Facebook Lands Drunk Driving Teen In Jail

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Lands Drunk Driving Teen In Jail

Posted by timothy on Friday January 4, 2013 @11:18PM from the lesson-keeps-on-getting-learned dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that 18-year-old Jacob Cox-Brown has been arrested after telling his Facebook network that he had hit a car while driving drunk, posting the message: 'Drivin drunk ... classsic ;) but to whoever's vehicle i hit i am sorry. :P' Two of Cox-Brown's friends saw the message and sent it along to two separate local police officers and after receiving the tip, police went to Cox-Brown's house and were able to match a vehicle there to one that had hit two others in the early hours of the morning. Police then charged the teen with two counts of failing to perform the duties of a driver. 'Astoria Police have an active social media presence,' says a press release from Astoria Police. 'It was a private Facebook message to one of our officers that got this case moving, though. When you post ... on Facebook, you have to figure that it is not going to stay private long.'"

443 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

How is this gasping news by FunkyLich · 2013-01-04 23:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is the price you pay for being immature.
You know you have done something wrong (1.drive drunk 2.smash a car and the incident is the effect of a cause that is you alone, in wrongdoing). You look around, make sure noone sees you and when this turns out to be positive, you keep your fucking mouth shut. QED.
1. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 23:31 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Wow, what a nigger you are.
2. Re:How is this gasping news by Dr_Barnowl · 2013-01-04 23:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or if you're a real man, you leave your number under his windshield wiper, fess up (to the hit, not the drinking) and pay for the damage.
  Then you stop being a murderous punk-ass little bitch who'd drink and then handle a giant steel lethal weapon.
3. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 00:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How does being "a real man" entitle you to "ignore" the far more serious crime of drunk driving?
4. Re:How is this gasping news by beelsebob · 2013-01-05 00:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The news is even inaccurate... Facebook didn't land him in jail, being a moron and driving drunk, then not stopping at the scene of an accident did.
5. Re:How is this gasping news by jamesh · 2013-01-05 00:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The news is even inaccurate... Facebook didn't land him in jail, being a moron and driving drunk, then not stopping at the scene of an accident did.
  Doing those things and then getting caught landed him in jail. Without blabbing on facebook he might not have been caught. As far as headlines go it's vaguely accurate.
6. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 00:37 · Score: 0
  
  If you were a man, you'd call the police yourself and admit to ALL of your wrongdoings, drunk driving included.
7. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's because teenagers are immature and are worse at realizing the consequences (or caring) that's why parents have stuff like curfews and other restrictions despite many idiot slashdotters thinking that's fascist and that teenagers can manage their lives fine without such interference.
  
  Yes most adults are immature too, but once they reach adulthood - they are legally responsible for their actions. So if their parents haven't done a good job or they were just impossible to bring up properly, too bad...
8. Re:How is this gasping news by Joce640k · 2013-01-05 00:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That'd be the "Then you stop..." part.
  It's called learning from mistakes. If nobody's hurt and you paid for the damages then there's no point in getting a criminal record if you've learned your lesson and aren't going to do it again.
  
  --
  No sig today...
9. Re:How is this gasping news by isorox · 2013-01-05 00:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The news is even inaccurate... Facebook didn't land him in jail, being a moron and driving drunk, then not stopping at the scene of an accident did.
  Doing those things and then getting caught landed him in jail. Without blabbing on facebook he might not have been caught. As far as headlines go it's vaguely accurate.
  Electricity landed him in jail. Without electricity facebook wouldn't exist, thus he wouldn't be able to brag about it and therefore get caught
  His parents landed him in jail. Without them he would never be born and could not have crashed the car in the first place.
10. Re:How is this gasping news by ArsenneLupin · 2013-01-05 00:54 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  Wow, what a racist you are.
11. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:06 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Except it's unlikely that you would learn your lesson if you get off so lightly. That is why DUI penalties are so harsh, so that you don't easily forget.
12. Re:How is this gasping news by BorgDrone · 2013-01-05 01:07 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  It's because teenagers are immature and are worse at realizing the consequences (or caring)
  Which is why you shouldn't let children operate 2000 pound death machines.
13. Re:How is this gasping news by Joce640k · 2013-01-05 01:11 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  ie. Experience has shown that if you're a drunk driver in the first place, you're not to be treated like a grown-up.
  
  --
  No sig today...
14. Re:How is this gasping news by BeanThere · 2013-01-05 01:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You look around, make sure noone sees you and when this turns out to be positive, you keep your fucking mouth shut
  And that makes you better, how exactly? Sounds you're as much of a dipshit as the guy in the article.
15. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  And being a teen retard with so little understanding of the Internet, you post it. Guess at least he had friends with some responsibility! Or maybe his friends aren't as friendly as he thinks. Hey Facebook, I killed a guy two weeks ago...shhh, don't tell anyone.
16. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  You're not even accurate. Being a moron and driving drunk, then not stopping in and of itself didn't land him in jail. Being a moron and posting the admission of the crime in question is what landed him in jail. So, slightly more accurate than you're giving credit for. But then, this IS /., after all...
17. Re:How is this gasping news by gagol · 2013-01-05 01:28 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  When I read post like yours (and original story), I think "what happened to natural selection?".
  
  --
  Tomorrow is another day...
18. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:32 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  When I read post like yours (and original story), I think "what happened to natural selection?".
  Affirmative action destroyed it.
19. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Except it's unlikely that you would learn your lesson if you get off so lightly. That is why DUI penalties are so harsh, so that you don't easily forget.
  Punishment is not the cause of good judgment. Doing things just to avoid punishment is the very opposite of having your own judgment.
  
  Think about it for a minute and it will dawn on you just how simple that really is. Punishments are for people who for whatever reason, fail to develop their own good judgment. They cannot control themselves internally so we make laws to control them externally.
20. Re:How is this gasping news by Worthless_Comments · 2013-01-05 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why we never have repeat offenders, right?
  
  Dumb people make my brain hurt.
21. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  No, that would be called 'being a chump'.
22. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes and someone who drives while intoxicated is surely a model of self control....
  I mean it's not like they didn't know that driving under the influence is a stupid thing to do before they did it. Punishment gives a person time and an immediate motivation to really think about what they did. Punishment and the ability judge situations for yourself are not mutually exclusive.
23. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  No, we have repeat offenders because the punishment is an insufficient deterrent.
  Dumb people make my brain hurt too. After reading your post, I need some aspirin.
24. Re:How is this gasping news by gsslay · 2013-01-05 01:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's called learning from mistakes.
  Drunk driving is not a "mistake". You chose to get drunk. You chose to drive. You know it's wrong. You know it's dangerous. You know you may kill someone. You choose to do it anyway. That's not a "mistake", that's wilful culpable recklessness.
  
  there's no point in getting a criminal record if you've learned your lesson and aren't going to do it again.
  "if" being the keyword. How do we know you've learned your lesson? Only you know for sure, and you're a dangerous idiot, so who's going to believe a word you say? The point of getting a criminal record is that if you've a habit of not learning your lesson, then someone ought to be keeping track of just how much more of a lesson you need, before it gets through your thick skull.
25. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  If being a "chump" means taking responsibility for your actions, then label me a chump. Running from problems is never the answer.
26. Re:How is this gasping news by cheekyjohnson · 2013-01-05 01:55 · Score: 2
  
  We just need to be even more Tough On Crime. That way, we can turn even more people into hardened criminals through the prison system!
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
27. Re:How is this gasping news by cheekyjohnson · 2013-01-05 01:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You know it's wrong.
  What if they don't think it's wrong?
  What if they overestimated their ability to drive while under the influence? Would that not be classified as a "mistake"?
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
28. Re:How is this gasping news by cheekyjohnson · 2013-01-05 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  The police finding out he did it landed him in jail.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
29. Re:How is this gasping news by Guppy06 · 2013-01-05 02:00 · Score: 2
  
  if you've learned your lesson and aren't going to do it again.
  And you get to decide for yourself whether you've "learned your lesson," based on your own standards?
  I'd rather you try to convince a judge a of that. After all, we're talking about the same personal standards that led you to think to try it to begin with.
30. Re:How is this gasping news by Infestedkudzu · 2013-01-05 02:02 · Score: 2
  
  'Correcting the fault of drunk driving' is the specific of the ambiguous 'a real man'. Societal prosecution for an transgression after you compensated the damaged car owner is for people** who can't correct behavior. **note the douche bag that this story is about.
31. Re:How is this gasping news by cheekyjohnson · 2013-01-05 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite. The guy in the article presumably intended to get away, but then he let everyone know what he did by posting about it on Facebook. Given the fact that he probably didn't want to get punished for what he did, I'd say that's a bit worse than only driving drunk.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
32. Re:How is this gasping news by Worthless_Comments · 2013-01-05 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Damnit, someone else pointed out why you're still wrong before I got the chance too. But I'm not worried, I'm sure you'll provide another opportunity soon.
  
  But seriously, the fact is prisons in their current configuration don't help anyone - not the criminal and certainly not society. If you put minor lawbreakers in with career criminals, who do you think is going to be influencing who?
33. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:07 · Score: 0
  
  No, because unless they are mentally retarded, they know, without question, that alcohol and drugs affects their mind and motor skills before ever consuming any and before ever climbing into the driver's seat. Overestimating their ability in that case is pure arrogance and willful ignorance.
34. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  You're off on a useless tangent. Just an fyi.
35. Re:How is this gasping news by macraig · 2013-01-05 02:10 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  You seem to be possessed of the same brand of stupidity as most of our lawmakers. Drinking alcohol is not criminal of itself. Not even driving while intoxicated is, of itself, a criminal act, since it's entirely possible to do so without actually maiming or killing anyone or even violating traffic laws. Intoxication merely makes criminal or antisocial acts more feasible or likely, but of itself it's neither criminal nor a guarantee of criminal behavior.
  None of that rather obvious logic has stopped our lawmakers from attempting to criminalize intoxication itself, in the name of prevention. In the process it infringes the freedom and rights of every intoxicated person who DOESN'T commit an actual criminal act while in that state. I don't hear any Libertarians crying foul about that.
36. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  You are foolishly trying to equate minor crimes with drunk driving when they aren't equal. Laws in the United States are absurd regarding many small crimes, but not when it comes to drunk driving. Go anywhere else in the world and you'll find that their laws on drunk driving are even harsher than those in the United States. They treat it as a serious crime, because it is.
37. Re:How is this gasping news by cheekyjohnson · 2013-01-05 02:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, because unless they are mentally retarded, they know, without question, that alcohol and drugs affects their mind and motor skills before ever consuming any and before ever climbing into the driver's seat.
  They probably know it affects their mind and motor skills, but to what degree do they think it will affect their ability to drive? At any rate, I highly doubt they intended to harm anyone, so I would indeed say it's a mistake on their part. That doesn't at all mean I think they should be let off, though.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
38. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:17 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Sorry, but drunk drivers deserve whatever they get. Once you've had multiple family members killed by drunk drivers, you'll feel a little different about it. And no, these weren't first time offenders, either. For one it was his 5th offense, for another it was his 15th offense, and for the third it was was 17th offense. In the second "accident", the victim was unrecognizable because she (and the motor) had been relocated to the back seat of the car. The only way they knew it was her was because: 1) it was her car, 2) she had a distinctive bracelet on one hand, and 3) she'd just been on the phone with relatives and had relayed her location, which was just a few blocks from where she was killed.
  So, I have no mercy for drunk drivers and I think the punitive and financial costs to these asshats should be much, MUCH, **MUCH** higher than they currently are. As it is, there is no incentive for them to learn from their mistakes and they do not.
39. Re:How is this gasping news by peragrin · 2013-01-05 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  If your a drunk driver you have already proven your self to be immature irresponsible and unable to control your impulses.
  Having one or two drinks generally doesn't make you drunk. You can drink responsibly. You can even drink intelligently. drinking water or other non alcoholic beverages, eating, etc slows down the asorbtion of alcohol into your body giving you a longer time to process it.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
40. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:28 · Score: -1
  
  Democrats and nanny states happened
41. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:28 · Score: -1
  
  You look around, make sure noone sees you and when this turns out to be positive, you keep your fucking mouth shut. QED.
  The world will be a better place when you die.
  Hopefully that will be soon.
42. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  What if they don't think it's wrong?
  For people like this, we have prisons and compulsory in-patient mental health
  treatment facilities.
  Psychopaths deserve no less.
43. Re:How is this gasping news by ultranova · 2013-01-05 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's called learning from mistakes. If nobody's hurt and you paid for the damages then there's no point in getting a criminal record if you've learned your lesson and aren't going to do it again.
  
  Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. Time will tell, and until it has the rest of us have a good reason to not trust you, which is the point of the record.
  Also, why should no one getting hurt be a factor? All it means is that you got lucky. And if anything, the lack of corpses makes it less likely that you "learned your lesson".
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
44. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Driving while intoxicated most certainly *is* criminal. This is for multiple reasons. One is that because of the impairment factor, the intoxicated person is not in a viable state to assess whether or not they can operate the vehicle without becoming a danger to themselves or others. Therefore they should not be driving at all.
  Two: the probability of causing property or personal damage to others is so much higher than that of a person who is sober--and let us be perfectly honest; the probability of causing serious damage while operating a multi-ton vehicle is already quite high. Things like driving while intoxicated, texting while driving, etc, just simply aren't needed as they take an already dangerous activity and make it much much more dangerous.
  Three: because of the masses involved any accident that does happen is very likely to be lethal to the victims, whereas the perpetrator is likely to be safe because of their relaxed condition and the safety cage they are driving around.
  No being drunk isn't criminal, but doing highly dangerous stuff that is *very* likely to hurt others IS. Yes it is *possible* to drive while intoxicated and not hurt anyone or anything, but it's hardly the probable outcome. Solid research on the topic makes this very clear. Look up the citations yourself.
45. Re:How is this gasping news by ultranova · 2013-01-05 02:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not even driving while intoxicated is, of itself, a criminal act, since it's entirely possible to do so without actually maiming or killing anyone or even violating traffic laws.
  
  By the same logic shooting blindly at random directions should also be legal, because you don't necessarily hit anyone. In fact, ignoring any and all traffic laws or simply driving with your eyes closed should be just fine because you don't necessarily hit anyone.
  Reckless endangerment of other people is a crime, and should be a crime because otherwise those other people have little choice but to go vigilante in the name of self-protection.
  
  I don't hear any Libertarians crying foul about that.
  
  Libertarianism is about the freedom to commit financial homicide, not ethanol assisted vehicular homicide.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
46. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 03:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Sorry, but drunk drivers deserve whatever they get. Once you've had multiple family members killed by drunk drivers, you'll feel a little different about it. And no, these weren't first time offenders, either.
  
  Ditto texting and gadget-using drivers.
47. Re:How is this gasping news by VortexCortex · 2013-01-05 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's called learning from mistakes.
  Drunk driving is not a "mistake". You chose to get drunk. You chose to drive. You know it's wrong. You know it's dangerous. You know you may kill someone. You choose to do it anyway. That's not a "mistake", that's wilful culpable recklessness.
  So you're saying it's not a mistake to decide to drive drunk? You are aware that being intoxicated affects decision making capabilities... right? Wait, let's look this term up for clarity:
  
  mistake - Noun An action or judgment that is misguided or wrong: "coming here was a mistake". - Verb Be wrong about.
  
  It's perfectly fine to say that past decisions you've made were mistakes in judgment. You're confusing "accident" with mistake. Mistakes can lead to accidents, but not all accidents are caused by mistakes. Driving while mentally impaired, i.e., irrationally angered, after taking NyQuil or other cold medicine, tired, distracted by screaming kids, intoxicated, tripping on shrooms, etc. all increase the chances of an accident. It's a mistake to drive while mentally impaired, yet people do so all the time. Unless you're advocating that everyone who's caused a wreck by spilling a drink in their lap, sneezing due to hay-fever or cold, or while shouting at their kids should be found willfully culpable... In that case, arrest the world you prick, everyone's endangering EVERYONE!
48. Re:How is this gasping news by markdavis · 2013-01-05 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  >"Or if you're a real man, you leave your number under his windshield wiper, fess up (to the hit, not the drinking) and pay for the damage."
  A real man doesn't have a hyphenated last name, either.
49. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  Drinking alcohol is not criminal of itself.
  Sometimes it is. Certainly if the drinker is underage, then it is a criminal act.
  
  Not even driving while intoxicated is, of itself, a criminal act, since it's entirely possible to do so without actually maiming or killing anyone or even violating traffic laws.
  If done on public roads, it most certainly is a criminal act.
  You have a very confused notion of what is and is not a "criminal act".
50. Re:How is this gasping news by cheekyjohnson · 2013-01-05 03:16 · Score: 2
  
  Once you've had multiple family members killed by drunk drivers, you'll feel a little different about it.
  Yes, and I'm sure if that happened, I'd be completely impartial. I think there's a reason we don't let victims be judges, juries, and executioners.
  But really, what are you saying here? That if I was in a different situation (if some of my family members were killed by drunk drivers) I'd feel differently? Supposing that's true, are you saying that the fact that I'd change my mind means my current views on the matter are wrong? The "if you were in a different situation, you'd feel differently" logic could be used on absolutely anyone. I don't know if that's what you were trying to say, and I hope it wasn't.
  
  For one it was his 5th offense, for another it was his 15th offense, and for the third it was was 17th offense.
  5th? 15th? 17th? If that's true, then I would agree with you... I just didn't know to what extent you expected them to be punished.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
51. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 03:27 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  If you wish to make a Facebook post from scratch, you must first invent the universe....
52. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  You cannot make a mistake if you already know that the action you are about to perform is wrong and then proceed to do it anyways. That is willful ignorance and, in the case of drunk driving, premeditated, reckless endangerment.
  Let's take another example. Say someone decides they want to mug someone else by shooting them and stealing their stuff. Afterwards, the victim dies and the assailant is caught. Should you simply brush off the actions of the assailant as a mistake because they were mentally impaired, possibly by any of the things you listed?
53. Re:How is this gasping news by 0111+1110 · 2013-01-05 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  Most of the time drunk driving is a victimless "crime". So I have little sympathy for people who want, say, the death penalty for driving drunk. Driving tired or driving while talking on a cell phone is also dangerous, but there are no draconian penalties for that. Driving while texting is even more dangerous than driving drunk but there is no comparitive penalty for that. I think in my state you get a $100 fine. Big deal. At least be consistent. The penalties for driving while texting should be at least as serious as driving while drunk or maybe more serious.
  Having said all that I think drinking itself is pretty stupid. I don't drink at all. Maybe we could just outlaw alcohol again and take care of the whole problem all at once. If someone kills someone while driving drunk it isn't really much different from killing someone in other contexts. It's still vehicular manslaughter or whatever. A real crime. Getting drunk or stoned or being tired or talking on a cell phone or being distracted by someone in the back seat is not the crime. The crime part comes in when you actually injure someone.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
54. Re:How is this gasping news by 0111+1110 · 2013-01-05 03:39 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In the US, the prison system is the solution to every problem. I always say that tourists should have a look inside our prisons to see what the real America is like. The New America is represented by a sadistic prison guard beating the shit out of an inmate for fun. Our culture is all about punishment and revenge and hurting people. A whole country full of angry, enthusiastic torturers who don't care what happens to anyone else but themselves.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
55. Re:How is this gasping news by 0111+1110 · 2013-01-05 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  All it means is that you didn't hurt anyone and that you didn't commit any sort of real crime. No victim. No crime. Get it?
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
56. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  The law does not care between a person's personal assessment of their impairment, which by definition is IMPAIRED.
57. Re:How is this gasping news by cheekyjohnson · 2013-01-05 03:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  A whole country full of angry, enthusiastic torturers who don't care what happens to anyone else but themselves.
  That would explain the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality that a lot of people seem to have. It would also explain the people screaming to have alleged pedophiles be skinned alive. Yeah, pedophiles; not child molesters. Some people in the "for the children" crowd seem much more insane and dangerous than those who they want to murder for thought crime to me.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
58. Re:How is this gasping news by cheekyjohnson · 2013-01-05 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it doesn't, but what's being argued about is whether it can be classified as a mistake. I don't think that necessarily implies that we're talking about the law.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
59. Re:How is this gasping news by sarysa · 2013-01-05 04:00 · Score: 2
  
  Many punishments essentially mark a person for life, though. DUI is one of them. It's not in one's self interest to admit to a DUI, no matter how moral it might make you to do so.
  
