grr

[yendi]

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/0902/19dui.html

The nutshell desription -- an asshole, while driving drunk, killed three children and their mother (and then attempted to flee the scene).

That there are assholes who shouldn't walk the face of the earth bothers me, but is something I already knew, alas.

What really shocks me is the final sentence: "He was expected to be booked for vehicular manslaughter."

Manslaughter? Fuck that. Driving while drunk is the same as firing a gun randomly into a crowd. If no one dies, it's sheer dumb luck. But if anyone does, it's murder. Plain and simple. I've got lots of room for moral grey areas. But not on this topic.

Comments

*growls in anger*

[branwynelf.livejournal.com]

Driving while drunk is the same as firing a gun randomly into a crowd. If no one dies, it's sheer dumb luck. But if anyone does, it's murder.

I completely agree.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you.

But. The law doesn't. In georgia if you kill someone in vehicle accident, you may get in some trouble for your blood alchohol content, but just killing someone isn't a very big deal. You will lose your license for a year or two, but you can get it back with an appeal. Jail time is highly unlikely, unless you have been ruled a habitual offender before the fatal accident. 43,000 people die every year in traffic accidents, and we as a society don't care enough to even take away the person at fault's license to drive.
The person in the story you linked may get in trouble for blood alchohol, and for leaving the scene of the accident, but the dead family will just be a footnote in the sentencing phase of those other two charges. I think it's backwards. He should be tried for the dead people, and the alchohol content and running away should be the footnotes.

[yendi]

Oh, I know the law doesn't agree. But I blame that on lawmakers, who damned well can change it (although that would mean a drastic reduction in bribes donations from the liquor industry, of course).

Although I think an enterprising DA could (and should) attempt to try this as a murder charge -- it could well set a precedent that the courts would uphold.

[kajivar]

I agree. It's murder. Anyone who drinks and then drives is willfully taking a dangerous weapon and using it with the knowledge that someone might die.

He tried to flee the scene. He knew what he had done, and tried to escape the reprecussions. He knows he's a murderer.

[terracinque.livejournal.com]

I'm glad that didn't happen in Atlanta. When I first saw your link and the domain I was concerned that it had. Not that it couldn't have happened here...

I guess I'm in an argumentative mood today, but while reprehensible, it's not murder. A necessary element of a charge of murder is the intent to kill someone, and whatever else you want to say about this guy, you won't convince me he meant to kill that family. What we have here is some sort of manslaughter. Voluntary, I'm guessing.

Doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished as severely as a murderer, of course.

[amberfox.livejournal.com]

Second degree murder doesn't require maliciousness, just reckless indifference. Which I think could be easily assumed in drunk driving cases.

[yendi]

Exactly!

[yendi]

Thing is, a reasonable man could know that driving drunk, like firing into a crowd, could well kill someone. In almost any case where someone shoots someone, and then uses a defense of "I was just trying to scare him" or somesuch, it's thrown out as bullshit. It should be thrown out here, too. See Amberfox's reply -- doing something that's reasonably likely to kill someone, regardless of actual intent, is a form of murder.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

Yes, the only good defense for firing a gun at a person, and if the bullet strikes them, you were firing at them, is that you were afraid for your life, or in some states you were afraid for someone else's life. One state lets you shoot in defense of your property. But if it's a car, "oops" is a valid defense, and "I thought he'd get out of my way" will work too.

And some people want guns licensed like cars.

Alaska's take

[crimmycat.livejournal.com]

In all, 11 bills signed into law by Gov. Tony Knowles took effect Monday.

Among them was a new law sponsored by Rep. Norm Roke-berg, R-Anchorage, to increase fines for first-offense drunken driving from $250 to $1,500.

House Bill 4 also requires authorities to seize vehicles used in felony drunken driving cases. The law also increases the jail term for killing someone in a drunken-driving crash from five years to seven.

House Bill 330, sponsored by the House Judiciary Committee, makes it a felony to supply alcohol to a minor if the underage drinker then seriously hurts or kills someone. It takes effect in 90 days.

Legislators rejected a provision in Rokeberg's bill to increase sentences for most other drunken-driving offenses. It would have also required alcohol treatment in prison.

personally, I back up the statement up here - the intent necessary to a criminal charge is provided by the act of getting into a car when drunk.

[morenasangre.livejournal.com]

But...you're expecting someone to acknowledge personal responsibility. We don't have that in this country anymore. It's probably the alcohol company's fault for making the booze or the driver's license bureau for giving him a license, or the car company's fault for making the car.

I believe you. I agree with you. The man should be held completely responsible for his evil and also shitty actions. But we don't have personal responsiblity anymore - heck, we don't have 'wrong' any more, just bad upbringings, bad influences, and mental illness.

Stupid, stupid people. :-(