A drunk driver is threatening lives. He needs the wake up call of the civil government.
19th Century Presbyterians and Abortion
-
When the Orthodox Presbyterian Church affirmed in 1972 "that voluntary
abortion, except possibly to save the physical life of the mother, is in
violation...
2 weeks ago
24 comments:
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.
When he sobered up I bet he was sorry.
When he sobered up I bet he was sorry.
When someone is negligent and kills someone, they are guilty of murder and should be punished according to Genesis 9.
I hope so Karen. So many memories of alcohol related issues in the ER. Not to mention drugs.
Adam, does the law of God punish only if someone is injured, or should laws against drunkenness be enforced?
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?"
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.
Deuteronomy 17:13 And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously.
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?
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.
So, if he does not cause damage, then there would be no penalty?
No. But the sheriff should prevent him from acting negligently if in his power.
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-
We can also do citizen's arrest.
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. :-)
This case was unusual because he was not actually driving, but his own words to the officer incriminated him.
Then you get into the whole self-incrimination stuff and whether that is legit without the mouth of two or three witnesses.
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
That is rare and refreshing today! :-)
Thanks for your input everyone. I need to hit The Book. Maybe I'll be a better juror next time. ;)
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.)
We certainly do NOT agree with check points where motorists are randomly stopped and checked by officers.
Post a Comment