  Speaking of crimes that mark people for life, drug offenses. (including pot) Many examples put forward by the media where pot users who have been caught have lost permanent rights, such as running for certain offices...like president, which two recent self-admitted tokers have done. (and probably at least a dozen non-admitting, I'd only believe that Nixon never inhaled, frankly...and maybe LBJ)
  
  --
  Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
60. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  ...it was all part of Gods plan.
61. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  That all depends upon the level of the DUI. There is misdemeanor DUI and felony DUI. The former is essentially an expensive slap on the wrist and the latter is what you are talking about. There are also ways to seal or expunge criminal records, in which case you are not legally obligated to divulge that information unless you are convicted of the same crime in the future.
  
  I know someone who has three misdemeanor DUIs on his record and he's a junior partner with one of the largest employment law firms in the country. They certainly didn't prevent him from keeping his position or advancing in his career.
  
  As far as pot goes, it's nothing more than a fine here in California. No criminal record, just pay the money and you're good to go.
62. Re:How is this gasping news by _8553454222834292266 · 2013-01-05 04:18 · Score: 2
  
  cancelling mod
63. Re:How is this gasping news by _8553454222834292266 · 2013-01-05 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Good point. Been thinking along these lines for a while now. Seems our entire legal system is based on spite sometimes.
64. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 04:21 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  So you female relative was talking on the phone and driving? Are you aware that using a cell phone while driving has been proven to be significantly worse than moderate impairment due to alcohol consumption? Clearly it must have been the drunks fault though because sober people never cause accidents. You and the MADD crowd let your emotional attachment control and cloud your thinking on this issue and I understand, losing a family member or friend is tough. But do you really think that increasing the fines while BAL/BAC thresholds are being lowered make sense? Lets financially crush someone who had a couple of glasses of wine at dinner... that will really ensure that they are a productive member of society as they lose their job and spend all of their savings on fees and court costs.
  Now don't get me wrong, I think that people who are truly impaired have no business on the road but that impairment doesn't necessarily need to be due to alcohol. Lack of sleep, medications, excess stress, lack of attention to ones surroundings and various other distractions are just as bad but yet we don't see anyone accusing the dumbass driving while on the phone of attempting to "murder" someone.
65. Re:How is this gasping news by hoboroadie · 2013-01-05 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  Yes it is *possible* to drive while intoxicated and not hurt anyone or anything, but it's hardly the probable outcome.
  It is *possible* you're more ignorant than troll,
  
  but its hardly probable.
  You really need to quit believing everything you think, as you are apparently not qualified for that.
  
  --
  They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
66. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  she'd just been on the phone with relatives and had relayed her location, which was just a few blocks from where she was killed.
  So, while she was busy dialing up her next call, some poor schmuck who happened to be "drunk" had the misfortune to cross her path.
67. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, look at all of the alkies come crawling out of the woodworks in defense of their addiction.
68. Re:How is this gasping news by Runaway1956 · 2013-01-05 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  When any person screws up, in any fashion, he has the opportunity to recognize the fact that he has indeed screwed up. I did some things as a kid, that could have landed me in jail. For that matter, I did a few things a young adult that were pretty damned stupid, including drinking and driving.
  I was never caught, never hauled before a judge, didn't even get in trouble with my parents. But, I KNEW that I had done wrong, and I DECIDED that if I continued doing those things, the odds would catch up to me.
  Mind you, I was probably never "legally drunk" at the wheel, under the laws in effect at the time. Just the same, I knew that I had drunk to much. A near accident made that abundantly clear.
  Today's drunk driving laws have edged a little to far the other way. You don't have to be anywhere near "drunk" to fail a sobriety test. At 140 pounds, I was perfectly safe with two drinks under my belt. In fact, the Department of Transportation allowed two drinks with lunch, back then, for truck drivers, boat pilots, etc. Today, sniffing a bottle of beer might make you "drunk" in transportation industries.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
69. Re:How is this gasping news by Calydor · 2013-01-05 04:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "Hey, it's me. I'm leaving the store at the corner of somewhere and otherwhere now, I'll be home in twenty." End call, get in car, drive, get smashed into. You are making a LOT of assumptions about what happened.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
70. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  Society disagrees with you. You should find a nice, desolate atoll somewhere and become a hermit. Then you can live in your imaginary reality without such inconveniences as ethics and human contact.
71. Re:How is this gasping news by russotto · 2013-01-05 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  And you get to decide for yourself whether you've "learned your lesson," based on your own standards?
  Of course. That's part of being a "real man". Or, in less sexist terms, an adult.
72. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, but drunk drivers deserve whatever they get. Once you've had multiple family members killed by drunk drivers, you'll feel a little different about it.
  I think I would've taught my family members how to recognize and avoid drunk drivers...
  
  and 3) she'd just been on the phone with relatives and had relayed her location, which was just a few blocks from where she was killed.
  So if she wasn't on the CELL PHONE she'd have been paying attention.
73. Re:How is this gasping news by turgid · 2013-01-05 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  No, we have repeat offenders because the punishment is an insufficient deterrent.
  Hang 'em. It's the only way to be sure.
  
  --
  Stick Men
74. Re:How is this gasping news by PrimaryConsult · 2013-01-05 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  5th? 15th? 17th? If that's true, then I would agree with you... I just didn't know to what extent you expected them to be punished.
  Simple: Permanent revocation of license. If that requires the drunk (former) driver to relocate to a public housing development in an urban area while changing to basic retail/food service level employment, then so be it. A perk would be they would now be within walking distance of bars.
75. Re:How is this gasping news by gale+the+simple · 2013-01-05 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much this. Own up to the mistake you make.
  Someone hit my car & run away on NYE. I assume he/she was drunk, but they could have left a note if they did not want to be caught drunk at the time...and do the right thing.
  Albeit I still hope, I do not think, that whoever hit my toy will be fessing up on FB. I think people are slowly adjusting to the fact that FB posts are not private and are acting accordingly.
  
  --
  This post is provided without warranty as to reliability, accuracy or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose.
76. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe we could just outlaw alcohol again and take care of the whole problem all at once.
  Because it worked so well before. And it works so well for marijuana.
77. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  /. is just doing it's part to preserve this douchenozzle's name and notoriety in the immortal recesses of the interweb.
78. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  Three? How large is your family? This seems incredibly improbable for the average family size, given the current measured alcohol-involved-accident stats.
79. Re:How is this gasping news by mark-t · 2013-01-05 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Pure arrogance, yes.... ignorance, yes. I'd argue that the ignorance is necessarily willful, however.
  Some people need to learn from direct personal experience that doing something they've been told is a bad idea is actually a bad idea. They might know it already intellectually, but it's long been shown to be the case that most people don't continually follow rules that they don't personally agree with... they will either try to not get caught if they believe consequences for not following them are too harsh, or else will be prepared to face whatever the consequences are.
  It's called immaturity... and although it can be willful, it doesn't always follow that it is.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
80. Re:How is this gasping news by macraig · 2013-01-05 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  I think if you make the effort to actually explain to me or yourself why those things you claim are criminal acts must be so, then you will find that you don't really know why. You've been taught/told/indoctrinated to believe it must be so, and you've failed to question it. Just because where you live those things are currently judged as criminal doesn't certify that it is either reasonable nor ethical to do so. Many laws are unethical, yet they persist because of who they benefit.
81. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry for your loss.
  But I do not buy the MADD anti-constitutional line, and despite your suffering, I blame people like you for it nonetheless for overreacting.
  People shouldn't drive drunk, it increases risk to those around them.
  So to do colds, cold medication, lack of sleep, driving while tired, driving within 45 minutes of waking up, driving the week after daylight savings takes effect, driving while on any sort of phone -- handsfree or not, driving with children in the back seat...
  When people go into these debates the best argument they have is "You don't *need* to drink" or "It's a risk to others". Tough shit princess. Quantify and qualify the risk, and enumerate the probabilities, and we can talk. "Even one life saved is worth it"...is not worth it.
  See--MADD arguments are basically specious other than the societal damage. Unecessary societal damage. But we can't place an infinite cost or ROI on human life.
  Now...I don't think somebody with 5 DWIs should be out--they've demonstrated they're not responsible. But I also support sterilization or exile of men or women that have had three children that became wards of the state.
  I've just demonstrated I'm lacking empathy.
  But DUI is a legal fiction, a nearly bullshit concept based on shoddy science and get tough laws.
  In some states these offenses don't even receive a trial by jury anymore.
  I'm sorry, but the 'no mercy' for drivers is the exact same psychosis that results in 16 year old girls snapping pictures on a phone getting thrown in jail for producing CP.
  And you need to be called out on it, shamed, and told that your actions are a constitutional danger, and a societal threat. You have a right to your opion, but that doesn't change that it's dangerous. Thank you very fucking much for establishing a precdent that in felony manners people may not have the right to trial by jury, you fucking DIPSHITS at MADD.
  Again, I am sorry for your loss -- you need to finish grieving, continue to mourn when appropriate, and take reasonable action.
82. Re:How is this gasping news by ilsaloving · 2013-01-05 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Quite simple, really. Natural selection stopped when we started slapping warning labels on everything and banning products that had even the most infinitesimal change of hurting kids. (Lawn darts, kinder eggs, etc)
  So all the people that rightfully should have killed themselves off while still young, grow up, and the results speak for themselves.
83. Re:How is this gasping news by Trepidity · 2013-01-05 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  In particular, from the perspective whether a crime was committed, a common mistake is someone underestimating their BAC, so they think they are not driving drunk when in fact they are (this is different from subjective impairment). If you thought you had a BAC of 0.07 and it was actually 0.09, that's an error that takes your behavior from legal to illegal in a state where 0.08 is the legal limit.
  One way to reduce that particular kind of error is to carry a breathalyzer with you, but that's not very common.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
84. Re:How is this gasping news by Sique · 2013-01-05 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  This is plainly wrong - Warning labels are part of the natural selection. We survive better as a species by limiting the risk of falling victim to freak accidents by warning each other. This would be akin to claiming that birds warning each others against predators would mess up the natural selection process. They don't. They just introduce additional complexity.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
85. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  No the only thing that landed him in jail was STUPIDITY. That may be powered by electrical discharges between the neurons
  but it is still STUPIDITY.
  COMMIT your crimes, enjoy their spoils and never talk about them, ever and to nobody.
86. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  Yes it is *possible* to drive while intoxicated and not hurt anyone or anything, but it's hardly the probable outcome. Solid research on the topic makes this very clear. Look up the citations yourself.
  There are no studies that indicate an accident is the most likely outcome of driving intoxicated.
87. Re:How is this gasping news by ATMAvatar · 2013-01-05 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  That's something I can get behind, but I would apply it to more than drunk driving. You would need to include most forms of irresponsible driving, including (but not limited to) texting while driving, talking on a phone while driving, and doing your make-up while driving.
  You may think that last one is a joke, but I actually saw an SUV one day on the highway swerving around and caught a glimpse of the driver focusing on her visor mirror and doing her make-up as I passed it.
  
  --
  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
88. Re:How is this gasping news by ilsaloving · 2013-01-05 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  "Maybe we could just outlaw alcohol again and take care of the whole problem all at once"
  Sure! Because it worked so well the first time, right?
  And you'll never stop drinking because, lets face it most people *like* to drink. Drinking alcohol is buried so deeply entwined in the fabric of almost all cultures of the world, and people arn't going to just up and stop. The only realistic option is to somehow manage the risk. IMO, the penalties for repeat offences are way too low. I can understand it happening the first time because someone may not realize that that they are in fact that intoxicated. But that excuse vanishes after that. By the time someone has offended 3 or so times, they should be outright banned from driving, or even owning a vehicle.
  Just because the first time or two is 'victimless', that doesn't mean the next one will be. It becomes a game of russian roulette and it's not reasonable to simply hope that the next drunk driver you come across won't splatter you across the highway.
  WRT cell phones, more and more places are making it illegal to talk on a cell or to text while driving. Some ban it outright, some permit it as long as you use a handsfree kit. Cell phones are pretty new, and lawmakers can move excruciatingly slowly. I fully expect to see similar laws eventually being applied to other forms of distraction as well.
89. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  wtf are you on about? what is being assumed? (not the op, random internet idiot)
90. Re:How is this gasping news by Macman408 · 2013-01-05 06:39 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Sometimes it helps to have experiences that show one just how much it affects their abilities. I had a roommate in college who said he would absolutely never drink and drive because he had seen the detrimental effect intoxication had on his driving in Mario Kart, and he was way better at Mario Kart than at actual driving.
91. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  All media stereotypes, there's two forms of drunk driving people get arrested for and only 1 is a danger, 2 beers get you a DUI, that doesn't make you a danger, 10 shots also get you a DUI, but that is a bit different.
92. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  To me the response of "'Drivin drunk ... classsic ;)" despite the fact they hit a car and in different circumstances could have hit something worse, such as a person; shows to me that this person clearly does not care and did not learn a lesson (maybe they feel differently now they are actually facing some consequences, but I doubt it). This person absolutely deserves a criminal record even if no one was hurt and they aren't going to do it again, and until they show they can be responsible and mature should have their licence taken away.
93. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  Or if you're a real man,
  gotcha; women can hit and run.
94. Re:How is this gasping news by phantomfive · 2013-01-05 07:04 · Score: 2
  
  What if they overestimated their ability to drive while under the influence? Would that not be classified as a "mistake"?
  You have to be careful, some 'mistakes' can land you in jail for life. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" and all that.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
95. Re:How is this gasping news by Phroggy · 2013-01-05 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  They never said she was talking on the phone while driving. Could have been a phone call made while leaving a party or restaurant, saying "I'm on my way home and will be there soon" before getting into the car.
  
  --
  $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
  $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
96. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  The punishments are designed to cause future crime. That, and people willing to break a law once are willing to do it twice, regardless of the penalties. If penalties were less, we'd have less crime, but we don't have a justice system, we have a punitive revenge system. And anyone pushing for sensible punishments is seen as a pro-criminal soft on crime, even if they use fact-based research-supported methods for the sole purpose of reducing crime.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
97. Re:How is this gasping news by MMC+Monster · 2013-01-05 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely.
  20 years ago I took my dad's car out for a joy ride. Brakes gave out and I almost smashed the car. Learned my lesson and have been a responsible driver ever since.
  Do I still go over the speed limit. Absolutely. But not recklessly so.
  Now I'm an upstanding, tax paying member of society rather than an x-convict for a reckless driving incident.
  
  --
  Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
98. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  You do know that a court hearing is required in such accidents right? If he is assuming anything, it is that both his relatives and the court were not lying. A reasonable assumption to have.
99. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  So you female relative was talking on the phone and driving?
  Not only is that a huge assumption, but given the rest of what was said (that you clearly didn't read) it is also an incorrect assumption.
  From GP:
  and 3) she'd just been on the phone with relatives and had relayed her location, which was just a few blocks from where she was killed.
  Clearly, she had just been on the phone. Not was on the phone. It's also clearly stated the location of phone usage and the location of the accident were an entire "few blocks apart"
  Now to make my own assumptions about you.
  1) You can't tell time and have no concept of before and after
  2) You have no spacial awareness and can't comprehend two events can happen in different places
  3) Every word after your first incorrect sentence is now an off-topic rant.
  4) You either do not at all understand how phones work, or do not understand how cars work. Possibly both, but at least one of the two.
  5) You must have had help typing that post, because clearly reading and writing are not among your skill set.
  I just hope you don't act as stupid as this while driving, I fear you are a great danger to yourself and everyone around you.
100. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Once you've had multiple family members killed by drunk drivers, you'll feel a little different about it.
  So the court system should be set our to dole out revenge and retribution without a view on reducing future crimes. I've not lost multiple family members to drunk drivers, but my father had a few DUIs, and my uncle was a county judge that lost his job after his 3rd conviction (took 12 or so arrests to get 3 convictions against a judge, and the arrests are few when he's known to all cops - his last one, he drove drunk to look at his car he crashed and abandoned earlier in the night, and the cops recognized him and arrested him - if he'd just gone to sleep, he'd likely have been legal by the time he was arrested and he'd not have lost his job until the next one.
  
  And a friend in elementary school went on to kill a family of 4 when he was in high school while driving drunk.
  
  As it is, there is no incentive for them to learn from their mistakes and they do not.
  Having talked to him after, the punishment was irrelevant to his likeihood to ever do it again. And my uncle and father were old alcoholics that you could have done anything you wanted to them, and they'd have done it again. The only solution to the old alcoholics is make it illegal for them to drive or own a car and make it illegal for anyone to let them drive theirs. Though the 30-day impound of the car, regardless of who owns it, doesn't seem to have had much impact in the owners letting someone else drive their car drunk. Another reasonable sounding law that doesn't work, but stays on the books because someone will otherwise whine about their dead family in front of cameras.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
101. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  I saw no assumptions being made. A large portion of the data is from people answering "what happened?" when asked by the police with "I was talking on the phone, and he came out of nowhere." There isn't much forensics being done trying to match up cell times with crash times or "have you talked on the phone in the last 2 hours" questions, like asked of alcohol.
  
  I expect there to be a large drop in cell phone caused crashes if the penalties increase. People will start lying to conceal the truth, and most of the previous statistics were crated from self-reports.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
102. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  Mistakes are typified by the willful acts that result in them. Don't be so histrionic.
103. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  breath immobilizers on every vehicle is not a bad idea if the goal is to stop drunk driving. Make it impossible(ish).
  
