the facts before forming a final view rather than jumping in with both feet and forming a view based on only part of the relevant information. Bad is bad but as with everything there are degrees of bad. As with my example before I would take a much harsher view on someone who is 3 or 4 times the limit than someone who was just over the limit. They are both bad but one is clearly much worse than the other.

You're wrong in this case.

Drink driving is classed alongside 'driving with no insurance' and is an 'absolute' offence. You're not taken to court unless you're guilty.

What you're confused about is that your opinion matters when it doesn't. As other people have said they've made a judgement on the basis that he's been legally drunk in charge of a moving vehicle.

Guilt doesn't depend on the degree of drunkness or how long you've been driving without insurance, whether it's a day or a decade.

Your judgement is only of any interest to yourself, no matter how many times you go on repeating it.

 

[Smug in Boots]

A good example.
If someone randomly shoots a gun and kills someone he would be charged with murder. If someone randomly shoots a gun but doesn’t kill anyone or hits anyone should he also be charged with murder? No.
It’s the same with every criminal offence. To sentence someone the Court takes into account what actually happened as well as what might have happened. Same applies here. That’s all I’m doing before forming a final opinion. A few of you seem to think I don’t think it’s a bad offence. You’re wrong, I do. Through my job I have come across exactly this and other criminal offences hundreds of times

Absolute nonsense.

 

[Magnet]

You're wrong in this case.

Drink driving is classed alongside 'driving with no insurance' and is an 'absolute' offence. You're not taken to court unless you're guilty.

What you're confused about is that your opinion matters when it doesn't. As other people have said they've made a judgement on the basis that he's been legally drunk in charge of a moving vehicle.

Guilt doesn't depend on the degree of drunkness or how long you've been driving without insurance, whether it's a day or a decade.

Your judgement is only of any interest to yourself, no matter how many times you go on repeating it.

You’re right on your point but if that is the case why don’t all drink/drive offenders get the same punishment? It’s because there are varying degrees of how bad bad is. With no other relevant facts eg crash, injury etc I will view someone who is 3 to 4 times over the limit as a much worse offender than somebody just over the limit.

I know my opinion is my opinion but as with everybody else’s opinion it does count if to nobody else but to me.

I will leave it at that as you rightly say things are getting repeated and that’s just wasting everyone’s time including mine.

 

[E.T. Fairfax]

You’re right on your point but if that is the case why don’t all drink/drive offenders get the same punishment? It’s because there are varying degrees of how bad bad is. With no other relevant facts eg crash, injury etc I will view someone who is 3 to 4 times over the limit as a much worse offender than somebody just over the limit.

I know my opinion is my opinion but as with everybody else’s opinion it does count if to nobody else but to me.

I will leave it at that as you rightly say things are getting repeated and that’s just wasting everyone’s time including mine.

So what you're saying is drunk drivers should be rewarded????

 

[Magnet]

So what you're saying is drunk drivers should be rewarded????

No. Not so long as we are using the English language. I’ve never said that nor suggested that.

 

[E.T. Fairfax]

No. Not so long as we are using the English language. I’ve never said that nor suggested that.

They should be given more vodka AND cake?

 

[Smug in Boots]

You’re right on your point but if that is the case why don’t all drink/drive offenders get the same punishment? It’s because there are varying degrees of how bad bad is. With no other relevant facts eg crash, injury etc I will view someone who is 3 to 4 times over the limit as a much worse offender than somebody just over the limit.

I know my opinion is my opinion but as with everybody else’s opinion it does count if to nobody else but to me.

I will leave it at that as you rightly say things are getting repeated and that’s just wasting everyone’s time including mine.

Someone who is 'just' over the 35 limit isn't charged.

You have to be deemed incapable of safely driving a vehicle to be taken to court.

In that case you're guilty irrespective of how that alcohol affects you.

It's not a question of opinion.

 

[E.T. Fairfax]

If PJ from PJ and Duncan can somehow manage, not only continue, but to continue and thrive after his driving 'misdemeanors'* then Joelinton can still play his footy and be hero worshipped then I suppose.

* Actually was caught doing 127mph a while ago and also causing an accident involving 2 other vehicles whilst being twice over the drink driving limit a few years back. Bloke doesnt deserve to act like a clown with his sidekick, producing 3rd rate tv and somehow still earn millions in the process.

