Friday, June 3, 2011

What should be done with a drunk driver?


A drunk driver is threatening lives. He needs the wake up call of the civil government.

Posted by at
Labels:

24 comments:

Karen Beculhimer said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
June 3, 2011 at 5:44 PM
Deborah Grant said...

Deborah Grant I worked in an ER for a few years as a clerk. To see the injuries and death first hand in the lives of innocent people because of drunk drivers is very difficult sometimes. We had one complete idiot (sorry) drunk in our ER once who had just hit a truck with three friends in the cab. One was killed, one was severely injured, and the third was hardly hurt at all. We had to treat the drunk's injuries while he laid there loud and yelling, so obnoxious, while we treated his victims as well.

June 3, 2011 at 5:44 PM
Karen Beculhimer said...

When he sobered up I bet he was sorry.

June 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM
Karen Beculhimer said...

When he sobered up I bet he was sorry.

June 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM
Sara's Husband said...

When someone is negligent and kills someone, they are guilty of murder and should be punished according to Genesis 9.

June 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM
Deborah Grant said...

I hope so Karen. So many memories of alcohol related issues in the ER. Not to mention drugs.

June 3, 2011 at 5:46 PM
Regina said...

Adam, does the law of God punish only if someone is injured, or should laws against drunkenness be enforced?

June 3, 2011 at 5:47 PM
Sara's Husband said...

Regina, I am unaware of any law in Scripture against drunkenness that has civil penalties. If drunk drivers were executed or fined according to the damage they have done, I am fairly certain drunk driving would go down. However, when allowed to stay alive after murder by negligence, the thought is usually "What's the worst that can happen to me?"

June 3, 2011 at 5:47 PM
Aaron Priest said...

I have the same viewpoint as Sara's Husband (what a name! haha!), to prevent a crime never works, but to make the punishment so severe that one is forced to consider their actions first, DOES work.

June 3, 2011 at 5:48 PM
Sara's Husband said...

Deuteronomy 17:13 And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously.

June 3, 2011 at 5:48 PM
Regina said...

So, if a CHP finds a man relieving himself on the side of the road, with key in the ignition, truck running and says he just drove from a lake 95 miles away...with many signs of being inebriated...what should justly be done?

June 3, 2011 at 5:49 PM
Sara's Husband said...

Shut down the CHP, and elect godly magistrates with lawful authority. If the county sheriff (a lawful office) were to find such a man, he should not permit him to re-enter his car.

June 3, 2011 at 5:49 PM
Regina said...

So, if he does not cause damage, then there would be no penalty?

June 3, 2011 at 5:50 PM
Sara's Husband said...

No. But the sheriff should prevent him from acting negligently if in his power.

June 3, 2011 at 5:50 PM
Sandra McCoy said...

If someone sees a person like that, you call the CHP and report it yourself, it is up to citizens to watch and report any thing that they think endangers the public. Then they can arrest him for indecent exposure (in this case) and being intoxicated while driving a vehicle. Simple common sense-

June 3, 2011 at 5:51 PM
Regina said...

We can also do citizen's arrest.

June 3, 2011 at 5:51 PM
Aaron Priest said...

To clarify: a crime requires an injured party, generally not yourself. However, I must add, that imminent threat to life or property is worth acting on. Someone pointing a gun at me or my family is likely to get shot by me before waiting for them to take the first shot. I would consider that imminent threat. A drunk driver that is clearly out of control could be considered the same.

I'm sure there are degrees of threat and gray area here, I don't have all the answers. Those are just my quick thoughts. :-)

June 3, 2011 at 5:52 PM
Regina said...

This case was unusual because he was not actually driving, but his own words to the officer incriminated him.

June 3, 2011 at 5:53 PM
Aaron Priest said...

Then you get into the whole self-incrimination stuff and whether that is legit without the mouth of two or three witnesses.

June 3, 2011 at 5:53 PM
Lauren Zimmerman said...

You know what I like about this conversation? Everyone's coming from a Biblical perspective and arguing based off of Scripture. The discussion is about the application of Scripture, not about whose personal opinion is best. :D

June 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM
Aaron Priest said...

That is rare and refreshing today! :-)

June 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM
Regina said...

Thanks for your input everyone. I need to hit The Book. Maybe I'll be a better juror next time. ;)

June 3, 2011 at 5:55 PM
Douglas Yarbrough said...

Not to get off topic, but how is the CHP an "unlawful authority" that "needs to be shut down"? Aren't the the California Highway Patrol (or CHiPs as the TV show was called)? Isn't that the same thing as the State Police or State Troopers or DPS Officers (Texas) in other states?
The issue, to me, isn't "Drunk Driving" (that's a political term and has become politicized and thus a political crusade to "stamp out evil and thereby spread it" as Prof. Richard Weaver would say). The issue is somebody should be held accountable for what they are doing. If somebody kills somebody else due to negligence then they should be punished. If somebody is obviously impared, in any way, then good men should stop them from engaging in activity that would hurt other people. (take away their keys, take them home, let them sleep it off in jail.)

June 3, 2011 at 5:56 PM
Lance said...

We certainly do NOT agree with check points where motorists are randomly stopped and checked by officers.

June 3, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Post a Comment