  Cell phones are pretty new, and lawmakers can move excruciatingly slowly. I fully expect to see similar laws eventually being applied to other forms of distraction as well.
  Laws are on the books almost everywhere now banning distracted driving, the problem is that it is hard to prove and punish. So, rather than enforcing the current laws, we get new ones to do the same thing. The only "solution" I can think of is cameras in every car. Point them out, point them in. Measure standard deviation of lane position, measure frequency and velocity of eye movement of the driver. Come up with a measurement of "driver attention" and sound a warning when it is too low. The nice thing is that it is applied equally. The incompetent drivers killing through poor skill/training will get caught with the ones impaired via alcohol or distracted driving.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
104. Re:How is this gasping news by davester666 · 2013-01-05 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously it falls under the "Attempted Murder" statue...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
105. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  The most vocal among us are like that, yes. I always enjoy discussions about the death penalty, because there's always someone who believes that life in prison is more humane. The discussion goes downhill when I point out that if the goal is to humanely remove someone from society, imprisoning them for life is the least humane way to treat them. Prison can either be about punishment or rehabilitation. If it's about punishment then we should just fine or execute anyone who commits a crime. If it's about rehabilitation then we need to start treating prisoners humanely and trying to figure out why they commit crimes and what externalities can be changed to prevent future relapses.
106. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  "Mistake" is an irrelevant blame-deflector. It doesn't change the facts surrounding the conscious choice to drink, and a conscious choice to drive within 12 hours of any drink (airline requirements, and with limits as low as they are, my personal recommendation for driving after drinking).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
107. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  How is that possibly relevant.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
108. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  So you think it should be legal to fire a gun into a crowd until you actually hit someone, and nobody should stop you until after the first confirmed casualty.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
109. Re:How is this gasping news by cheekyjohnson · 2013-01-05 08:07 · Score: 2
  
  "Mistake" is an irrelevant blame-deflector.
  It is? You can be blamed for making mistakes, and even punished for them.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
110. Re:How is this gasping news by elashish14 · 2013-01-05 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  How is it remotely possible for someone to have 17 drunk driving offenses? I would think that in any jurisdiction, the offender would have lost all privileges to drive (and probably even leave prison) after any more than a few.
  
  --
  I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
111. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Two: the probability of causing property or personal damage to others is so much higher than that of a person who is sober--and let us be perfectly honest; the probability of causing serious damage while operating a multi-ton vehicle is already quite high.
  The probability of causing a crash is quite small. On average, you must travel 100,000,000 miles before you die in a crash. If we assume that there's a 50% chance you caused the crash, then you need to go twice that to cause a fatal crash. That's not "quite high". Also, a person who is barely legally drunk is no more likely to cause a crash than a sober person. A number of studies have shown a "sweet spot" where alcohol causes relaxation without noticeable impairment, but these are always dismissed as testing artifacts caused by the testing methods and wouldn't show in the real world, but there's no evidence of that, it's just the opinion of the people paying for the studies to show drunk driving is bad.
  
  Best is to split up drunk driving into 3/4 levels with 0-0.08 being "driving with alcohol in system" (a $20 fine on your record, and license suspension for anyone under the local drinking age), 0.08 to 0.12 being "low range DUI" with a larger fine, 48 hour impoundment, and 14 day license suspension, 0.12 to 0.18 being "mid range drunk driving" and having penalties similar to the current system, and 0.18+ being "high level drunk driving" and penalties closer to 3rd DUI conviction. Maybe a medal for 0.45+ for driving while dead - Achievement Unlocked.
  
  The tiered systems are much more fair for those that inadvertently tested high (those driving home after having "slept it off" at a party, still a little above the legal minimums, and those who had a couple martinis at lunch and drove home after work 4 hours later with a 0.08). Oh, and penalties should be doubled between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m.
  
  If you fall asleep and kill 8, the police issue you an official apology for your trauma (a case in Austin where an old guy killed a bunch of college students about 20 years ago, I can't find any references for it anymore). But if the same guy had 0.06 and fell asleep and killed someone, he'd be tried for manslaughter or some other homicide. Alcohol increases the chance of falling asleep, so the effects of it when the sun is down and traffic is light is actually increased, but the laws are never aligned to help deter actually damaging acts, laws are just designed to make the MADD prohibitionists happy.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
112. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  The level of risk if the "victimless crime" of shooting into a crowd (presuming you didn't hit anyone) has been determined to exceed the allowable risk threshold. Same with driving impaired. It's not a mystery why they are criminal, and they are evaluated regularly, as MADD continues to try to change the definitions to their ultimate goal of Prohibition.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
113. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Bragging about criminal activities landed him in jail. I do remember back when the results were the same from bragging at school. Before YouTube, people shared videos of themselves committing crimes, and that landed more than one person in jail, though there was more of that after YouTube.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
114. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  They are knowingly breaking the law.
  Not only are they knowingly breaking the law, they're breaking the law not because they think the law is unjust (a la Rosa Parks), but because they think the law doesn't apply to them.
  A mistake? As Malcom Reynolds would say: "Why are we even discussing this?"
115. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  The most vocal among us are like that, yes.
  Not only the most vocal. Most people are stupid in general.
  
  The discussion goes downhill when I point out that if the goal is to humanely remove someone from society, imprisoning them for life is the least humane way to treat them.
  It probably goes downhill because you fail to comprehend that the people you're arguing with are most likely concerned with the permanent loss of innocent life that might occur thanks to the death penalty.
  And of course it should be about rehabilitation.
116. Re:How is this gasping news by Nyder · 2013-01-05 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Many punishments essentially mark a person for life, though. DUI is one of them. It's not in one's self interest to admit to a DUI, no matter how moral it might make you to do so.
  Speaking of crimes that mark people for life, drug offenses. (including pot) Many examples put forward by the media where pot users who have been caught have lost permanent rights, such as running for certain offices...like president, which two recent self-admitted tokers have done. (and probably at least a dozen non-admitting, I'd only believe that Nixon never inhaled, frankly...and maybe LBJ)
  Felonies mark people for life, misdemeanors don't. Unless someone is stupid enough to let people make a deal about misdemeanors.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
117. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  For me, drinking slowly, mixing with water, or eating in between defeats the whole purpose of the act. I like the taste of a good drink, but I more like the euphoria that accompanies it. What I generally end up doing is hammer down a few drinks for a couple of hours, then stop, eat, drink water, and a couple of hours later I'm fine to drive (as I've tested on several occasions with different breathalyzers).
118. Re:How is this gasping news by Nyder · 2013-01-05 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  In the US, the prison system is the solution to every problem. I always say that tourists should have a look inside our prisons to see what the real America is like. The New America is represented by a sadistic prison guard beating the shit out of an inmate for fun. Our culture is all about punishment and revenge and hurting people. A whole country full of angry, enthusiastic torturers who don't care what happens to anyone else but themselves.
  Okay, question here. have you ever been in a USA Prison? Have you seen guards beating up prisoners? Or is this what you see on TV?
  Because you sure seem it's this way, so I'm curious, do you know from experience?
  Because I know a lot of people who did prison time, and I know what stories they have to tell. And their stories aren't matching up with yours.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
119. Re:How is this gasping news by 0111+1110 · 2013-01-05 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  If no one is injured then there was no real crime. The purpose of criminal law is not to make life a risk free experience. It is to discourage people from intentionally harming each other. Of course, in the US many (psuedo) crimes are victimless. Those sorts of 'crimes' are just actions that someone takes that the government dislikes for various reasons. If no one is injured there is no reason for a legal system to do anything. There is no injustice to redress when nothing bad actually happens to anyone.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
120. Re:How is this gasping news by qwe4rty · 2013-01-05 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Drunk driving is not a "mistake". You chose to get drunk. You chose to drive. You know it's wrong. You know it's dangerous. You know you may kill someone. You choose to do it anyway. That's not a "mistake", that's wilful culpable recklessness.
  "mistake: an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc."
  Seems pretty cut and dry that drunk driving is a mistake.
121. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  I am in my 40's now. When I was 15-18, I consistently drove drunk and without a license (every weekend). I also smoked pot. I was pulled over once for some minor traffic violation and even though I did not have my license, the cop let me leave the car there and walk home. When I turned 18, I joined the military for a few years but since then, I NEVER ONCE drank and drove or smoked pot. I have nothing against pot, I just chose not to do it. I do have something against people DUI.
  Maybe at 15 if I would have got caught DWI, I would have stopped doing at 15 instead of waiting until I was 18 to quit, who knows but there would be NO WAY I'd turn myself in. I learned on my own.
122. Re:How is this gasping news by 0111+1110 · 2013-01-05 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Never been to prison, but I have read documented cases of guards beating prisoners as well as personal accounts I have read online. I did quite a bit of research into beatings as well as rape when I was facing a possible 2-3 year stretch in state prision. What I learned from my research was that rape is a lot less common than it used to be especially in state (as opposed to federal) prisons, but that sadistic guards are still around and you can definitely expect the occassional beating if a guard is in a bad mood or just very sadistic.
  I have also been badly beaten by a police officer for challenging his authority right in front of lots of other cops who seemed to see nothing wrong with it and all of whom covered for him later. I even think there is a good chance that he actually intended to kill me. Obviously that experience tends to color my views of US law enforcement types in general.
  I've been locked in a jail cell overnight a couple of times and I noticed that all the other guys referred to the cops as "sir". So I don't think I'm the only one who fears their arbitrary power. I realize that prison guards are not necessarily as sadistic and evil as cops, but I do think that the same sorts of power-mad bullies would be interested in both jobs. I couldn't help noticing that Charles Graner, the infamous Abu Ghraib torturer and sadist, was a prison guard in civilian life. The job tends to attract such people I think. Angry guys with something to prove. Obviously not all of them, but it doesn't have to be all of them to be the victim of one.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
123. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  You are apparently taking the dictionary definition of "mistake" and not applying the standard usage. For someone making fun of word appropriation in his sig, it seems a little hypocritical.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
124. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I didn't understand "real crime" was a term invented by you with no relation to the English language. A crime (real or otherwise), defined by everyone else is something defined as a crime in law. You've invented a term for things you think should be illegal, unusued by anyone else.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
125. Re:How is this gasping news by leenks · 2013-01-05 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  So, you beat the breathalyser. Not the same as being fine to drive.
126. Re:How is this gasping news by cheekyjohnson · 2013-01-05 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't aware that the word "mistake" implied not being held accountable. I don't see where it's hypocritical.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
127. Re:How is this gasping news by 0111+1110 · 2013-01-05 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have a better word in English to mean something like, "any act which results in harm or injury to others or to their possesions"? Unfortunately "real crime" was the best I could come up with. It is true that the primary meaning of the word means something like, "any act which a government chooses to punish". Unfortunately that definition doesn't provide any way to distinguish crimes such as "being black" or "being Jewish" or "viewing pornography" (depending on the government) from ones such as murder. My purpose was to differentiate acts that are arbitrarily forbidden by some governments and which don't result in any harm to anyone and acts like murder, rape, assault, theft, and fraud which actually do result in harm to others.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
128. Re:How is this gasping news by causality · 2013-01-05 10:25 · Score: 2
  
  This is plainly wrong - Warning labels are part of the natural selection. We survive better as a species by limiting the risk of falling victim to freak accidents by warning each other. This would be akin to claiming that birds warning each others against predators would mess up the natural selection process. They don't. They just introduce additional complexity.
  I have a good example for you to consider: bug spray. You know, that stuff that's so toxic that you can spray it on a filthy cockroach and the roach will drop dead?
  
  When you have to tell someone that bug spray is poisonous and that ingesting it will harm them, well, you are no longer talking about a freak accident.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
129. Re:How is this gasping news by gsslay · 2013-01-05 10:28 · Score: 2
  
  You are aware that being intoxicated affects decision making capabilities... right?
  Yes, and so does everyone else. So you know before you decide to drink drive that your decision is likely to be a bad one. If you're still in charge of your faculties enough to get in the car and start it, you're in charge enough to remember what was obvious fact, and what was culturally hammered into you, when you were sober.
  
  Driving while mentally impaired, i.e., irrationally angered, after taking NyQuil or other cold medicine, tired, distracted by screaming kids, intoxicated, tripping on shrooms, etc. all increase the chances of an accident.
  Indeed. But only the last two are totally avoidable and totally needless. That's why they're illegal.
  
  In that case, arrest the world you prick, everyone's endangering EVERYONE!
  
  Do you always resort to petty name calling when lost for a coherent argument?
130. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 11:09 · Score: 0
  
  All I can say is that you were lucky. Having the structure, responsibility and discipline instilled upon you in the military probably helped you to come to your later choices as well. I was never in the military myself, but I began in the California Cadet Corps at an early age and went all the way through JROTC in my high school years. I do know that it helped me in more ways than I am probably aware of.
  Maybe that's what we should do with DUI offenders, make them join the military. For each subsequent infraction (assuming there are any), the length of mandatory service grows.
131. Re:How is this gasping news by Krishnoid · 2013-01-05 11:31 · Score: 1
  Punishment is not the cause of good judgment.
  But it can lead to it:
  
  Punishment or bad outcomes are usually the result of using bad judgement
  
  If you believe it, bad judgement produces experience
  
  Experience leads to good judgement
  
  Unless you're being punished randomly, you can make a connection between punishment and good judgement, at least in areas where bad judgement produces punishment over the short- or longer-term.
132. Re:How is this gasping news by Nyder · 2013-01-05 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Never been to prison, but I have read documented cases of guards beating prisoners as well as personal accounts I have read online. I did quite a bit of research into beatings as well as rape when I was facing a possible 2-3 year stretch in state prision. What I learned from my research was that rape is a lot less common than it used to be especially in state (as opposed to federal) prisons, but that sadistic guards are still around and you can definitely expect the occassional beating if a guard is in a bad mood or just very sadistic.
  I have also been badly beaten by a police officer for challenging his authority right in front of lots of other cops who seemed to see nothing wrong with it and all of whom covered for him later. I even think there is a good chance that he actually intended to kill me. Obviously that experience tends to color my views of US law enforcement types in general.
  I've been locked in a jail cell overnight a couple of times and I noticed that all the other guys referred to the cops as "sir". So I don't think I'm the only one who fears their arbitrary power. I realize that prison guards are not necessarily as sadistic and evil as cops, but I do think that the same sorts of power-mad bullies would be interested in both jobs. I couldn't help noticing that Charles Graner, the infamous Abu Ghraib torturer and sadist, was a prison guard in civilian life. The job tends to attract such people I think. Angry guys with something to prove. Obviously not all of them, but it doesn't have to be all of them to be the victim of one.
  I totally agree there is corrupt people that do what they want everywhere, but you are talking like it's a common occurrence, and from what I understand, it's not.
  So you talked shit and challenged a cop in front of other cops? What the fuck do you expect to happen? That the cop will give you donuts and a get out of jail card? Not saying what happened to you was right, or legal, but if you are stupid enough to talk smack to cops when they are surrounded by other cops, you likely are going to get a bit of a beat down. Change cops to jock, druggy, drunk, etc and you'll get the same result.
  You've been locked in a jail overnight and because some peeps called the jailors sir, that means what exactly? I have spent a total of 3 month at least in jail. Nothing longer then 3 weeks at a time. We do NOT call anyone Sir. The guards don't even get treated with any respect. If someone is stupid to try to dig in and talk serious smack to a guard, then they get thrown in the hole/solitary confinement. If they get beat on the way down, well, don't go around pissing off the guards when you are in a situation where they have the control and advantage.
  I don't agree with a lot of what goes on, but I'm smart enough to know that you if you keep hitting a wasp nest with a stick, that you are going to get stung.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
133. Re:How is this gasping news by DNS-and-BIND · 2013-01-05 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  You know, that has a lot more to do with you and your fucked-up worldview than it does America. It's like one of those inkblots you look at...some people see flowers, some people see blood. It's called "projection".
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
134. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  No, y'see, facebook isn't a noun in that sentence, it's a verb.
135. Re:How is this gasping news by fsck1nhippies · 2013-01-05 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Its an assault vehicle dammit!
136. Re:How is this gasping news by fsck1nhippies · 2013-01-05 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget talking to the kids in the back seat. That is FAR worse than texting and driving or drinking and driving. Ban children from cars and will reduce the number of fatalities even more!
137. Re:How is this gasping news by sixsixtysix · 2013-01-05 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  it is far more about lawsuit liability, which leads to less financial loss, which leads to having more to survive with.
  
  --
  ...
138. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  Drunk driving is not a "mistake". You chose to get drunk. You chose to drive. You know it's wrong. You know it's dangerous. You know you may kill someone. You choose to do it anyway. That's not a "mistake", that's wilful culpable recklessness.
  And falling asleep while driving is a mistake? I guess that's why even though it kills lots more people, self-righteous twits like you keep calling for ever increasing penalties for drinking driving, while people who fall asleep while driving aren't usually ticketed.
139. Re: How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 13:40 · Score: 0
  
  Real men drink, drive, crash into shit, drive off mot days. However real men don't use facebook or slashdot, hate technology anything more advanced than fire and trousers. They have no friends, and generally tell you to Fuck off.
140. Re:How is this gasping news by Kyusaku+Natsume · 2013-01-05 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  Here in my state in Mexico the difference between unintentional murder (manslaughter in the USA perhaps?) that you can get free by bail or intentional murder is the level of alcohol or drugs in the body of the driver.
  
  --
  Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
141. Re:How is this gasping news by KillDaBOB · 2013-01-05 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  You do know you don't need a license to drive, right? I mean, it's legally required, but you don't need to swipe it through a reader to authorize you to a car. All you need is a key and the vehicle it goes to, and you can drive. They could take away a license on the third DUI and a person will still drive around and go anywhere they want, racking up more DUIs.
142. Re:How is this gasping news by aynoknman · 2013-01-05 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  If you re-read the post you will find that it was the drunk driver not the victim who was using a cell phone.
  
  --
  We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
143. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  it makes you better because you're not a convicted felon.
  calling people names doesn't win the argument.
  dipshit
  Ha!
144. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 15:36 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, you're right of course, there should be no penalties for drunk driving. In fact, we should all be like you and actively encourage it. I mean safety, schmafety, who needs to live anyways, right? Go ahead, get shitfaced and run over a few families. We'll all have a chuckle about it over a few bottles of Jim Beam later.
145. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 15:43 · Score: 0
  
  You talk all of this posturing shit now, in the safety of your little basement but in real life if someone were to open fire in your general direction, you'd be screaming for the police like a little bitch. You know it, I know it, we all know it.
146. Re:How is this gasping news by BeaverCleaver · 2013-01-05 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, yes it is. If you are under the limit, you're under the limit.
  If you can run 100m in under 10 seconds, you can go to the Olmpics. They don't refuse entry because you beat the system be doing lots of training and preparation
  
  --
  sustainable living
147. Re:How is this gasping news by ilsaloving · 2013-01-05 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  True, I can't think of a more effective solution. Of course, the usual caveats (complaints of invasion of privacy, abuse by corrupt authorities) apply to such a solution, which means it'll never happen. :P
148. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't aware that the word "mistake" implied not being held accountable.
  You've not see the thousands of slashdot posts pointing out they can't have committed a crime because they lack mens rea. The implication that if they didn't intend the consequence, they couldn't have committed a crime - so "accidents" and "mistakes" are not crimes. And there's a reason the NHTSA dropped the use of "accident" for "crash" because so many people think that accidents are unavoidable occurrances, and thus don't need to be addressed. "I didn't mean to, it was a mistake" is a common phrase said to absolve ones self of guilt for something.
  
