Facebook Lands Drunk Driving Teen In Jail 443
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.'"
How is this gasping news (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.
Re:How is this gasping news (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.
Re:How is this gasping news (Score:5, Insightful)
How does being "a real man" entitle you to "ignore" the far more serious crime of drunk driving?
Re:How is this gasping news (Score:5, 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.
Re:How is this gasping news (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.
Re:How is this gasping news (Score:5, 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"?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:How is this gasping news (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.
Re:How is this gasping news (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Mistake" is an irrelevant blame-deflector.
It is? You can be blamed for making mistakes, and even punished for them.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:How is this gasping news (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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'
Re: (Score:3)
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!
Re:How is this gasping news (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
cancelling mod
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:How is this gasping news (Score:5, 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.
Re:How is this gasping news (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:How is this gasping news (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Libertarianism is about the freedom to commit financial homicide, not ethanol assisted vehicular homicide.
Re:How is this gasping news (Score:5, 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.
Re:How is this gasping news (Score:4, 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.
Re:How is this gasping news (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 an
eCrimes division (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:eCrimes division (Score:4, Insightful)
Upside Down World (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!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Upside Down World (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Upside Down World (Score:5, Insightful)
Driving drunk is ALWAYS wrong. 99% of gun owners do absolutely nothing wrong with their guns.
Re: (Score:2, 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...)
Re:Upside Down World (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
China - This concludes my counter argument.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Idiot x2 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
The secret... (Score:2)
...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.
Bragging about crimes in public (Score:5, Interesting)
is never a good idea.
I'm reminded of the Belgian who had a video of himself doing 300km/h on the motorway [youtube.com] 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.
Re:Bragging about crimes in public (Score:4, 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.
Re:Bragging about crimes in public (Score:4, 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.
Re:Bragging about crimes in public (Score:4, 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...
Re:Bragging about crimes in public (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.
Re:Bragging about crimes in public (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
He was basically being ratted out by his own frien (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I only wish it was your car he'd hit...
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Tell people about a crime you committed.
2. Get caught.
Glad that still works.
How to keep things private on Facebook (Score:3)
1. If something is private DON'T POST IT TO FACEBOOK
Re:Nice friends (Score:5, 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.
Re:Nice friends (Score:5, 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.
Re:Nice friends (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Nice friends (Score:4, Informative)
As far as I can tell this is not actually true, at least not in the US. IANAL, but the people here [lawyers.com] 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 [cornell.edu] 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.
Re:Nice friends (Score:4, 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.
Re:Nice friends (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Nice friends (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you wait until your friend kills someone before you do the right thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you wait until your friend kills someone before you do the right thing?
Or himself.
Re:Nice friends (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if my friends kill someone, I'll still support them.
Would you help them bury the body...?
Re: (Score:3)
Then pay for their legal defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
There is already a word for that, acquaintances.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And please no word starting with f either...
Yeah, getting rid of that site whose name starts in F would be a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Nice friends (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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...)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Nice friends (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice friends (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Social Snitching. (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).
Re:Social Snitching. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Social Snitching. (Score:5, 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.
Re:Social Snitching. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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").
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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 h
Re:Not FB (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)