 

[Magnet]

Someone who is 'just' over the 35 limit isn't charged.

You have to be deemed incapable of safely driving a vehicle to be taken to court.

In that case you're guilty irrespective of how that alcohol affects you.

It's not a question of opinion.

I am aware that being literally over the limit would usually not result in a prosecution. My reference to the limit is to the one where people are charged although I accept that i didn’t make that clear.

Also if you over that limit then you are charged there is no requirement for a subjective opinion to be made by the police that the person is ‘deemed to be incapable of safely driving a vehicle’ (as far as I am aware) before that person is charged. As you said before it is an absolute offence ie if you are over the ‘charging’ limit then you are charged.

Course of Action by Breath Test Result
35 or below = Suspect will not be charged
between 36 and below 40 = Suspect should be released without caution or charge (in serious cases, back calculation is considered)
40 or above = Suspect will be charged accordingly


Anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is up to them as to what they base it on but for the reasons mentioned I’ll wait until the court case and the facts come out before forming my view.

 

[Smug in Boots]

I am aware that being literally over the limit would usually not result in a prosecution. My reference to the limit is to the one where people are charged although I accept that i didn’t make that clear.

Also if you over that limit then you are charged there is no requirement for a subjective opinion to be made by the police that the person is ‘deemed to be incapable of safely driving a vehicle’ (as far as I am aware) before that person is charged. As you said before it is an absolute offence ie if you are over the ‘charging’ limit then you are charged.

Course of Action by Breath Test Result
35 or below = Suspect will not be charged
between 36 and below 40 = Suspect should be released without caution or charge (in serious cases, back calculation is considered)
40 or above = Suspect will be charged accordingly


Anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is up to them as to what they base it on but for the reasons mentioned I’ll wait until the court case and the facts come out before forming my view.

It's not an opinion or a point of view, he's been arrested and charged for being drunk in charge of a vehicle.

They're the only relevant facts, anything else is waffle.

 

[Iain]

A good example.

If someone randomly shoots a gun and kills someone he would be charged with murder.

If someone randomly shoots a gun but doesn’t kill anyone or hits anyone should he also be charged with murder?

No.

It’s the same with every criminal offence. To sentence someone the Court takes into account what actually happened as well as what might have happened. Same applies here. That’s all I’m doing before forming a final opinion. A few of you seem to think I don’t think it’s a bad offence. You’re wrong, I do. Through my job I have come across exactly this and other criminal offences hundreds of times. Through that experience I have learned it is always necessary to get as full a picture as you can before finalising an opinion. That’s all I’m doing. There are differing degrees of ‘bad’ and all I’m doing is waiting for some more facts which will come out and then deciding for my self how bad this is.

No but he should be charged with attempted murder for randomly firing a gun in a public place , so anyone drink driving should be charged with attempting to cause death by dangerous driving

 

[123Daveyboy]

Who is talking about “wiggle room”?







Just a simple case of getting all the facts before forming a final view rather than jumping in with both feet and forming a view based on only part of the relevant information. Bad is bad but as with everything there are degrees of bad. As with my example before I would take a much harsher view on someone who is 3 or 4 times the limit than someone who was just over the limit. They are both bad but one is clearly much worse than the other.

Drink driving now is much worse than it was say 40 50 years ago. Then it was almost accepted. Whereas now don't drive with drink or drugs is

No but he should be charged with attempted murder for randomly firing a gun in a public place , so anyone drink driving should be charged with attempting to cause death by dangerous driving

I go to my local market place at 3am and fire my gun [ don't own a gun ] into the sky not a soul in sight. You think I should be charged with attempted murder.

 

[Riever]

Drink driving now is much worse than it was say 40 50 years ago. Then it was almost accepted. Whereas now don't drive with drink or drugs is
I go to my local market place at 3am and fire my gun [ don't own a gun ] into the sky not a soul in sight. You think I should be charged with attempted murder.

My Dad decided to give up his car when they brought in a rule limiting drink driving to 5 pints - I still remember a "5 is plenty" campaign on the TV.

 

[Dunder Mifflin]

Is this dullard still trying to defend him

 

[Dunder Mifflin]

Where’s the drink driving supporting mag moderator today?

 

[Blond Bombshell]

Where’s the drink driving supporting mag moderator today?

Pizzed

 

[Dunder Mifflin]

Pizzed

Probably in nick for drink driving