  "Mistake" implies lack or intention. Lack of intention is often assumed to be required for acountability.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
149. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  You could just say "violent crime", though Americans don't generally recognize violence against property, and would include violence against a group that harms no individual as "violent". Or perhaps you need to call them "victimless crimes" and "crimes with identifiable victims". But adding "real" in front of a word to change the definition of the word isn't going to work so well.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
150. Re:How is this gasping news by ilsaloving · 2013-01-05 16:46 · Score: 2
  
  It's not wrong. Further, your analogy is incorrect. Or at least, I should have been more clear. All the effort that has been made to keep people from doing patently stupid things, has eliminated intelligence from the natural selection equation. To use your analogy, it would be the equivalent of a bird swooping down on a predator, forcing the predators mouth open, and tapdancing on his tongue while shouting, "Hey Mom! Look at me!"
  Before, said bird would be dead faster than you could say "Derp!", and any genes that allowed this bizarre behaviour would not carry forward. But now all the other birds see what the dumb bird did, and quickly swoop down and hold the predators mouth open so Derpy could get away. Derpy doesn't die, and now has the chance to pass his genes on, to the detriment of the species as a whole. Or more specifically, it *would* be a detriment if you consider intelligence to be an important characteristic of the species.
  Compare to cows. Cows are not bred for intelligence. They're bred for meat and milk. It's pretty safe to say that cows are just plain dumb. There may be smart cows, but it doesn't matter because we don't keep cows for that purpose. Over time, the genes that produce smart cows may stay, or they may vanish outright, purely by chance. But the likelyhood that the smart cows genes will become dominant, is remote because there's no selective pressure to remove the cows that *don't* have those genes.
  People are becoming the same way. There is no longer any advantage to being smart, so as a species we are (at best) stuck with a general level of intelligence that will no longer improve. Worst case, overall intelligence of our species will actually decrease. I read somewhere that lower IQ people also tend to breed more than higher IQ people (I can't remember where I read that... Not sure if it's true but it sounds truthy), in which case the problem is exacerbated.
151. Re:How is this gasping news by LordLimecat · 2013-01-05 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  What if they don't think it's wrong?
  You can also not think its wrong to chop the tops off of parking meters or rob a bank; that just means you have terribly poor judgement and are generally a menace to society.
152. Re:How is this gasping news by LordLimecat · 2013-01-05 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  A family friend has a huge problem with alcohol and DUIs, and he keeps not getting jail time for it. Basically everyone who cares in the slightest about this dude is hoping that he ends up in jail and can maybe get a big enough shock that he stops doing it.
  Punishments for crimes are supposed to suck enough that you stop doing the crime.
153. Re:How is this gasping news by LordLimecat · 2013-01-05 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  Not even driving while intoxicated is, of itself, a criminal act, since it's entirely possible to do so without actually maiming or killing anyone or even violating traffic laws.
  "Interesting" is an appropriate mod for this take on reality. DUIs are criminal offenses in most countries, according to wikipedia.
  Id be interested to know where you got your information, and certainly hope that you didnt get the rest of your driving knowledge from there.
154. Re:How is this gasping news by Omnifarious · 2013-01-05 18:10 · Score: 2
  
  So you talked shit and challenged a cop in front of other cops? What the fuck do you expect to happen? That the cop will give you donuts and a get out of jail card? Not saying what happened to you was right, or legal, but if you are stupid enough to talk smack to cops when they are surrounded by other cops, you likely are going to get a bit of a beat down. Change cops to jock, druggy, drunk, etc and you'll get the same result.
  Ahh, so you're putting cops in the same category as jocks, druggies and drunks? That makes me feel so much happier about them.
  
  --
  Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
155. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I'd be happy for a politician to assert that driving isn't a right, and declared a war on driving deaths.
  
  All new cars sold with GPS and 2-way 4G. They announce the start and destination to a central traffic server. The traffic server gives an optimal route based on current traffic and other in-route cars. Not predictions based on current traffic (the best there is now) but coordinating all trips in real-time to optimize the roads for all. It could also take driver preferences into account (drivers with slower average speeds would be directed to slower roads). It wouldn't report anything to police, but could provide reports to the driver (or others, upon subpoena) in case of trouble.
  
  And of, course, cameras front, back, side, and inside, recording everything with a nice long loop. I'd like to be able to set the system to take a 30 second clip on either side of a button press and email it to myself. I can then review it, "edit" it, if I feel like it and send it along to the police. Rarely a day goes by when I don't see an unsafe turn, red-light run resulting in a near-miss, or exit from the fast lane causing 3 lanes of traffic to brake as hard as possible to avoid a crash. If they knew every car had a recorder in it, I'd expect they'd think a little more. And if they didn't, they should have their driving exploits made public.
  
  I expect between those two things (along with some others I'd do, mainly regarding vehicle safety changes that would be unpopular but quite effective), we'd cut deaths in half in a year, and down 90% over 10 years. But, for whatever reason, about a half million dead in car crashes every 10 years is quite acceptable.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
156. Re:How is this gasping news by tlhIngan · 2013-01-05 19:28 · Score: 1
  
  In particular, from the perspective whether a crime was committed, a common mistake is someone underestimating their BAC, so they think they are not driving drunk when in fact they are (this is different from subjective impairment). If you thought you had a BAC of 0.07 and it was actually 0.09, that's an error that takes your behavior from legal to illegal in a state where 0.08 is the legal limit.
  One way to reduce that particular kind of error is to carry a breathalyzer with you, but that's not very common.
  That's still not a mistake.
  Just because you blow .07 doesn't mean you're not drunk. It just means you're not legally drunk. The police still can detain you to sober up and then release you (usually overnight), they can't charge you with being under the influence.
  And people vary. Some people are basically blacked out at 0.01. Others have been shown to be still relatively sober even at 0.24.
  The only reason for 0.08 is because 0 isn't really that possible - people will go out, have dinner and a beer (*A*, as in singular). So they're slightly drunk, but pretty sober still.
  Heck, in our jurisdiction, it's 0.05 (and the breathalyzers are calibrated to 0.06). It's just over the limit for the average person and a drink (and well over if you have something to eat with that drink).
157. Re:How is this gasping news by sjames · 2013-01-05 21:04 · Score: 1
  
  Or for that matter, the old "I feel fine, I'm not actually drunk". Now he realizes he was drunk.
158. Re:How is this gasping news by sjames · 2013-01-05 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  It would be yet another mistake to hope to find mercy in the court of a vindictive society.
159. Re:How is this gasping news by sjames · 2013-01-05 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  No, they';re so harsh due to politicians repeatedly 'doing something' about 'the problem'.
160. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-06 03:04 · Score: 0
  
  Real men are selfish.
161. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-06 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  And you get to decide for yourself whether you've "learned your lesson," based on your own standards?
  -Oh, I'm so selfish I'd turn myself in any day and minute.
  -Ah, that's nothing, I'd turn myself in for crimes I've never commited, just to be sure I wouldn't do them.
  -Bah, look at me! I'm committing seppuku right in front of your eyes! EAAARGH GLAAAH GLOBGLOBGLOB
  What the hell is wrong with you americans and your anti-selfishness cult? Of fucking course I'm not going to pour a giant buttload of excrement on top of my head voluntarily just so that I can wash my soul and pretend to be somehow more a "man" than I am. Shit is shit and you become better by not doing shit instead of reciting ave maria fifteen hundred times or whatever.
162. Re:How is this gasping news by elashish14 · 2013-01-06 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  I would think at some point, you would go to prison for a Very Long Time, but I guess not...
  
  --
  I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
163. Re:How is this gasping news by cheekyjohnson · 2013-01-06 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  You can also not think its wrong to chop the tops off of parking meters or rob a bank
  Right, and if he said that everyone knows both of those things is wrong, I'd object to that, too. It's possible to believe they're not wrong, and it is likely a subjective matter.
  
  that just means you have terribly poor judgement
  According to society, anyway.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
164. Re:How is this gasping news by dwye · 2013-01-06 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  No it is not. I have seen many Westerns whose main character was hanged, yet survived.
  Clearly, they need to be tossed into a wood chipper. No one survives that!
165. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-06 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  You know it's wrong.
  What if they don't think it's wrong?
  What if they overestimated their ability to drive while under the influence? Would that not be classified as a "mistake"?
  "What if,..." The world is filled with "What if's"; What if...he learns from this stupid mistake and never even thinks of drinking and driving.
166. Re:How is this gasping news by cheekyjohnson · 2013-01-06 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  I was merely acknowledging other (very real) possibilities. It's quite possible (and I'm quite sure it even happens) that someone could believe it's not wrong, and it's quite possible for them to make the error of overestimating their ability to drive while under the influence. While your "what if" scenario was rather random, mine were quite relevant, I believe.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
167. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-06 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  How is that "informative"? Spewing idiotic falsehoods is now informative?
168. Re:How is this gasping news by KevReedUK · 2013-01-06 05:33 · Score: 2
  
  There can be a world of difference between "fine to drive" and "legal to drive".
  
  --
  Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
169. Re:How is this gasping news by rflii · 2013-01-06 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but drunk drivers deserve whatever they get. Once you've had multiple family members killed by drunk drivers, you'll feel a little different about it. And no, these weren't first time offenders, either. For one it was his 5th offense, for another it was his 15th offense, and for the third it was was 17th offense. In the second "accident", the victim was unrecognizable because she (and the motor) had been relocated to the back seat of the car.
  That is a failure of the court system and the district attorney; who is elected in most US cities. I have had people I loved killed by drivers; one a drunk and another someone who just fell asleep at the wheel. In the former instance the driver did reform and never drank again (15+ years) and yet he will be haunted by a felony his whole life. The driver who fell asleep because he tried driving farther than his physical limit was not even charged and got into another accident a year later presumingly driving exhausted. Fortunately, for all the other drivers on the road his mistake was the last thing action he ever took. Poor judgement is inherit to some people and they will never learn; those should be punish harshly and for a long time. If a person shows they can learn and change their way of life then lets get them back to contributing to society.
170. Re:How is this gasping news by Mufasa_ooh_sayitagai · 2013-01-06 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  This is true. And there are lots of people that are not "fine to drive" when sober. But there's nothing we can do about that because it is perfectly legal for them to drive.
171. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-06 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  Being "a real man" entails being male and existing. I hate the cliche "be a real man" it's infantile. I think what Dr. Barnowl is really trying to say is eventually you could pay for the damage to the cars but not until you're out of jail. If you don't go to jail you can pay for the damage sooner.
172. Re:How is this gasping news by HornWumpus · 2013-01-06 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Back in the 80's I knew a drunk who was up to 12 or so.
  He hadn't had a license in a decade, was know to the cops and was arrested whenever he was seen driving (he was always drunk). Went to prison for six months every time (always out on early release).
  I blame the cops, at one point he drove a car _at_ one of them and they didn't just cap his drunk ass.
  I'm sure he's dead by now.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
173. Re:How is this gasping news by HornWumpus · 2013-01-06 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  I saw an old lady doing needle point on her steering wheel.
  Stitch, look, stitch, look...
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
174. Re:How is this gasping news by HornWumpus · 2013-01-06 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah right, talking.
  What family cars need is robotic kid smackers that can be activated from the drivers seat, like power windows.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
175. Re:How is this gasping news by fsck1nhippies · 2013-01-06 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  That would turn driving into a video game!
176. Re:How is this gasping news by BKX · 2013-01-06 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  You clearly don't live in Michigan where drunk driving penalties are already ridiculous. One DUI will cost you at least $5000 (reinstatement fee, jail costs (you WILL be arrested), driver responsibility fee, actual fine, probation costs), in addition to community service and probation.. A second will cost at least $7500 + some jail time + community service + probation + another $3000-$5000 if you ever want your license back. A third (and subsequent offences), is the same plus possible prison time (probable in some counties), plus a few more grand, and you're probably never getting your license back, no matter how hard you try. Forth offense is just asking for prison time.
  And heaven forbid you get in an accident. You become personally liable for all medical costs and damages in an accident, and jail time is a given. If someone is killed or seriously injured, your asshole is sentenced to become a vagina for the next decade, as well.
  Seriously, is that harsh enough, because it seems a bit ridiculous to me. Oh, and if you're above .15 BAC, jump up a level for being SuperDrunk.
177. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-06 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Electricity landed him in jail. Without electricity facebook wouldn't exist...
  You seroius? Facebook would instead just not exist on electrical machines. Either 1) It would be in actual books, or 2) It would be on actual walls.
  Computers are just the current way this is being done.
178. Re:How is this gasping news by uninformedLuddite · 2013-01-06 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  The only bank robbers that are a menace to society are the ones in the board rooms.
  
  --
  The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
179. Re:How is this gasping news by uninformedLuddite · 2013-01-06 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Dumb people make my brain hurt.
  Coming here these days must make you a masochist
  
  --
  The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
180. Re:How is this gasping news by mjwx · 2013-01-06 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  You know it's wrong.
  What if they don't think it's wrong?
  That doesn't matter.
  
  This is why we have laws, so that idiots who don't think DUI is wrong can be expressly told it is.
  
  What if they overestimated their ability to drive while under the influence? Would that not be classified as a "mistake"?
  No, the keys did not mistakenly fall into his hand, mistakenly start the ignition nor did he mistakenly consume alcohol.
  
  If you drink, you cannot accurately judge your ability to do complex things, if you drink and cant recognise or stop yourself this you need to stop drinking.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
181. Re:How is this gasping news by cheekyjohnson · 2013-01-06 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  This is why we have laws, so that idiots who don't think DUI is wrong can be expressly told it is.
  They could be told it is with or without laws. Laws don't equal morality. My point was that his statement that everyone knows it's wrong is most likely not true.
  
  No, the keys did not mistakenly fall into his hand, mistakenly start the ignition nor did he mistakenly consume alcohol.
  But the person might have made a few mistakes, or errors in judgement, to get to that point. Just like I said, actually. I don't see why people think it's a big deal to call it a "mistake." They can still be punished regardless.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
182. Re:How is this gasping news by HornWumpus · 2013-01-06 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  You could just put it into auto. Any noise gets a smack.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
183. Re:How is this gasping news by NickDB · 2013-01-06 21:48 · Score: 0
  
  If they're prepared to drive drunk, what makes you think they'll stop driving because a piece of paper was taken away from them?
184. Re:How is this gasping news by NickDB · 2013-01-06 21:59 · Score: 0
  
  Late last year I bailed a mate out of jail. He was stopped at a roadblock and blew .01 over the limit. He had just 2 beers, the same amount that he has blown under the limit before. The difference - he had the last beer 5 minutes before having to dash off somewhere, he wasn't planning to leave then, but something came up and he had too. The process here is they breathalyse you then take blood for the court proceedings. He thought he'd be fine with the blood readings but forgot he also donated blood that day, so he wasn't. Luckily the Judge listened to him and he had proof about the blood donation and let him off on with a warning. Now he doesn't drink a drop if he's driving, it's called being an adult and learning from his experience. Should he have gone to jail, lost his job and been ruined for life because of what was a mistake?
185. Re:How is this gasping news by nobodie · 2013-01-07 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Pure Skinnerian Behaviorism:
  Positive reinforcement: getting rewarded for doing something
  Negative reinforcement: Being ignored for doing something
  Punishment: Being punished for doing something
  The most powerful force for change is a continuing use of Both positive and negative reinforcement for the same action. Punishment, on the other hand, will often (but not reliably) encourage the behavior being punished.
  The science of behavior has been understood for more than 50 years, but nobody really uses it. Certainly it does not get properly taught or implemented in places like prisons and jails or in the legal system.
  
  --
  Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
186. Re:How is this gasping news by DiEx-15 · 2013-01-07 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  This is the price you pay for being immature. You know you have done something wrong (1.drive drunk 2.smash a car and the incident is the effect of a cause that is you alone, in wrongdoing). You look around, make sure noone sees you and when this turns out to be positive, you keep your fucking mouth shut. QED.
  Unfortunately, the teen in TFA was too stupid, drunk, and a know-it-all to have listened to this sage advice.
187. Re:How is this gasping news by dave.haku · 2013-01-07 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  You are aware that being intoxicated affects decision making capabilities... right?
  Not trying to win an argument, I actually support your point. But just playing devil's advocate:
  
  You might have been told so, several times. But experimental data, like friends driving drunk before you, and doing so fine and without incidents, might tell you otherwise. Until you experiment yourself how impaired you actually are, you might be aware of how it "affects [your] decision making capabilities".
  
  Still, if you've been told, you cannot say you didn't know, only you didn't believe it.
188. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-07 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  I've never operated a vehicle withing 24 hours of a drink, and I've never had more than 2 drinks in my system at any time. I've met the requirements for a commercial airline pilot, so again, I don't see how your question was relevant to DUI. If you search through my posts on this topic, I did mention people driving home drunk the morning after. But how does labeling it a "mistake" change it? Why are you working so hard to convince yourself that it is possibly a "mistake"?
  
  Got an alcoholic in the family? I remember the justifications given by my alcoholic family members when they'd get caught. And getting it labeled a "mistake" was one of them. If it's just a mistake, maybe it was the cops mistake, or the bartender's for making the drink too strong, they aren't supposed to serve you if you are drunk anyway.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
189. Re:How is this gasping news by AK+Marc · 2013-01-07 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  MADD isn't a safety organization, but a Prohibition organization. The better penalty scheme is a tiered solution with readings of 0.12 or less being like a speeding ticket, and from 0.12 to 0.18, treated like current DUI, and above 0.18 treated like two current DUIs at once.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
190. Re:How is this gasping news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  In the US, the prison system is the solution to every problem. I always say that tourists should have a look inside our prisons to see what the real America is like. The New America is represented by a sadistic prison guard beating the shit out of an inmate for fun. Our culture is all about punishment and revenge and hurting people. A whole country full of angry, enthusiastic torturers who don't care what happens to anyone else but themselves.
  No other country is different, look in any prison, any country.
  You don't need the guards to beat the inmates, they beat each other.
191. Re:How is this gasping news by causality · 2013-01-14 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  it is far more about lawsuit liability, which leads to less financial loss, which leads to having more to survive with.
  You are confusing cause with effect (cf. my username). A lawsuit is the effect of the kind of non-freak-accident I was talking about.
  
