Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Lands Drunk Driving Teen In Jail
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.'"
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.
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.
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!
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
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?
Do you wait until your friend kills someone before you do the right thing?
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
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).
Exactly. He was just another stupid facepalmer and got exactly what he deserved.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Yes. A better headline would be "Stupidity Lands Drunk Driving Teen in Jail".
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...
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.
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.
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
like/+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.
...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.
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!
You! Out of the gene pool! The little shit could've killed someone, and you're worried that someone told on him?
"Facebook friends" might just be people you met once, or not even that.
There is already a word for that, acquaintances.
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.
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.
Do you wait until your friend kills someone before you do the right thing?
Or himself.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Or even worse, hurting or killing someone else.
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.
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.
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.
1. Tell people about a crime you committed.
2. Get caught.
Glad that still works.
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."
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.
Excellent! Where's the "Like" button here on Slashdot?
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!
And please no word starting with f either...
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?"
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...)
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...
Even if my friends kill someone, I'll still support them.
Would you help them bury the body...?
No sig today...
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
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!
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.
I only wish it was your car he'd hit...
No sig today...
1. If something is private DON'T POST IT TO FACEBOOK
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.
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).
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."
... and it even has 4 letters. twice 4 letters actually.
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.
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
Probably a good time for this guy to start culling his friends list....
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then pay for their legal defense.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
"Two of Cox-Brown's friends saw the message and sent it along to two separate local police officers..."
Some friends he has.
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.
Good cite. Mods please.
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.
In many parts of the USA, life without a car (and a gun) is unthinkable.
No sig for the moment.
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
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
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.
This seems like a 5th amendment issue and he may be able to get off or at least beat the DUI part.
Geez, what a 'friends' one can make on facebook.com.
Not my venue...
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
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.
Or are the drink driving limits so much higher in the US than in Europe that only serious abuse takes you over them?
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
This kind of friends:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOncsnYp7Ic
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think you know what the 5th amendment is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You GOONIE!
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
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."
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.
Sure, though I'd suggest better methods of getting rid of it.
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?
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. . . .
True friends would get them help before they killed someone (or themselves).
Learn to love Alaska
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
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)
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
Driving drunk is not a minor offense. I'ts an offense that has pretty good chances of getting innocent people killed.
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.
ask jerry and his buddies about that one.
You DO realize that Seinfeld was a comedy series, not a long-running documentary?
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.
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.
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'
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 based on user account deletion