by RoyalBlue »
11 Nov 2008 08:27
Dirk Gently But one of the effects of alcohol is to massively impair your judgement - that same effect that makes you unsafe to drive makes you think you are safe and to not listen to reason.
If anyone this pissed was capable of sensible, rational thought then they'd never get into a car drunk, except for the paradox above.
Incidentally, that's why the hang 'em and flog' em brigade are misguided - no-one who drives drunk is rational enough to think about the consequences, so the severity of the punishment has no deterrent effect whatsoever. It's really more about a lust for revenge than a deterrent.
I think you miss the point. The barstewards at some point start off sober and drive their car (a potentially lethal weapon) to where they start drinking. They then make the conscious decision to drink and carry on drinking. They do so knowing that they have a car outside and that drinking does impair their judgement.
IMO it is the shame that our legislators decided to take the reality out of the situation by categorising this particular offence as 'causing death by dangerous driving' when at the very least it should be regarded as manslaughter.
I wonder whether those who leap to this 'death causer's' defence, questioning the fairness of what some are saying, would be quite as supportive if it had been their own kids who had been killed by his 'dangerous driving'?
rabidbee brendywendy but if you take the premeditated action of drinking when you know youll be driving, and then kill someone, i do see that as comparable to murder
Although, of course, alcohol stops you actually being able to reason straight.
But if you get drunk and then kill someone with a knife that you picked up, what do you get done for?
Merely 'Causing death by careless use of a knife'? I think not!!
handbags_harris I'd be happy for a player with a conviction of some sort to play for the club provided they have enough ability to improve the side. After all, they'll have served their time, and will be back out to rebuild their life. I also don't remember anybody on this thread saying much about sacking Dave Kitson after his drink driving conviction which, if he was indeed over the limit, could have lead to a similar scenario...
If you don't remember it, I would suggest you revisit for a look. I'm pretty sure there were some on here giving him quite a bit of stick and suggesting he got off way too lightly. Then there were the drink drive liberals who were saying things like 'just because he refused a test doesn't mean he had been drinking/was over the limit'.