  By acknowledging the valid concern corporations have about lawsuit liability, you are also acknowledging that there are people who would not correctly handle a deadly poison with the respect it deserves. The point is not that it could result in a lawsuit, though that is true. The point is that it would not be a freak accident.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Social Snitching. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 23:26 · Score: -1

All the rage in 2013.
1. Re:Social Snitching. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 23:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Some poor guy's car get wrecked up by an asshole and you are only worried protecting the asshole from paying the consequences? Snitching is absolutely and completely ethical if you are reporting an immoral or unethical act. If an asshole has hurt another person, then you have a duty to snitch. The case where snitching is unethical is when you report a 'crime' that hurts nobody (drug use is a good example).
2. Re:Social Snitching. by Cryacin · 2013-01-04 23:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Exactly. He was just another stupid facepalmer and got exactly what he deserved.
  
  --
  Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
3. Re:Social Snitching. by Dr_Barnowl · 2013-01-04 23:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They're doing him a favour - if he stops drink driving, he's much less likely to end up in a body bag, or worse, maimed or in jail.
4. Re:Social Snitching. by Black+LED · 2013-01-05 00:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or even worse, hurting or killing someone else.
5. Re:Social Snitching. by Joce640k · 2013-01-05 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  This. Next time he hits a car there might be somebody in it.
  And there *will* be a next time if you approve of his behavior by inaction (ie. not "snitching").
  
  --
  No sig today...
6. Re:Social Snitching. by KiloByte · 2013-01-05 01:23 · Score: 0
  
  Drunk driving should come with an attempted murder charge, as that's what it is. I completely fail to understand US laws where they allow such an asshole to drive, even just "from home to work". Quite a few people around here lobby for a lifetime driving ban -- I disagree with them about length (if you were an idiot in your 20s, you may have learned in your 40s), but I'm all for such a ban being strict.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
7. Re:Social Snitching. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the world would be a better place if more people snitched when it's rationally a good idea (as in this case) rather than not snitching because of tribal/peer loyalty.
  
  Not just snitching. The world would be a better place if patriotic soldiers killed leaders who tried to start wars for stupid reasons. Make them be the first ones to die for the country, you might be the second one to die but you're saving a lot of lives.
  
  Yes it's betrayal, but the leader betrayed the country first. Note: before you do it you have to be very sure the leader is doing the wrong thing - e.g. it's not just your belief, but the majority of the citizens (who may be against the war but in no position to do anything about it).
8. Re:Social Snitching. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:30 · Score: 0
  
  Drink driving...new thing? Pass me a rum and coke, I'm off to go somewhere else...
9. Re:Social Snitching. by wisnoskij · 2013-01-05 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Except if he actually goes to jail he is far more likely to become a repeat criminal or get physiological issues form the sodomy.
  I do not think their is any scenario where going to jail does not increase your likelihood of death.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
10. Re:Social Snitching. by wisnoskij · 2013-01-05 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Some people do just learn from close calls. You have nothing to base your assessment on that he would not of rethought his drunk driving just from this one incident.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
11. Re:Social Snitching. by SternisheFan · 2013-01-05 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This. Next time he hits a car there might be somebody in it.
  And there *will* be a next time if you approve of his behavior by inaction (ie. not "snitching").
  Exactly. His friends reporting him ARE being his friends. Hopefully, this is a wake-up call that, if he wizens up to, will keep his future from being filled with regret and manslaughter charges. If he doesn't, his irresponsibility will wreck more than just his own selfish existence.
12. Re:Social Snitching. by lolococo · 2013-01-05 02:03 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  "rationally a good idea"? Now that's an oxymoron if I ever saw one. Good has nothing to do with rationality and everything to do with moral judgement.
  My grandfather was deported in Auschwitz, after being reported as a Jew, by a "good" neighbour, to the Nazis during WW II. At the time it was a rational thing to do since it's what the goverment told people to do, and it was also good from the Nazis perspective. I've never known my grandfather, nor did my mother know her father, as my grandmother was still pregnant. That's just one example, among so many millions of others.
  So tell me, how many people were led to an atrocious death by "rationally good snitchers"?
13. Re:Social Snitching. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  Drunk driving should come with an attempted murder charge, as that's what it is. I completely fail to understand US laws where they allow such an asshole to drive, even just "from home to work"
  I actually know someone who brags about being let off twice with only a warning for drunk driving.
14. Re:Social Snitching. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  I think, for the incident in question and based on the supposed comment made on Facebook, ("Drivin drunk ... classsic ;") we can assume that young Mister Jacob Cox-Brown has not walked away with any life-changing lessons from this particular adventure.
15. Re:Social Snitching. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  Jail != prison.
16. Re:Social Snitching. by Abreu · 2013-01-05 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  In many parts of the USA, life without a car (and a gun) is unthinkable.
  
  --
  No sig for the moment.
17. Re:Social Snitching. by MysteriousPreacher · 2013-01-05 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Except if he actually goes to jail he is far more likely to become a repeat criminal or get physiological issues form the sodomy.
  I do not think their is any scenario where going to jail does not increase your likelihood of death.
  If he does get a custodial sentence it'll be pretty light, and it's unlikely he'd be spending it in maximum security Federal "ass pounding" Prison. I'd think him likely a to receive a fine/suspended sentence/driving ban if he's got no prior form and doesn't act like a complete dick in court.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
18. Re:Social Snitching. by MysteriousPreacher · 2013-01-05 03:38 · Score: 2
  
  Drunk driving should come with an attempted murder charge, as that's what it is. I completely fail to understand US laws where they allow such an asshole to drive, even just "from home to work". Quite a few people around here lobby for a lifetime driving ban -- I disagree with them about length (if you were an idiot in your 20s, you may have learned in your 40s), but I'm all for such a ban being strict.
  I think that's a dangerous idea. This belongs more under reckless endangerment laws. Repeated offenders are certainly candidates for lifetime bans, as anyone caught once really should become so paranoid afterwards that they'll not touch a drop if they know they'll be driving. It also depends on severity, i.e. how far over the limit they were, and other charges could cover injuries and property damage that happened as a result of their drunk driving. Being the equivalent of one beer over the limit, and not hitting anyone isn't the same as some crazy fuck who necks a bottle of vodka and goes for a drunken spin up the wrong way of a motorway. The latter would definitely seem a good candidate for a lifetime ban.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
19. Re:Social Snitching. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  Is Adrian Lamo also still Bradley Manning's friend?
20. Re:Social Snitching. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  Completely different circumstances. Adrian Lamo was an active participant in what Bradley Manning was doing until he realized that he could face criminal charges (on top of his prior felony conviction) himself. He didn't turn in Manning because it was the right thing to do, he turned him in because he's a coward.
21. Re:Social Snitching. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  You sir are an idiot. Would you also charge anyone who answers their cellphone while driving with attempted murder? Driving while on the phone or even worse, texting, has been shown to be worse than alcohol impairment at or below the legal limit. How about someone who is sleep deprived? Someone who is severely distracted? (ie. just got fired, wife/husband just left, friend/relative just passed...)
  We need to stop with the stupid hyperbole that anyone who has any alcohol and drives must be intending to kill others.
22. Re:Social Snitching. by lgw · 2013-01-05 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  The world would be a better place if patriotic soldiers killed leaders who tried to start wars for stupid reasons
  The world would be a better place if soldiers just killed anyone's ideas they disagreed with? Really? That's "state of nature" and it's not a happy place. Here's a hint: every war ever was a great and necessary war, in some people's opinion, and an evil and stupid war, in others. Perhaps voting would be a better system than shooting to settle such differences?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
23. Re:Social Snitching. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  He clearly didn't rethink anything. He was making :P faces on Facebook about how he just got in a hit and run. He obviously an idiot. The only way he'd rethink anything is if his friends reamed him out over it. It's more likely they'd just lol with him.
24. Re:Social Snitching. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Would you also charge anyone who answers their cellphone while driving with attempted murder?
  Sure would. As you say, it can be just as dangerous as drunk driving.
  
  We need to stop with the stupid hyperbole that anyone who has any alcohol and drives must be intending to kill others.
  Intention is irrelevant. You knew better than to drink (or text) and drive, yet did it anyways. If someone dies due to your irresponsibility, you're going to pay for it dearly, possibly with your own life.
25. Re:Social Snitching. by R3d+M3rcury · 2013-01-05 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Some poor guy's car get wrecked up by an asshole and you are only worried protecting the asshole from paying the consequences?
  Ah, but if the car was parked outside the bar, perhaps the owner of the car was drunk. By wrecking his car, he may have saved the streets from having another drunk driver!
  Perhaps we should be lauding this young man for his quick thinking!
  (Yes, I'm kidding)
26. Re:Social Snitching. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  So, how may counts of attempted "murder" would you care to admit to? Or do you not own a cell phone and/or motor vehicle? I also assume that you have never once driven when you had a cold, or when tired, or when distracted...
  And yes, intent is kind of key to attempted murder -- you aren't going to convince anyone that by answering a phone while driving a person has decided that they are going to try and kill someone -- just like having a glass of wine at dinner doesn't mean you are sitting there thinking about killing someone. I mean hell, while we are at it why don't we say that anyone who gets into any motor vehicle at all is guilty of attempted murder? After all plenty of sober drivers kill people -- in fact sober drivers kill more people than drunk drivers do. Don't get me wrong, there is a level of intoxication where I can kind of agree with you, but you are still way off of the mark on your idea of what attempted murder is.
27. Re:Social Snitching. by KiloByte · 2013-01-05 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  For a humorous take on it, please read the author's text under this strip of Schlock Mercenary.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
28. Re:Social Snitching. by LMariachi · 2013-01-05 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Unintended consequences: The stricter you make the penalties, the more likely a driver will flee the scene after an accident. If he's already facing a felony attempted murder charge and lifetime license revocation, adding "leaving the scene" is small potatoes. Much the same as mandatory sentences for accomplices in armed robberies -- as soon as one of your crew kills someone, everyone is on the hook for murder, so you might as well kill all the witnesses.
29. Re:Social Snitching. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  I don't use my phone when driving, I don't drive when drinking, I don't drive when I'm too tired, I am not prone to road rage and I catch a cold perhaps once every ten years. In short, take care of myself and of those around me to the best of my ability. It's hilarious and frightening that you act as though these things are beyond control.
  By the time you injure or kill yourself or someone else, it's too late. Intention doesn't matter. You've already messed up and will pay for it one way or another.
  You sound just like those people who say they don't care if they get into an auto accident as long as you aren't at fault. You know, the kind of people who brake check the moron tailgating you instead of simply moving to another lane or pulling over to let them pass. What you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter who's fault it is if you're in a wheelchair sucking your dinner down through a straw or worse.
30. Re:Social Snitching. by UpUpDownDown · 2013-01-05 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  I agree - and I really don't see Facebook being complicit in this. If this guy went to his local bar and told his friends that he did this and one of them tipped off the police it would be the same thing. Facebook simply was the medium. They weren't the message. He did a dangerous thing and damaged property. He needed to pay the full price.
31. Re:Social Snitching. by nephilimsd · 2013-01-05 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  If I am reading this correctly, being dead is better than being in jail? I can understand some extreme mutilations being worse than death, but death is definitely one of the more severe consequences of an action.
32. Re:Social Snitching. by sjames · 2013-01-05 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  Not snitching isn't the same as approving. For example, giving him a thorough chewing out for being stupid, telling him someone will die if he keeps it up and that you'll report him yourself if he dos it again isn't what I would call 'approving'.
eCrimes division by wild_quinine · 2013-01-04 23:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

That you can be arrested for admitting to crimes on Facebook is only news these days for the people getting arrested.
Treating this story as news in this day and age smacks of the "Same old crime.... but on a COMPUTER!!!" syndrome that we've been criticising for a decade or more.
1. Re:eCrimes division by You're+All+Wrong · 2013-01-04 23:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I thought what we liked criticising here was "same old invention ... but on a COMPUTER!!!", so much so there's an entire /. section devoted to such stories.
  
  --
  Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
2. Re:eCrimes division by Zemran · 2013-01-05 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  He was arrested because 2 of his 'friends' grassed him up. Facebook was just a trivial part of the non story that gave it a tenuous link to this site. If you read it you will even find out that being drunk is not even a real part of the story as all the police can show is that his car was in an accident and he did not stop.
  Wait a month and then seriously main the 2 friends.
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
3. Re:eCrimes division by jcoy42 · 2013-01-05 01:57 · Score: 2
  
  No, we like criticizing the notion that adding "on a computer" to an existing idea somehow makes it a new idea worthy of ownership/patent/suing for infringement. We are not against the notion of doing things on a computer in and of itself. We consider that to be an improvement upon an existing idea, generally to help avoid mistakes and make existing systems more efficient.
  Our issue with the patent of such ideas is it causes stagnation and prevents us from continuing to improve systems and make them more efficient.
  
  --
  Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
4. Re:eCrimes division by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  People should understand that facebook is not a confessional
5. Re:eCrimes division by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  I think you meant "maim" there, Chief.
6. Re:eCrimes division by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  The facebook post is inadmissible (as it should be), and he's not getting charged for the crime he admitted to (DUI) on those grounds. He's getting charged for leaving the scene of an accident because after his friends ratted him out to the cops, they matched his car to the accident sites. This is only news in the same sense as other people doing stupid things and bragging about it on the internet can lead to them getting caught. The internet is a great stupid-enabler.
7. Re:eCrimes division by MysteriousPreacher · 2013-01-05 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  His being drunk is a very real part of the story. The problem is that the police can't establish his blood alcohol level at the time, so they're sticking with charges they can reasonably substantiate.
  The boy was acting like a reckless idiot, and it's not just himself at risk. I agree with what his friends did.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
8. Re:eCrimes division by ceoyoyo · 2013-01-05 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  He was arrested because police matched his car to damage caused to other cars after they received a tip. The fact that the tipster knew about the crime because the criminal was bragging of Facebook is immaterial. It could have been in a bar, or in the locker room.
  Not that he wasn't charged with drunk driving... apparently the cops didn't think the Facebook confession was enough evidence. It looks like he was only charged with what regular old fashioned police work could pin on him.
9. Re:eCrimes division by LordLimecat · 2013-01-05 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  They received a tip from friends, they checked the dudes car, saw it had been in a wreck, matched it (via paint? Impact sites? other methods?) to the vehicle the dude hit, and went after him for a hit and run.
  Not seeing the problem here, except that you failed to read the article.
Upside Down World by BlackPignouf · 2013-01-04 23:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Skating, smoking weed & playing video games is evil and dangerous, but
smoking cigarettes, owning guns & drinking and driving is cool, safe and "classic".
Freaking idiots!
1. Re:Upside Down World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 23:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Classy. Throwing gun ownership in with driving drunk. Asshat.
2. Re:Upside Down World by Goose+In+Orbit · 2013-01-04 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Pot, kettle, black.
  In the wrong hands - both actions are potentially lethal.
3. Re:Upside Down World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  Driving a car AT ALL is potentially lethal. So is climbing a tree. I don't see what you are getting at.
4. Re:Upside Down World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 00:03 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Welcome to 'Merica. Home of the racists, gun nuts, religious idiots, sexists.
  Oh say can you see, by the brains logic light, what so profoundly we failed
5. Re:Upside Down World by MBGMorden · 2013-01-05 00:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Driving drunk is ALWAYS wrong. 99% of gun owners do absolutely nothing wrong with their guns.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
6. Re:Upside Down World by ArsenneLupin · 2013-01-05 00:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Alcool doesn't wreck cars, peopl do.
7. Re:Upside Down World by ArsenneLupin · 2013-01-05 00:59 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Driving drunk is ALWAYS wrong.
  Because it's defined that way, d'oh...
  
  99% of gun owners do absolutely nothing wrong with their guns.
  In many parts of the world, those 99% of gun owners do something wrong with their gun: owning it. (yes, in many parts of the world gun ownership itself is forbidden, except very few specific exceptions...)
8. Re:Upside Down World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Alcool doesn't wreck cars, peopl do.
  But alcohol does wreck people.
9. Re:Upside Down World by Goose+In+Orbit · 2013-01-05 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  To paraphrase slightly:
  "99% of nuclear weapons owners do absolutely nothing wrong with their nuclear weapons"
  Does that mean that everyone should have them? After all, they're only there for protection...
  I know... deliberately absurd...
10. Re:Upside Down World by Charliemopps · 2013-01-05 01:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In many parts of the world, those 99% of gun owners do something wrong with their gun: owning it. (yes, in many parts of the world gun ownership itself is forbidden, except very few specific exceptions...)
  No... they do something illegal. Being illegal doesn't make something wrong. In many parts of the world owning a bible is illegal.
11. Re:Upside Down World by Charliemopps · 2013-01-05 01:24 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, that's the pro gun argument. We should all own nukes. And your argument boils down to banning guns, knives, rolling pins, hammers, and government funding for padding the sharp corners of coffee tables.
12. Re:Upside Down World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  Skating, smoking weed & playing video games is evil and dangerous
  You forgot sex.
13. Re:Upside Down World by Goose+In+Orbit · 2013-01-05 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  I realise that - hence the absurd part... everything more substantial than air I reckon...
14. Re:Upside Down World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:18 · Score: 0
  
  where do i sign up for that padding bit.... im all for that
15. Re:Upside Down World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:18 · Score: -1
  
  Oh, they do. They make petty criminals trigger-happy, and thus get a number of people killed who are (wrongly) suspected to pull a gun in self-defense. Of course, even if they did own a gun, they would not get the opportunity of pulling it, so the whole "self-defense" rubbish is dead in the water.
16. Re:Upside Down World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  In the wrong hands - both actions are potentially lethal.
  Like skating and video games?
  An idiot on a half pipe can easily cause severe if not lethal damage to themselves. As for video games, it's admittedly rare, but there have been Internet cafe deaths during binges in Asia.
  Weed, though, fair enough - I'm pretty sure nobody without a pre-existing condition died from eating an entire bag of doritos, and I'd sooner blame lack of self control than those delicious little bastards.
17. Re:Upside Down World by drerwk · 2013-01-05 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Driving drunk is ALWAYS wrong.
  Closed course with instructor - can be very instructive to the student hitting pylons he missed 30 minutes earlier.
18. Re:Upside Down World by Abreu · 2013-01-05 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  99% of gun owners do absolutely nothing wrong with their guns.
  Source for that?
  
  --
  No sig for the moment.
19. Re:Upside Down World by 0111+1110 · 2013-01-05 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Driving while tired or while on cold medicine is also "wrong". 99% of drunk drivers don't harm anyone with their erratic drunk driving. Without a victim you're just trying to punish people for behaving in a way that you don't approve of. I don't approve of it either, but I think the current penalties for it are ridiculous. Drunk driving is just a form of reckless driving and the penalties should be similar. Well, assuming that you are in fact driving recklessly. It should be noticeable. More than just a number on a breath test.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
20. Re:Upside Down World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  I highly doubt that 'In many parts of the world owning a bible is illegal'. Even in Saudi Arabia, you can just say you're planning on burning it.
21. Re:Upside Down World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  Easy. Instead of wanting a handout, go look up stats on something that's probably available:
  a. Handgun related issues within a region
  b. number of handgun related offenses within a region
  100% - (a/b) = x%, which I would be suprised if it's much less than 99%.
  Given a reasonable sample set, that is - say the United States as a whole.
22. Re:Upside Down World by lgw · 2013-01-05 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  In many other parts of the world, gun ownership is legally required (after your mandatory militia service). Such places have very low violent crime rates. What's your point?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
23. Re:Upside Down World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know about that. Using E85 in an older vehicle not designed for it can damage it.
24. Re:Upside Down World by wahini · 2013-01-05 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  In many other parts of the world, gun ownership is legally required (after your mandatory militia service). Such places have very low violent crime rates. What's your point?
  Can you name one of the countries that do that. Israel does NOT allow gun ownership unless you live in or frequently travel to "the settlements" (kibbutz's). The military hasn't allowed troops to bring their guns home for years, they are stored at the post.
  Switzerland, no longer allows it's soldiers to bring home guns either. Crime rate is still low too ;)
  Remember, guns don't stop crimes, people do!
25. Re:Upside Down World by Charliemopps · 2013-01-05 07:33 · Score: 2
  
  China - This concludes my counter argument.
26. Re:Upside Down World by NoKaOi · 2013-01-05 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  In many parts of the world owning a bible is illegal.
  You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? Watch Fox News much? North Korea maybe, where it's not technically illegal but there was a North Korean who was imprisoned because he was accused of spying when he smuggled bibles into the country in 2009. Name me all these other places in the world today where owning a bible is illegal, based on reality not what some Fox News pundit said. Even in Saudi Arabia (our supposed allies, the country most of the 9/11 terrorists were from), trying to convert somebody to Christianity is illegal, but even there it's perfectly legal to practice Christianity with your bible as long as you don't try to convert anybody.
  In 15th century England it was illegal to own an English translation of the bible, because the church didn't want people to actually read the bible and interpret it themselves, they wanted to control the flow of information through the clergy. I don't think North Korea and 15th century England qualify as "many parts of the world."
27. Re:Upside Down World by Nyder · 2013-01-05 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  smoking weed is cool, safe and "classic".
  FTFY
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
28. Re:Upside Down World by Nyder · 2013-01-05 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Driving drunk is ALWAYS wrong.
  Because it's defined that way, d'oh...
  
  99% of gun owners do absolutely nothing wrong with their guns.
  In many parts of the world, those 99% of gun owners do something wrong with their gun: owning it. (yes, in many parts of the world gun ownership itself is forbidden, except very few specific exceptions...)
  STFU Seriously, STFU
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
29. Re:Upside Down World by Nyder · 2013-01-05 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Alcool doesn't wreck cars, peopl do.
  Spelling doesn't make you look stupid, but spelling errors do.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
30. Re:Upside Down World by leenks · 2013-01-05 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  No... they do something illegal. Being illegal doesn't make something wrong. In many parts of the world owning a bible is illegal.
  Wow? Really - I like the sound of that!
31. Re:Upside Down World by ogdenk · 2013-01-05 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Driving drunk is ALWAYS wrong.
  Because it's defined that way, d'oh...
  Driving is a privilege, not a right. Car ownership is far more dangerous than gun ownership. Operating a car while drunk is insane
  
  In many parts of the world, those 99% of gun owners do something wrong with their gun: owning it. (yes, in many parts of the world gun ownership itself is forbidden, except very few specific exceptions...)
  Unfortunately many parts of the world live in abject tyranny. Weapons ownership is a basic human right. Murdering people with a large mechanical monster meant for transportation because you're a drunken idiot is *NOT* a basic right. Neither is murdering them with a weapon. Killing them in defense of one's own life/family/home *is*.
  You will never disarm US gun owners. Ever. No matter what laws the anti-gun lobby will try to pass. Doesn't matter what you think on this. What matters is reality. THAT is reality. You will simply start a war or turn half the country into criminals. I will keep my functional semi-automatic firearms. The end. Case closed. Don't like it? Come get them. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
32. Re:Upside Down World by stretch0611 · 2013-01-05 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Driving drunk is ALWAYS wrong. 99% of gun owners do absolutely nothing wrong with their guns.
  To paraphrase, driving drunk is wrong. owning a gun is not wrong (at least not morally, laws may differ depending on where you live and if you have a criminal record.)
  I agree with the above. But, you are comparing apples to oranges...
  If you want a better comparison... Owning a car is legal and not wrong. Drinking (depending on age) is also legal. But if you are impaired (through drugs or alcohol) shooting a gun is just as wrong as driving a car. (at least morally, if not legally.)
  If you are a responsible adult, owning dangerous items should not be an issue. Drinking alcohol is also fine, even if you want to get drunk to the point of passing out... However, you are acting irresponsibly and should be held accountable when you use dangerous items while impaired regardless of the item.
  Being drunk (or high) is not an excuse, you made a conscious decision to drink. If you can not adequately plan other arrangements, or if you know you will completely ignore your plans to let your sober friend drive, you should not be allowing yourself to drink in the first place. It is called responsibility. In the same way, gun owners need to be as responsible as car owners.
  There is not a difference, when I was in college, a few of my fraternity brothers got drunk and used bb guns to shoot out the windows of a neighboring house. Shooting while drunk really is just as dangerous. It was obvious (based on trajectory of the bb's in the walls) that it came from our fraternity house and they were forced to learn an expensive lesson. But I guarantee that they would not have been as fortunate had it not been another fraternity house that was empty during a renovation... Think of the consequences had they actually hit someone.
  
  --
  Looking for a job?
  Want your resume written professionally?
  DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
33. Re:Upside Down World by LordLimecat · 2013-01-05 17:03 · Score: 2
  
  Er, owning a bible is not illegal in china. You can actually buy legit NIV bibles there. Chinese nationals can even buy legit, non tampered-with bibles there.
  What is illegal, is to talk about the bible or the gospel with anyone under the age of 18 or outside of the context of a state-run church.
  Try again, preferably with an example that you know something about.
34. Re:Upside Down World by LordLimecat · 2013-01-05 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  The pro gun argument is that when the country was founded and the government contract was written, the smart folks who wrote the contract figured it was a pretty good idea to lock in gun ownership rights.
  And generally we think they were right about that every bit as much as the other amendments, and generally for the same reasons: There are certain rights we think it is terribly dangerous to leave solely in the hands of the government.
35. Re:Upside Down World by ArsenneLupin · 2013-01-05 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  Weapons ownership is a basic human right.
  In Europe, mobility (" freedom of movement") is a basic human right too (at least in theory).
  
  Murdering people with a large mechanical monster meant for transportation because you're a drunken idiot is *NOT* a basic right.
  "Murder" means "premeditated killing of another human being". Deaths due to accidents due to reckless conduct are called "wrongful death". They are not even "manslaughter". But somehow wrongful death just doesn't sound as dramatic as murder.
  
  I will keep my functional semi-automatic firearms. The end. Case closed. Don't like it? Come get them.
  I won't get them. Personally I don't really care. However, if your government wants them, they will come and get them, and live to tell the tale. Never heard of SWAT teams?
36. Re:Upside Down World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 23:49 · Score: 0
  
  No... they do something illegal. Being illegal doesn't make something wrong.
  They do something that's illegal because it's dangerous and sometimes leads to people getting hurt: whether that's steering a tonne of metal at high speed with impaired judgement, or owning a device that, if handled improperly, can send bits of metal through the vital organs of whoever is unlucky enough to be standing in front of them. Whether each of these is wrong or not depends on the degree of danger versus the benefits to allowing these acts. All legal systems strike some compromise in each of these two cases: the training required of drivers, and the permissible blood-alcohol content; and the dangerousness of the gun, and the acceptable storage procedures.
37. Re:Upside Down World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Owning a gun is illegal in shitholes throughout the entire world because the shitters who sit on top of those shitholes
  and shit down on the unfortunates beneath have just one main worry in their lives: A gun shoved into their crack.
  Yes, there are people who expect to be able to come to your house, kick the door in, rape your 7-year old daughter,
  kill your dogs and bust your teeth out and those of your wife with the butt of a rifle and hear you say "Thank you sirs!"
  after they are done.
38. Re:Upside Down World by ogdenk · 2013-01-06 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  "Murder" means "premeditated killing of another human being". Deaths due to accidents due to reckless conduct are called "wrongful death". They are not even "manslaughter". But somehow wrongful death just doesn't sound as dramatic as murder.
  I consider willfully and knowingly operating a vehicle when you're drunk while knowing the danger to count as premeditation. I think manslaughter should at least apply.
  
  I won't get them. Personally I don't really care. However, if your government wants them, they will come and get them, and live to tell the tale. Never heard of SWAT teams?
  My state doesn't even have any gun registration in place. Good luck with finding guns in my state. And do you know what it would cost (in both cash and human lives) to go door to door attempting to confiscate weapons? And do you REALLY think that in South Carolina, everyone is just going to stand by and let it happen? No. It would be a terrible mess.
  Just because YOU won't stand up for yourself doesn't mean everyone shares your attitude. The government is not omnipotent.
39. Re:Upside Down World by lazy+genes · 2013-01-06 13:23 · Score: 0
  
  Until they design a personal transportation system that is sustainable we are slaves. The current system will drive us into extinction in less than 30 years. There is a faster, cheaper,and sustainable way to move from one place to another in any weather 24/7. I cant believe how ignorant humans truly are.
Not FB by udachny · 2013-01-04 23:37 · Score: 0, Informative

While I am no fan of FB, this is not a case of FB landing a teen in jail, it's a case of a mouthy teen and his ratty 'friend' (not that I condone drunk driving and hit and run, but let's call things what they are).

--
MY OTHER COMMENTS
1. Re:Not FB by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 23:45 · Score: -1
  
  If you let a friend get away with a drunk hit and run, you do in fact condone the activity. "Snitching" is not something to be looked down upon unless the infraction had zero real consequences.
2. Re:Not FB by 91degrees · 2013-01-04 23:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes. A better headline would be "Stupidity Lands Drunk Driving Teen in Jail".
3. Re:Not FB by Teun · 2013-01-05 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Judging by the drunkards own remark on FB he was not exactly repentant and I consider it a wholly responsible action to report this idiot before he would cause more and more serious damage, I don't see a ratty friend or snitch anywhere.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
4. Re:Not FB by Rockoon · 2013-01-05 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  What has this world come to that we no longer think its expected to take responsibility for your actions?
  
  Here is the deal. You drink and drive and nobody gets hurt and nothing gets damaged.. I'm not going to be "snitching" on you.. but if you slam into several vehicles and drive off, well guess what buddy... I'm "snitching" because you should accept responsibility for your god damned actions.
  
  I feel the same way about Bradley Manning. Even if you think that its "right" to do the thing that you did, you still fucking accept the consequences. No crying about it, and no blaming the people that turned you in.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
5. Re:Not FB by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't matter, sure, the teen is an ass, however he thought he had these friends, apparently they are rats, so he was wrong. It's a zoo, an ass and a couple of rats.
6. Re:Not FB by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  Repentant? What is this, a church? There is no argument about personal responsibility here, the guy is an ass. However it is not personal responsibility when OTHERS turn you in.
  In his case those were his supposed friends, well now he knows better. He doesn't have friends, he has rats. It's a zoo, an ass and a couple of rodents.
Nice friends by loufoque · 2013-01-04 23:38 · Score: -1, Troll

What nice friends those guys are, to send their friend to jail.
1. Re:Nice friends by zdzichu · 2013-01-04 23:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you get to know about a crime and do not report it, you automatically become an accomplice. He basically forced them to report him.
  
  --
  :wq
2. Re:Nice friends by DiamondGeezer · 2013-01-04 23:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Do you wait until your friend kills someone before you do the right thing?
  
  --
  Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
3. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 23:48 · Score: 0
  
  Because best friends help you bury the bodies instead of letting the police know and hoping you'll start being responsible for your actions. I'm sure they did not want him in jail, but they just wanted the moron to learn it's not cool nor all right to fuck up other people's property and run off.
4. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 23:53 · Score: 0
  
  You fail society.
5. Re:Nice friends by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-01-04 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  Are these real friends or Facebook "friends"? If a close friend admits to driving drunk, I'd keep quiet about it (after trying to convince him not to do it again). If a vague Facebook acquaintance brags about driving drunk and a hit-and-run, then yes, I'd be on the phone with the police too. In the long run, this probably benefits everyone, including the drunk idiot.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
6. Re:Nice friends by SomePgmr · 2013-01-04 23:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Besides which, "friends" means something completely different on Facebook.
  In the real world, they're people that would slap you in the face for being a dangerous shithead. On facebook, they're often just people that were in the same yearbook as you, once upon a time.
7. Re:Nice friends by timmyf2371 · 2013-01-05 00:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  For me, my "obligations" to friends and family would stop depending on the nature of the crime. For example, if a friend or family member was committing a "victimless crime" such as taking illegal drugs, I would absolutely feel no need to report this. But for something like drink driving, you can be certain I'd reporting this.
  
  --
  
  Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
8. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  like/+1?
9. Re:Nice friends by fafaforza · 2013-01-05 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  If I knew of a friend, even a close one, that routinely drove drunk, and didn't listen to anyone's warnings and protestations, then the next logical step would be to report them. Or would you prefer that this kid hit a pedestrian, instead of a parked car. Cause I've seen this happen with asshat drunks who left kids without mothers.
10. Re:Nice friends by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-01-05 00:11 · Score: 2
  
  Are these real friends or Facebook "friends"?
  
  Excellent point. The English language needs a new term to differentiate between "real" friends and "Facebook" friends. Something like "f-friends", "eff-friends" or "fuh-riends".
  The Forum is open for suggestions. But please, no terms including the word "cyber". That term is way overloaded.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
11. Re:Nice friends by TheGoodNamesWereGone · 2013-01-05 00:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You! Out of the gene pool! The little shit could've killed someone, and you're worried that someone told on him?
12. Re:Nice friends by loufoque · 2013-01-05 00:12 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Even if my friends kill someone, I'll still support them.
  That's what true friendship is about.
13. Re:Nice friends by dbet · 2013-01-05 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  "Facebook friends" might just be people you met once, or not even that.
14. Re:Nice friends by loufoque · 2013-01-05 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  There is already a word for that, acquaintances.
15. Re:Nice friends by loufoque · 2013-01-05 00:16 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  It doesn't matter if someone you don't know dies.
  It does matter, however, if a friend gets his life ruined by going to prison.
16. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 00:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If you get to know about a crime and do not report it, you automatically become an accomplice. He basically forced them to report him.
  An accomplice is present at the crime. You'd become an accessory.
17. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 00:35 · Score: 0
  
  Friends help you move.
  Real friends help you move bodies.
18. Re:Nice friends by Black+Parrot · 2013-01-05 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Do you wait until your friend kills someone before you do the right thing?
  Or himself.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
19. Re:Nice friends by gnasher719 · 2013-01-05 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  Are these real friends or Facebook "friends"? If a close friend admits to driving drunk, I'd keep quiet about it (after trying to convince him not to do it again). If a vague Facebook acquaintance brags about driving drunk and a hit-and-run, then yes, I'd be on the phone with the police too. In the long run, this probably benefits everyone, including the drunk idiot.
  In the UK, there's a police phone number that you can call to shop a criminal. Their statistics are that the callers are 1/3rd each "concerned citizens", friends and family who want to stop you from getting deeper into whatever shit you are getting yourself into, and one third criminals trying to get rid of the competition.
20. Re:Nice friends by jamesh · 2013-01-05 00:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Even if my friends kill someone, I'll still support them.
  That's what true friendship is about.
  Being drunk behind the wheel of a car is a dangerous thing to be doing. If it was my friend i'd be dobbing them in too, for their safety and the safety of my other friends (and family, and strangers). I would be giving them the chance to turn themselves in first, but they'd need to be quick. That's the sort of support they need, even if it isn't what they want.
  In any case, a true friend wouldn't put me in the position where I had to make such a choice.
21. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 00:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If your friends kill someone and it isn't in the course of defending themselves or their loved ones, then they are a bad person and so are you for supporting them. Friendship sometimes requires tough love and contrary to popular belief, is rarely something that lasts forever. If you don't know when to say enough is enough and let them go, then you're not your own person.
22. Re:Nice friends by ArsenneLupin · 2013-01-05 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent! Where's the "Like" button here on Slashdot?
23. Re:Nice friends by TheTurtlesMoves · 2013-01-05 00:47 · Score: 2
  
  Real freinds prevent that from happening. Even at the cost of the friendship.
  
  Very few people can handel the emotioal cost of killing someone even in a genuine accedent. And in the case of drink driving there is a good chance that the person killed is at least another friend.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
24. Re:Nice friends by ArsenneLupin · 2013-01-05 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  And please no word starting with f either...
25. Re:Nice friends by Dan541 · 2013-01-05 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  Are these real friends or Facebook "friends"? If a close friend admits to driving drunk, I'd keep quiet about it (after trying to convince him not to do it again).
  Personally I'd report a real friend unless they when back to the scene to give their details to the car owner. If they aren't willing to compensate their victim then I don't want to know them.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
26. Re:Nice friends by ArsenneLupin · 2013-01-05 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  For example, if a friend or family member was committing a "victimless crime" such as taking illegal drugs, I would absolutely feel no need to report this. But for something like drink driving, you can be certain I'd reporting this.
  You know, in most cases, drunk driving is a victimless crime (although not in this particular case, admittedly...).
  And I'm sure, you're not really calling police after people leave a well wined party you were both at with their car... (and being family members, you certainly do have loads of opportunities to attend the same parties, and observe each other's drinking behavior...)
27. Re:Nice friends by Joce640k · 2013-01-05 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  Even if my friends kill someone, I'll still support them.
  Would you help them bury the body...?
  
  --
  No sig today...
28. Re:Nice friends by Kjella · 2013-01-05 00:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  As far as I can tell this is not actually true, at least not in the US. IANAL, but the people here seem to be. As long as you're not in any way an accessory before or after the fact, as long as you remain silent and don't misrepresent or obstruct the course of justice by lying about not seeing anything when you did and as long as the victim isn't in your custody like being the parent or guardian and you don't have a professional relationship like a teacher, doctor or psychologist who has extra legal obligations then there's no general legal requirement to report crime. Even the crime of misprision require you to conceal the crime, not mere failing to report it. If you're just a completely unrelated bystander, you can do nothing. Cheering them on would make you an accessory, though.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
29. Re:Nice friends by TheTurtlesMoves · 2013-01-05 00:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  We [Humans] are not good at killing each other despite popular opinion. Having serveral friends that were involed in fatal accidents [not them of course] that where not their fault and they were cleared of fault promtly by the police. I assure you the for vast majority of us it *does* matter if someone you don't know dies. It matters a great deal.
  
  Added to that in this case, is that for a drunk driver he/she is most likely going to kill someone they know, someone you know.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
30. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Real friends don't let their friends go around killing people. So unless they killed someone I believe deserved killing and is escaping the system (known mobster, evil dictator), I'd report them to the authorities.
  
  But I might still visit them in jail. That's what true friendship is about.
31. Re:Nice friends by fitteschleiker · 2013-01-05 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  you are a cunt
32. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  Um, yeah, but these weren't his "besties". His "bestie" should have been there in the car with him, because when booze is your co-pilot you need a navigator.
33. Re:Nice friends by KiloByte · 2013-01-05 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  And please no word starting with f either...
  Yeah, getting rid of that site whose name starts in F would be a good idea.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
34. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  Can't believe I just saw a "no true friends" fallacy on slashdot... Oh wait ;)
35. Re:Nice friends by ArsenneLupin · 2013-01-05 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  ... and it even has 4 letters. twice 4 letters actually.
36. Re:Nice friends by ShanghaiBill · 2013-01-05 01:37 · Score: 2
  
  If you get to know about a crime and do not report it, you automatically become an accomplice. He basically forced them to report him.
  An accomplice is present at the crime. You'd become an accessory.
  Actually, in most cases, you would be neither. In the USA, there is generally no legal obligation to report a crime. There are mandatory reporting requirements for some crimes by people in certain positions. For instance, teachers, doctors, and nurses are all required to report incidents of suspected child abuse.
37. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  And you know what? A real friend would understand why you reported them and continue to be your friend.
38. Re:Nice friends by Kjella · 2013-01-05 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  There is already a word for that, acquaintances.
  That would probably be less inaccurate than friends, but there's plenty people on my Facebook I wouldn't say are acquaintances either. Contacts is probably the most relation-neutral word I can come up with, like the contact list at work which has everything from people I just happen to work with - like the people I just happened to go to class with on FB - to coworkers I talk to every day. Friends, family, acquaintances, class mates, colleagues all seem like natural subgroups of contacts. Then again, if I want to point it out I just use "friends" with the quotes, I think everyone knows what a Facebook "friend" is.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
39. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  Are you black?
40. Re:Nice friends by wisnoskij · 2013-01-05 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  Most people of Facebook have far more than friends on their friends list.
  I am sure if I made a similar public post the same thing would likely happen to me. But I could easily create a sub-list of people who would not.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
41. Re:Nice friends by Guppy06 · 2013-01-05 02:03 · Score: 2
  
  Then pay for their legal defense.
42. Re:Nice friends by wisnoskij · 2013-01-05 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, or not.
  Some people actually have a backbone. There are entire cultures of people who would not rat someone out to the police if they actively hated them.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
43. Re:Nice friends by TheLink · 2013-01-05 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
  
  I am not a lawyer but my reading of "and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge" disagrees with your interpretation.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
44. Re:Nice friends by TheLink · 2013-01-05 02:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Guess it disagrees with the US Court's interpretation too (http://scholar.google.com.my/scholar_case?case=14806734468103617188&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=qzjoUMy1I8njrAePoIDoAw&ved=0CC0QgAMoADAA ).
  So I guess the conceal is considered an active thing and not passive.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
45. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  If drunk drivers only killed themselves then I don't think it would be nearly as big a problem as it is :(
46. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  i think i am one of those people who distrust the police so much that had the kid hit my car, i would not have called the cops- i would have gotten the info from his identification for later ----however if he caused injury to another living thing(trees and plants included sometimes) i feel he should be shown the error of his ways--perhaps even physically.at a later time after the kid had come to his senses byintroducibg him to some "street justice"
  first explaining who i was and why i was about to show him somw karma, back alley style
  i know i would have to pay for the repairs myself if i didnt have the correct insurance
  the kid and his parents would be given an opportunity to make things right financially
  its one of those things thats gonna hurt me more than its gonna hurt you(mostly) haha
  his own admission online he was asking someone to do this for him
  there is no reason to bring law enforcment into this at all and i feel that without law enforcement MAYBE just maybe a little good would come from the situation--i would guarantee the kid would think long and hard before ever drinking and driving again
  its just part of being a careing community member and i have lost friends to drunk drivers
  if you run a bank calling the cops is part of doing bussiness but from where i am from people (regular normal people)almost never call the cops
  it just makes things worse in the long run---dont get me wrong there are reasons i would call them---this just is not one of them
47. Re:Nice friends by ultranova · 2013-01-05 03:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Some people actually have a backbone. There are entire cultures of people who would not rat someone out to the police if they actively hated them.
  
  And as a result, these cultures tend to pretty violent and horrible places to live - after all, they still need to settle disputes and keep the members in line. The Mafia is a good example. So are honour killings. Stoning rape victims to death is also a great manifestation of these noble, straight-backed cultures, where justice is whatever the guy with the biggest gang of thugs says it is.
  The rule of law is a good thing, even if every law is not good, because the only alternative is tyranny. And the laws against drunk driving happen to be amongst the good ones.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
48. Re:Nice friends by ceoyoyo · 2013-01-05 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  I have. If a bunch of guys intimidating him into not driving, or stealing his keys doesn't work, the cops it is. So long as they get there before drunky manages to do any driving they'll generally give him a lift home and a lecture.
  If my friends or family members were suicidal I'd intervene too.
49. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  no legal obligation to report a crime.
  ask jerry and his buddies about that one.
50. Re:Nice friends by ArsenneLupin · 2013-01-05 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  In some of the parties I have been (including family parties) everybody would be busy attempting to steal everybdy's keys, if we did that...
  Or are the drink driving limits so much higher in the US than in Europe that only serious abuse takes you over them?
51. Re:Nice friends by wisnoskij · 2013-01-05 04:20 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The rule of law and flawed individuals given near infinite power (aka the police) are two different things.
  Lots of people do not trust them, and they have many logical reasons not to.
  And anarchy is different than the understanding that you just do not rat to the police.
  Everyone does something illegal once in a while, reasonable people do not go running to the police everything they see a minor offence.
  Getting neighbor to rat on neighbor is the first sign of fascism. It happened in Germany, and it happened in Babylon 5; To name a few.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
52. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  After, yes. But if you have the chance to get them the help they need *before* it is likely they will kill someone, but you do nothing, then you aren't being a friend.
  I'd give them one day to do the right thing and turn themselves in before I would do it.
53. Re:Nice friends by gnasher719 · 2013-01-05 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Some people actually have a backbone. There are entire cultures of people who would not rat someone out to the police if they actively hated them.
  Should you ever go to jail: The guy who tells you that you should never snitch on anyone, and honour among thieves and all that shit, he will be the first one to rat on you if there is the slightest advantage in it for him.
54. Re:Nice friends by tangent3 · 2013-01-05 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  This kind of friends:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOncsnYp7Ic
55. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Drunk driving is a victimless crime in most cases in the same sense that randomly putting 1 round in a revolver and pointing it at someone's head is a victimless crime most of the time.
56. Re:Nice friends by DaTrueDave · 2013-01-05 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  If you get to know about a crime and do not report it, you automatically become an accomplice. He basically forced them to report him.
  An accomplice is present at the crime. You'd become an accessory.
  Actually, in most cases, you would be neither. In the USA, there is generally no legal obligation to report a crime. There are mandatory reporting requirements for some crimes by people in certain positions. For instance, teachers, doctors, and nurses are all required to report incidents of suspected child abuse.
  Actually, in the United States, it's a felony to fail to report the commission of another felony. It's called misprision, and it can be taken very seriously.
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4
  The mandatory reporting that you mention actually applies to professions where confidentiality is otherwise required.
57. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  You know, in most cases, drunk driving is a victimless crime
  Until it isn't, then some family of 4 dies on their way back from grandpa's birthday.
58. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Except for the word "and" right before it. What does conceal mean? "Lie about it"? Or simply "stay silent about it?" A big difference.
59. Re:Nice friends by daemonenwind · 2013-01-05 05:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In the real world, they're people that would slap you in the face for being a dangerous shithead
  Actually, I'm constantly amazed at how many people will just sit back, mute, and allow their "friends" to wander off on some self-destructive path.
  I've found that most people are more concerned with the friendship than with the friend.
60. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  That is incorrect.
  
  The factual basis of defendant's plea does not demonstrate the existence of "concealment," an essential element of the offense of misprision. The record of defendant's plea fails to reveal that he took " affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principals." United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1124 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 905, 91 S.Ct. 1366, 28 L.Ed.2d 645 (1971); Neal v. United States, 102 F.2d 643, 649-650 (8th Cir. 1939). The mere failure to report a felony is not sufficient to constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 4. Lancey v. United States,356 F.2d 407 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 922, 87 S.Ct. 234, 17 L.Ed.2d 145 (1966).
  Also, misprision of felony is not a felony, it's a misdemeanor.
61. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  Good friend vs good person is completely different. Let's put it this way. Your friend is driving home ridiculously drunk and you know about it. He won't listen to you when you tell him not to drive, but you have a backbone and don't call the cops. On the way home he hits your mom's minivan killing her and your baby sister. Good thing you were a good friend and didn't call the cops on him; the ramifications to him and your friendship would have been far worse than the deaths of your family members.
  Yeah, it's a really farfetched example that the guy just happens to kill two of your family members, but it's not too farfetched that he could kill somebody's family members.
62. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  Considering your level of ethics, sounds like the Mafia, or Church would be a good career option for you.
63. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  Stealing a candy bar from the store down the street is minor, driving drunk isn't. The chances of killing someone while stealing a candy bar is pretty rare, whereas drunk driving has a high mortality rate. You are driving a 1000 pound metal bullet while drunk out of your mind. How can that be a good thing. Nice job using the Hitler defense in your argument though. You win all the Internetz.
64. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not religious but there's that whole 'do unto others as you'd have other do unto you' schtick that I'm always hearing. You know it sounds like a pretty decent thing. How would you like it if you woke up in the morning and your car was totaled off and you had to pay for all the repairs yourself. Let's just pretend you aren't super loaded for a minute and are mooching off your parents. Now you have to take the bus to work everyday to feed your 3 starving kids because you can't afford to get your car repaired. It's not that fun getting groceries on the bus either. All because some ignorant little prick smashed your car and then joked about it.
65. Re:Nice friends by phantomfive · 2013-01-05 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  They ARE nice friends. Imagine if they'd done nothing......then this kid would go out and drive drunk some more, thinking it was 'classic,' whatever that may mean. The next time he might kill someone.
  
  Whatever you may think, landing in jail for manslaughter is a lot worse than landing in jail for drunk driving. If he learns that lesson now, then he's a lot better off facing the rest of his life.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
66. Re:Nice friends by loufoque · 2013-01-05 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, though I'd suggest better methods of getting rid of it.
67. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  Then we need to change the laws and the police, and not simply handle things without them. If something illegal is unreasonably so then it needs to be made legal.
68. Re:Nice friends by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  True friends would get them help before they killed someone (or themselves).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
69. Re:Nice friends by AK+Marc · 2013-01-05 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  I had a "friend" in high school that talked about suicide with me once. I immediately turned him in to the principal. He was out of school for the next 6 weeks for treatment (he had well known issues before that one incident). He thanked me when he got back.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
70. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  facebro / facebeyoch
71. Re:Nice friends by Macman408 · 2013-01-05 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  This. In college, my roommate's best friend drove drunk for about 10-15 miles, before being pulled over in the downtown/campus area about 2 blocks from his apartment. My roommate and I saw the cops giving him the various field sobriety tests right in front of our dorm. About 3 or 4 hours later, we were woken by a call from the jail, wanting to release him to the custody of a responsible adult for the next 24 hours. My roommate signed for that responsibility, but took it quite seriously, and used it to make his best friend's day quite miserable. He worked hard to make sure his friend knew that it was incredibly stupid, and make it something that he'd never want to do again. He wouldn't let his friend go anywhere, not even to the bathroom alone ("You might sneak a drink in there!"). And to the best of my knowledge, he never did again; when he got piss drunk, he'd do it somewhere where he could crash within walking distance.
72. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 16:14 · Score: 0
  
  That is what I don't understand about drunk drivers, they can crash anywhere whether at a friend's house, a motel, in the car or even outside. There is no excuse for "needing" to drive home right then and there in that condition. What they really need is to wake up the next day, safe in the knowledge that they weren't acting like a selfish little shit endangering people.
  It's much better to get picked up for being drunk in public than for drunk driving.
73. Re:Nice friends by jamesh · 2013-01-05 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  That is what I don't understand about drunk drivers, they can crash anywhere whether at a friend's house, a motel, in the car or even outside.
  While it works in a lot of situations, the excuse "But your honor, it's not my fault, I was really really drunk!" doesn't improve the situation when you get caught.
74. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 19:13 · Score: 0
  
  I'd say it's not victimless when you recklessly endanger other's safety (and property), even if no actual harm was done. The recklessly endangered are sill victims.
75. Re:Nice friends by LongearedBat · 2013-01-05 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  What nice friends those guys are, to send their friend to jail.
  Actually yes... if it saves him from an early death or from lifelong remorse.
  Real friends care enough to watch out for each other, and intelligent friends (which he probably isn't) recognise that quality in others.
76. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-06 00:01 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe where you're from whatever shithole of a country that might be, but not around here. (Let me guess, you're from Airstrip One). I don't have to report anyone for anything at all and on top of that the state I live in, there is no obligation to help or otherwise intercede.
77. Re:Nice friends by ultranova · 2013-01-06 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  The rule of law and flawed individuals given near infinite power (aka the police) are two different things.
  Lots of people do not trust them, and they have many logical reasons not to.
  
  The police do not have near infinite power, they have power strictly regulated by the law. That they are often untrustworthy is because when one oversteps his authority, the rest don't want to snitch on him. So a corrupt police force would be a perfect example of an anti-snitch culture.
  
  And anarchy is different than the understanding that you just do not rat to the police.
  
  Of course it is: anarchy is the idea that a society doesn't need a power structure of any kind. This very discussion proves it wrong: even if everyone is benevolent, some people are still stupid as Hell and will endanger everyone with reckless stupidity such as drunk driving.
  
  Everyone does something illegal once in a while, reasonable people do not go running to the police everything they see a minor offence.
  
  Driving drunk is not a minor offense. I'ts an offense that has pretty good chances of getting innocent people killed.
  
  Getting neighbor to rat on neighbor is the first sign of fascism. It happened in Germany, and it happened in Babylon 5; To name a few.
  
  And not ratting on your neighbour is what happened in Catholic Church and every other corrupt organization ever. We don't need no police here, we'll just reassign the priest who molested children to a new flock. We wouldn't want to snitch on him, after all.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
78. Re:Nice friends by dwye · 2013-01-06 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  no legal obligation to report a crime.
  ask jerry and his buddies about that one.
  You DO realize that Seinfeld was a comedy series, not a long-running documentary?
79. Re:Nice friends by wisnoskij · 2013-01-06 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  There obviously was snitching in the Catholic Church of the officials could not know that anything was going on.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
80. Re:Nice friends by HornWumpus · 2013-01-06 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Crash in the car with the keys in your pocket and a DUI is in your future.
  Drunk driving is wrong, but the law is mostly about money. .08 is too low. Sleeping in a car is not DUI (unless of course you're asleep at the wheel in the car on the road).
  Between .08 and .15 your basically slowing your reflexes. At about .15 your judgement is completely fucked. .10 was about right. .08 was about money. .05 is just stupid, about money and a way to make the law a joke in the future.
  People disapprove of DUI because it's stupid, redefine DUI as driving after any drinking and it just becomes another stupid law.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
81. Re:Nice friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-06 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  Oh good god, it's a DUI charge, it's more than a slap on the wrist but it's not going to ruin anyone's life. People even still get security clearances and such with one on their record, provided it's a while back and there is no further sign of addictive behavior.
Idiot x2 by BumpyCarrot · 2013-01-04 23:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Idiotic for driving drunk. Even more so for admitting to doing something illegal, stupid and dangerous to self, and admitting it to people who apparently have an interest in the subject's well-being.

--
Do you see what I did there?
1. Re:Idiot x2 by Gordonjcp · 2013-01-05 00:05 · Score: 2
  
  It does surprised me how much drunk driving is seen as "okay" in the US. Obviously it's not actually "okay" but people seem to be a lot more casual about it.
2. Re:Idiot x2 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 00:48 · Score: 0
  
  It's just not that black and white. In my opinion, there's a huge difference between driving after having had a beer three hours ago and driving when you're so drunk you can't walk straight any more. The former is bad (it lowers your inhibitions), but the latter is really criminal.
3. Re:Idiot x2 by Sepodati · 2013-01-05 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's because the punishment is pretty light. If the punishment was no more driving, ever, then it'd be different, I think.
  Plus the lack of public trans in so many areas is part of the issue, although it's usually just the excuse.
4. Re:Idiot x2 by jamesh · 2013-01-05 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  It does surprised me how much drunk driving is seen as "okay" in the US. Obviously it's not actually "okay" but people seem to be a lot more casual about it.
  I guess it's still viewed as "okay" in Australia too in some circles, but the people i know who've been done for drink driving are very quiet about it.
5. Re:Idiot x2 by TheTurtlesMoves · 2013-01-05 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  Try parts of Europe. For example in Austria outside the main cities it is pretty ubiquitous.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
6. Re:Idiot x2 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  Try other parts of Europe. Three weeks in prison, first offense. An no driving at all for two years.
7. Re:Idiot x2 by lgw · 2013-01-05 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  It's not a US vs Europe thing at all. It's an urban vs rural thing. The lower the population density where you live, the safer drunk driving is. I see this lack of understanding a lot on /. - appropriate behavior changes with population density. In some places where people don't much care about drunk driving, failing to stop and help someone who's car had broken down would make you a pariah.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
8. Re:Idiot x2 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  No, because driving drunk is something that only happens after someone's judgement is impaired by alcohol. Judgement entails the assessment of future risks like losing the ability to drive for driving drunk. Drunk people are far less likely than sober people to consider that. It wouldn't reduce the number of drunks on the road, and it would certainly not reduce the number of repeat offenders. Drunk drivers have already proven that they can't be trusted to follow the law. Taking their license away doesn't change that.
  It would increase the number of drunk driving accidents caused by unlicensed drivers though.
9. Re:Idiot x2 by Gordonjcp · 2013-01-06 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  I live in a fairly out-in-the-sticks part of Scotland (it's about a mile to the nearest village, and 15 miles or so to the nearest city), and I grew up in a very remote part. Even so, drinking and driving was really just not something you did, at all.
facebook money by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 23:53 · Score: -1

People are making money from Facebook while some people are busy committing crime with it http://www.moniways.com/
Stuebenville rape police could learn from this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 00:01 · Score: -1

Unfortunately however it seems lots of corruption surrounding that case if the info liveleak Steubenville files are to be believed.
The secret... by WegianWarrior · 2013-01-05 00:07 · Score: 1

...to do a crime and get away is simple: Don't tell the world about it afterwards - at least not until the statute of limitations have run out.
Granted, the easier solution for a blabbermouth would be not doing the crime in the first place - something I think is an even better idea for everybody when the crime is drunk driving.

--
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Bragging about crimes in public by teslar · 2013-01-05 00:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

is never a good idea.
I'm reminded of the Belgian who had a video of himself doing 300km/h on the motorway posted to youtube.
He was driving an Aston Marting Vantage Carbon Black edition of which only three were sold in Belgium. Didn't take the police long to figure out which one it was.
1. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by Joce640k · 2013-01-05 00:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Now THAT is stupid.
  If you live in Belgium you can drive to Germany in no time ... and there's no speed limits in Germany.
  
  --
  No sig today...
2. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by TheTurtlesMoves · 2013-01-05 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well that is stupid. Espesially when you consider there are places very close where he can do that legally.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
3. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by gnasher719 · 2013-01-05 01:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If you live in Belgium you can drive to Germany in no time ... and there's no speed limits in Germany.
  Actually, there is. Even on motorways with no explicit speed limit, the speed limit is "whatever speed is safe". 300km/h would only be safe on a motorway with no other traffic whatsoever, with special training to enable you to drive at that speed safely, and enough clear view ahead so you can slow down to a reasonable speed safely within your view.
4. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by YrWrstNtmr · 2013-01-05 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  and there's no speed limits in Germany.
  
  Incorrect. Many, many sections of the autobahn have speed limits, sometimes varying depending on traffic load. And on roads other than the autobahn, there is always a speed limit.
5. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by Joce640k · 2013-01-05 01:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The Autobahns are full of police cars...but I never saw anybody pulled over for going too fast
  Tailgating? Not indicating when you pull out? Hogging the left lane? Doing anything except driving and paying attention to the road? They'll come down on you like a ton of bricks. Speeding? Not so much. Not unless you're weaving in and out of other cars to do it or generally acting like an asshole and bothering other drivers.
  If it's not congested then most Germans drive around 180-200kmh (110-125mph) on the Autobahns.
  I've done 250kmh (150mph) in a taxi...which should put most American's idea of "speed" into perspective.
  Yes, it's kinda cool/weird to be able to blow past police cars at any speed without worrying...
  
  --
  No sig today...
6. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by Joce640k · 2013-01-05 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  I bet you're fun at parties, being a pedant about everything.
  
  --
  No sig today...
7. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by LordSnooty · 2013-01-05 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Since when did correcting a wrong assertion become pedantry?
8. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by serviscope_minor · 2013-01-05 02:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If you live in Belgium you can drive to Germany in no time .
  Well, no, but it will take *less* time at 300 km/h.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
9. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  There are speed limits, you can't drive too slow (less than 110kph) on the fast lane or center lane in the autobahn.
10. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by Joce640k · 2013-01-05 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Since when did correcting a wrong assertion become pedantry?
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant
  
  --
  No sig today...
11. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 03:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If you blow by the polizei going 250kmh on the autobahn (or federal highway) and there's a speed limit, which the highest it will be if there is one is 130kmh, you are fooling yourself if you don't think you'll get pulled over. While the autobahn (or federal highway, except through towns/cities) as a motorway has no set speed limit, the maximum recommended speed is 130kmh. If you get in an accident going over that speed you are always partially at fault, no matter what actually caused the accident. If you are driving over the speed rating of your tires and it's found out, you're going to be fined. While there are plenty of places on the autobahn with no speed limit (I've hit 250 in my car, damn rev limiter), more and more there are large sections which are limited, with many of those having a variable limit depending on congestion level. Finally, one of the big reasons the polizei don't pull over speeders is because they have cameras to catch and bill them, with the fine correlating to actual speed limit and how much over you were going.
12. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  You won't get pulled over for speed unless you are driving reckless. It's more of an insurance/what happens if things go wrong thing. If you get into an accident driving 300km/h you'll have to have a lot of very good arguments why it was safe for you to drive at said speed and that it wasn't the cause of the accident.
13. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by quacking+duck · 2013-01-05 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Since when did correcting a wrong assertion become pedantry?
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant
  There's a difference between, for example, correcting a stranger on the street about the species of bird they're actually seeing based on its plumage, versus a simple correction to a widely held misconception about the world-famous Autobahn.
  This is Slashdot, not a frat party, correcting common misconceptions on indisputable facts are welcome and encouraged. It's bad enough that CNN did its part to continue America's descent into idiocracy by showcasing Honey Boo Boo during their New Years Eve coverage.
14. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by elashish14 · 2013-01-05 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  And even worse, he's infringing copyright by posting The Doors on Youtube!
  
  --
  I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
15. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  From Aachen to Groslitz a lot of the highway is without limit... I take it often and I do typically drive at moderate speeds (around 180 km / 110 mph) in a Porsche 911.
  First note that in a lot of European countries (France and Belgium for sure) it's illegal to have tires who don't support the max speed of your car so that point is kinda moot.
  Then you end up yourself saying that people don't pull you over when you speed in places where there's a speed limit, because they flash you. So that's not really countering OP's point but more validating it.
  You also typically "blow past police cars" because a lot of them are actually parked, sideways, on part of the highway where there are no speed-limits.
  And I can tell you they're not after people driving fast.
  Also, it's very refreshing to be able to drive through Germany because german drivers do drive very well. The ones driving like idiots are typically driving old wreck with either polish or french plates.
16. Re:Bragging about crimes in public by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-06 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  from my experience with autobahns in northern germany, it's no-limit for most of the distance with limits kicking in near cities/junctions, long bridges etc - places where one would expect more traffic merging/leaving or strong winds. many people did seem to exceed these limits still (for most of the part limit being 120), although not by much.
In other news by wonkey_monkey · 2013-01-05 00:41 · Score: 0

Stupid is as stupid does.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
He was basically being ratted out by his own frien by ArsenneLupin · 2013-01-05 00:41 · Score: 2

He was basically being ratted out by his own "friends". If you brag about something illegal, be sure you can trust the people you brag too. Has been like that for ages, nothing new with Facebook.
Good by Arancaytar · 2013-01-05 00:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

1. Tell people about a crime you committed.
2. Get caught.
Glad that still works.
1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  Now with more Internet!
Re:He was basically being ratted out by his own fr by Joce640k · 2013-01-05 01:04 · Score: 1

I only wish it was your car he'd hit...

--
No sig today...
the pumpkin side of the anus by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 01:16 · Score: -1

a pumpkin stuck in my rectum but it feels so good,
i do the twist dance and it's understood
no one messes with my pumpkin when i suck it up with my anus
or poo it out and watch what looks like a jelly textured, dorito flavored feral like wet rag.
come on baby - let's do the twist!
How to keep things private on Facebook by redback · 2013-01-05 01:23 · Score: 2

1. If something is private DON'T POST IT TO FACEBOOK
1. Re:How to keep things private on Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  If he was driving on public roads, it wasn't "private".
Too many friends? by HycoWhit · 2013-01-05 01:54 · Score: 1

Probably a good time for this guy to start culling his friends list....
Some Friends by Quantum_Infinity · 2013-01-05 02:52 · Score: 1

"Two of Cox-Brown's friends saw the message and sent it along to two separate local police officers..."

Some friends he has.
1. Re:Some Friends by aardvarkjoe · 2013-01-05 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Some friends he has.
  If it had been one of my friends, I would have reported it too. (Well, first I would have told my friend to make it right himself -- and then reported it if he refused.) Just because I like a person doesn't mean that they can dodge their responsibility for the damage they caused.
  
  --
  
  How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Ratbook by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 02:57 · Score: 0

OTOH it's good he got caught. OTOH fuck everyone on facebook...twice.
Grumpy Cat: Good! by assertation · 2013-01-05 03:17 · Score: 1

Since this is about Facebook, visualize that picture of the grumpy cat going around and then another picture under it with the caption "Good!"
Instead of reading about a privacy breach where someone was just enjoying life and was dumb enough to post it to Facebook, in this situation the person who got burned deserved to be burned.
Mods please by drerwk · 2013-01-05 03:22 · Score: 1

Good cite. Mods please.
just kill em...God will find his own by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 03:41 · Score: 0

What's this prison system nonsense?? that costs money.
Let's be really tough and unforgiving. Bring em in, kill them, use them for fertilizer or animal food or school lunches or something. Win win all around: low cost to taxpayer, subsidizing agriculture, fewer criminals or potential criminals.
Hey, why even bother having trials. Sure, we'll kill some innocents, but isn't that a reasonable price to pay for the greater good? Maybe we could use those folks we round up and look for genetic markers. Then, we could test newborns, look for the marker, and save ourselves the trouble of feeding and housing the future criminals.
Let's just call this "modest proposal #2"
This seems like a 5th amendment issue and he may by Joe_Dragon · 2013-01-05 03:48 · Score: 1

This seems like a 5th amendment issue and he may be able to get off or at least beat the DUI part.
'friends'... by slashrio · 2013-01-05 04:01 · Score: 1

Geez, what a 'friends' one can make on facebook.com.
Not my venue...

--
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Jobsworth toadies to Babbitt by hoboroadie · 2013-01-05 04:04 · Score: 1

Arbitrary and capricious response to any issue which causes cerebral activity.

--
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
I assume by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 04:15 · Score: 0

I assume in this case there's physical evidence to back up the story, but what if there wasn't?
What if someone just makes up a story and posts it on his facebook account?
Are there any requirements that facebook postings be factual?
Bunch of "fiction writers" could keep the police very busy. Just saying.
1. Re:I assume by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  I assume in this case there's physical evidence to back up the story, but what if there wasn't?
  Then it would be exactly like every other lead that doesn't uncover evidence of a crime.
Thank Goodness For Real Journalism by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 04:20 · Score: 0

I'm really glad the Washington Post article was linked to. They actually practice basic journalism. I don't really care what you think of their politics, but they definitely write things well and don't make you work for stupid things like "Where is Astoria located?" Both slashdot and the Astoria news site assume that you know where Astoria is.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-01-05 04:36 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-01-05 04:39 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-01-05 04:44 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Redefinition of crime. by hoboroadie · 2013-01-05 04:49 · Score: 1

I think you and I have an issue with people who confuse statutory violations with crime.
I have two questions that I believe define whether I can speak rationally with someone:
1) Is it more significant if one innocent man is executed, or ninety-nine killers are freed?
2) If I can't trust you with a machine-gun, then how in the fuck are you still at large?

--
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Re:This seems like a 5th amendment issue and he ma by Nkwe · 2013-01-05 04:53 · Score: 1

This seems like a 5th amendment issue and he may be able to get off or at least beat the DUI part.
I think the 5th is about the government compelling someone to incriminate themselves. In this case he did it voluntarily.
Re:This seems like a 5th amendment issue and he ma by Frankie70 · 2013-01-05 05:11 · Score: 1

I don't think you know what the 5th amendment is.
I'm tempted to post something similar. by chronokitsune3233 · 2013-01-05 06:37 · Score: 1

Get in a car on a Grand Theft Auto game and take one of those adrenaline pills.
“Drivin' and trippin' at the same time. Fuck yeah! P.S. Sorry to the drivers whose cars I hit and to the pedestrians I ran down. :-P”
Then a Facebook friend shares it with the cops and come to my place. “What? I was playing Grand Theft Auto!”
While I'm glad this kid got caught, the truth is that people shouldn't take things on the Internet so seriously. I blame social sites such as Facebook and MySpace for encouraging the sharing of such personal truths. My post would be a joke, but apparently it could get me convicted of a crime I never committed in reality.

--
I have been a captive in America my entire life. Everybody and everything uses customary units instead of metric.
Lesson Learned? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 06:41 · Score: 0

Lesson learned?
Don't put anything on Internet that you don't want somebody else's lawyer holding up in court.
Andy!!!! by dr_dank · 2013-01-05 06:59 · Score: 1

You GOONIE!

--
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
no big deal if they forget by r00t · 2013-01-05 07:34 · Score: 1

An alternate theory of "punishment" is that we protect society by keeping the offender in prison. They can't do another DUI in the prison cell.
BTW, the penalties are not harsh in the USA. Russia takes away a license for life. Saudi Arabia chops off the driver's head.
Re:He was basically being ratted out by his own fr by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 08:27 · Score: 1

He was driving drunk and hit a car. If he was my own brother, I'd turn him in. There's no excuse for drunk driving. He could have killed someone.
Drunk driving is only "funny" when the drunk doesn't kill someone?
Emoticons. by fahrbot-bot · 2013-01-05 08:39 · Score: 1

posting the message: Drivin drunk ... classsic ;) but to whoever's vehicle i hit i am sorry. :P

They show you really care.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-01-05 10:42 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
must. stop. feeding... troll. by hoboroadie · 2013-01-05 13:32 · Score: 1

The only time I ever ran into anything, I was eighteen, quite sober, and left a note under the Guy's wiper blade. (S.o.b. took all the pent-up rage out, on me, that he had for the past three other guys that didn't stop, funny story there.)
Oh, and that other, sober, incident on the well-known black ice at that corner on highway 66, where old Mister Provost busted me later pounding in a couple new fence posts. Since then, (30+ years) I've been quite active sipping beverages and toking doobies whilst driving. OTOH I know plenty of folks who should not attempt driving after (or before) some, or any, intoxicants.
I've also worked with guns and chainsaws while intoxicated; (I just refilled my Tito's Gimlet before firing up the browser.) Let me spell it out for you, dumb-ass:

If one follows protocol, more lives will be saved than by an infinite measure of sobriety.

--
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
It's the FB definition of friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 13:40 · Score: 0

Real friends may try to find you and reason you. Or tell you how dangerous it is to drive drunk : maybe take you to a hospital to show handicaped people or something.
But real friends calling the police?
Any "friend" calling the police on me is nothing but a traitor, no matter what I did and shall never ever be my "friend" again.
But I understand that now that FaceBook is so famous the word "friend" took a new meaning ; )
1. Re:It's the FB definition of friends by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-06 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  If you're so self-centered that you expect "friends" to protect you when you are stupid, destructive, and law-breaking, then I seriously doubt you actually have any friends.
Difference in reactions by Kyusaku+Natsume · 2013-01-05 13:43 · Score: 1

If people have a traffic incident their reaction will be very different if they are on the phone than drunk. Texting while driving of course is completely stupid, because people are not aware of their surroundings while doing it. Fortunately, that ends at the time that they stop texting and return to only driving. A drunken driver is a permanent risk for everyone until he stops driving. More so if he is not only drunk but also armed. A few weeks ago a drunken SOB almost crashed his pickup against my car. He came down from is vehicle angry at me and he appeared to pull a gun. Fortunately, it was only another can of crappy Tecate beer; I never had been so happy to see one can of that bottled piss in my life. I was lucky. That same night in my city drunken drivers killed 4 people. In one case, a drunken driver pulled a gun and killed the driver of the other car in front of his family.

--
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
1. Re:Difference in reactions by HornWumpus · 2013-01-06 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  If you can't tell the difference between a gun and a beer perhaps you should get your eyes checked. Just because he was drunk doesn't mean you were driving well.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. Re:Difference in reactions by Kyusaku+Natsume · 2013-01-06 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  He did a strange movement inside the cabin of his pickup, that's why I thought that he was pulling a gun. Here in Mexico aside the murders by organized crime most murders by handgun are done by drunk people, and 35% of all car accidents and a higher percentage of accidents with a loss of life are done by drunken drivers in my state.
  I still have my first car that I bought 9 years ago in almost pristine conditions -a drunken idiot crashed his pickup against it when it was parked outside my mom's house when it was new, ruining a tire, wheel and parts of the suspension and drive, but it was perfectly repaired by my insurance- after 120,000 km I still don't have a single accident in my record.
  
  --
  Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
The Freeze Ray Needs work. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 15:38 · Score: 0

Did this remind anyone of that part of Dr. Horrible where he mentions in a blog post that he needs to be more careful about what he says in his blog, as Captain Hammer and the LAPD are among his viewers, and that they were waiting for him at the dedication of the superhero memorial bridge?
This has to put the guy high in the running for dumbest criminal of the year. Right up there with the guy who tried to rob the bank at the drive-through teller, and the lady in the bank said she didn't think it was a real gun, so he sent it to her through the tube?
Of course that story is probably BS since I don't think there are many guns that would fit inside the little tube. But anyway...
Unblocked: The Blocked Side of Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-06 00:33 · Score: 0

There's a great new book called, Unblocked: The Blocked Side of Facebook, which shows the real side of Facebook for teenagers. This is the side of Facebook parents don't see. Please if you have a teenager or soon to be teenager - this is a must read! As a bonus there’s a Slang and Emoticon Dictionary in the back of the book. For a short time Amazon is offering $5off Unblocked at https://www.createspace.com/3689179.
Promo Code: UTGYQQHB
If I flashed my Tits by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-06 05:13 · Score: 0

My nipples would go erect and I would not be drunk either. People will still crash their cars though and NO I AM NOT on Facebook!
1. Re:If I flashed my Tits by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-06 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  Man boobs aren't tits.
Friends by Boldizar · 2013-01-06 06:45 · Score: 1

Facebook really needs to use a different word than "friends." It's a disgusting perversion of a word that once meant something important. As for drunk driving being a crime, there used to be a concept in law that your freedom to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose. Now it seems to be that your freedom to swing your fists ends when it increases the statistical probability that something might hit my nose.
probably related to his last name by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-06 07:33 · Score: 0

mine is brown, also, but everybody doesn't know it
full disclosure by ronpaulisanidiot · 2013-01-06 08:57 · Score: -1

First, udachny is a sock puppet of roman_mir.

After that, the problems with his statement and why it did not deserve to be moderated out of the hole he has dug himself:

While I am no fan of FB
You are, however, a fan of fascism and runaway free-market foolery. In your world the teen never would have faced any repercussions because nobody would have seen it to pursue the matter for themselves. In your world his friends wouldn't have been able to turn him in, either, as the police wouldn't have listened to them - even when presented with the written evidence directly - unless the victim was willing to pay for them to investigate the matter.

not that I condone drunk driving and hit and run
You oppose law enforcement taking action against such acts, though. So you are not really anti drunk-driving either.

--
three comments and I am forever at terrible karma
People You May Know by darkredhorse · 2013-01-06 15:50 · Score: 1

I killed my facebook presence of under 40 people due to its inane reply-all nature. For an 18 year old these days? I'm sure the two "friends" that reported him have never actually met him except to perhaps buy some Farmville grain. Maybe the saddest part is that only two of his probable 500+ "friends" thought he should be reported and did so, rather than just liking or ignoring it.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-01-07 21:46 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion