Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 304: All Posts Are Bad

(+) Yeah! (+)

I am confused btw that Lasa just admitted he breaks the law of riding a bike while drinking... then asks why people simply can't just not drink and drive... lol

---

If you have him blocked, the thing that Corrik is talking about where cars are fitted with a device that makes them not start if you've been drinking is a much better solution that straight up taking licenses away. Assuming they actually work.

How about that! I agree with Corrik about this!

---

Normally I would make fun of the Politics topic for being drawn into Corriks pace again but frankly speaking this is wild even by Corrik standards. I hope that in the future, when one of the usual suspects here gets set off and starts formulateing a response that will change nothing, they remember this topic of conversation and remember the kind of self-absorbed loser they're trying to have reasonable discourse with.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I am confused btw that Lasa just admitted he breaks the law of riding a bike while drinking... then asks why people simply can't just not drink and drive... lol

there's a world of difference between drinking and riding a bike and drinking and driving. we don't license people to ride bikes, for one.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

there's a world of difference between drinking and riding a bike and drinking and driving. we don't license people to ride bikes, for one.

You are justifying it! Just like a drinking and driver does.

If you, with your lack of balance, swerve into a car lane forcing a car to swerve and cause a 3 car wreck causing 12 deaths. Guess what.. thats 12 alcohol related driving deaths just the same as a drunk driver going head on into a brick wall with 4 passengers.

Lasa, you have more in common with a drunk driver than you realize!

---

i'm not justifying shit. i already said that it's a fair point to make. i'm just saying that it's asinine to go "there's no difference between drinking and riding a bike and drinking and driving!"

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Normally I would make fun of the Politics topic for being drawn into Corriks pace again but frankly speaking this is wild even by Corrik standards. I hope that in the future, when one of the usual suspects here gets set off and starts formulateing a response that will change nothing, they remember this topic of conversation and remember the kind of self-absorbed loser they're trying to have reasonable discourse with.

What's wild about it. It's pretty standard. If you wanna talk about DUIs, I will talk from experience instead of just random areas like you all do. Just like if someone wants to talk about random obscure anime shows, the person who watched them for the past 10 years will talk about them from experience too.

Not very wild to me.

---

By Corrik's own logic:

Resist arrest, get shot to death by the police. You can't repeat offend anymore.
Therefore, drive drunk, get your license permanently taken away. You can't repeat offend anymore (well, I mean, you CAN, because the police didn't SHOOT YOU DEAD), but then you're committing even more crimes and maybe they'd be more justified to do exactly that as you're clearly an uncaring menace to society.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i'm not justifying shit. i already said that it's a fair point to make. i'm just saying that it's asinine to go "there's no difference between drinking and riding a bike and drinking and driving!"

Nobody said there was "no difference". You are getting defensive. I said you ask why people break the law to drink when you break the law to drink. It's just a different justification to them. You say it's not that dangerous. They say, I drive good when drunk. I'm not drunk. Etc.

Then someone could retort, Lasa, if it is against the law... why can't you just not drink, man? Is it that important to you go to to bars that you are willing to break the law to do it!?

I mean, yeah, you justify it just like a drunk driver does.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Assuming they actually work.

AFAIK this is a pretty big assumption?

If we do assume it though, and the driver in question has no history of dangerous driving aside from DUI, I actually do agree with it as well.

Drunk driving is still a very serious issue though, and should not be defended under any circumstances.

I do love how Corrik has zeroed in on Lasa now to try and make himself seem reasonable by pointing out that OTHER PEOPLE DRINK AND *INSERT FORM OF VEHICULAR MOTION* TOO.

---

Inviso posted...

Therefore, drive drunk, get your license permanently taken away. You can't repeat offend anymore (well, I mean, you CAN, because the police didn't SHOOT YOU DEAD), but then you're committing even more crimes and maybe they'd be more justified to do exactly that as you're clearly an uncaring menace to society.

The question I have for you is... Inviso... should you be unable to work to clothe your family or go to the store to feed your family because you are poor if you do follow the law if that is what you make it?

When if the same person did the same crime they can just pay someone to drive them around... simply because they are richer than you? When that's the situation, who are you really penalizing here? The poor.

You can just stop the conversation there. I am arguing that the system unfairly oppresses the poor. You can take any tangent you want to take regarding things to twist an argument. However, that is my exact point right there. Why should that be our process when another process exists that doesn't back the poor into another crime?

---

Inviso posted...

I do love how Corrik has zeroed in on Lasa now to try and make himself seem reasonable by pointing out that OTHER PEOPLE DRINK AND *INSERT FORM OF VEHICULAR MOTION* TOO.

I am not arguing people should be allowed to drink and drive, inviso. You just are off on some random ass tangent.

I am not arguing they should even change things to prevent DUIs. I am not arguing that anyone getting DUIs shouldn't get the punishments they are given. What I am arguing is that there is a better way to penalize people with DUIs on the driving aspect of it that is readily available already.

---

Corrik7 posted...

The question I have for you is... Inviso... should you be unable to work to clothe your family or go to the store to feed your family because you are poor if you do follow the law if that is what you make it?

When if the same person did the same crime they can just pay someone to drive them around... simply because they are richer than you? When that's the situation, who are you really penalizing here? The poor.

You can just stop the conversation there. I am arguing that the system unfairly oppresses the poor. You can take any tangent you want to take regarding things to twist an argument. However, that is my exact point right there. Why should that be our process when another process exists that doesn't back the poor into another crime?

Take everything you just said.

Apply it, instead of to punishment for "driving under the influence", to punishment for "resisting arrest".

Remember Daniel Shaver, Corrik. Shot multiple times with an AR-15 while drunk and desperately trying to comply with officers' demands so he wouldn't get shot and killed. The officer who murdered him was acquitted.

---

Inviso posted...

Take everything you just said.

Apply it, instead of to punishment for "driving under the influence", to punishment for "resisting arrest".

Remember Daniel Shaver, Corrik. Shot multiple times with an AR-15 while drunk and desperately trying to comply with officers' demands so he wouldn't get shot and killed. The officer who murdered him was acquitted.

And, the officer should have been acquitted. He made a reasonable action. It was an unfortunate situation.

Same with the Swatting man.

(The person who called in the threat should have gotten murder though - Dunno if he did). Maybe not... I'd have to see how murder is defined in that state.

---

Corrik7 posted...

And, the officer should have been acquitted. He made a reasonable action. It was an unfortunate situation.

Same with the Swatting man.

(The person who called in the threat should have gotten murder though - Dunno if he did).

And it's reasonable to take away a person's license for breaking the law and indiscriminately endangering the lives of innocent civilians through reckless intoxication. Just don't fucking drink. It's that simple.

You don't get to have it both ways, Corrik. Where one instance is excessive because you've personally experienced the effects, but the other is perfectly fair and legal because you haven't. Either both punishments are fair, or both are excessive. Period.

---

Inviso posted...

And it's reasonable to take away a person's license for breaking the law and indiscriminately endangering the lives of innocent civilians through reckless intoxication. Just don't fucking drink. It's that simple.

You don't get to have it both ways, Corrik. Where one instance is excessive because you've personally experienced the effects, but the other is perfectly fair and legal because you haven't. Either both punishments are fair, or both are excessive. Period.

Absolutely it is reasonable. Obviously they do it already. I am not saying go protest they inhumanity of taking away your license. I am saying that there is a way to better access a penalty for that crime that more directly relates and doesn't affect the poor disproportionately. That's my opinion regarding it. This big discussion is mostly from people arguing outside of it. This opinion isn't new. It is what I have always said. Then 2 years from now one of you when you want to try and act morally superior will bring this up again and act like I defending drinking and driving and cried I was punished too hard boohoo to try and win a random ass argument. When I never did any of that. And this same discussion will happen anew!

---

Reg posted...

Drunk driving is still a very serious issue though, and should not be defended under any circumstances.

Oh I agree. I'm not defending it by any means. Corrik's arguments are a mess but he is right that it's a common and widespread problem, the way we're handling it does not help, and that overall we need less punitive measures (though he's also saying to shoot people so. again, a mess.)

I just find it weird that there's a bunch of liberals itt going "unlike Corrik I dont agree with literally executing drunk drivers but still fuck you forever if you do this crime, especially if you're poor"

---

Corrik7 posted...

I said you ask why people break the law to drink when you break the law to drink. It's just a different justification to them. You say it's not that dangerous. They say, I drive good when drunk. I'm not drunk. Etc.

the differences are that

1) i don't need my bike to support a family, and
2) even if i did, if the police caught me riding my bike drunk, they wouldn't "take away my bike riding license." again, we don't license people to ride bikes.

the two situations aren't comparable.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

the differences are that

1) i don't need my bike to support a family, and
2) even if i did, if the police caught me riding my bike drunk, they wouldn't "take away my bike riding license." again, we don't license people to ride bikes.

the two situations aren't comparable.

So, the rich shouldn't care about drinking and driving. Because they don't need their license to support their family? What in the fucking holy god are you even arguing right now?

The reason biking under the influence is likely a crime is because of the propensity that it can cause an accident that causes injury or lives. It is about someone accidentally swerving into a car lane and causing a wreck. I highly doubt it is because they think you might fall down and scrape your knee or be humorous to the public.

Listen. A law exists that says no biking under the influence. You justify breaking that law to go to a bar. It's simple as that. Why can't you just not do it? You know it is illegal.

I mean, I am not being holy god judging you here. I agree it is less dangerous than driving. May never be an issue ever. Just like someone drinking and driving may never be an issue either. But, your argument in defense of yourself is astronomically garbage lol.

---

tbf I don't think LtM would call himself a liberal, and at least only seeing 20% of the posts going on here he's the only one I've seen making that strict case

---

Oh I absolutely get onto Corrik hardcore for stuff I would be less severe on others for because I hate his guts.

I don't pretend to be impartial, I am a very biased individual.

As for being a liberal, last year I had no problem saying so. Nowadays doesn't seem like it's good enough.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Oh I absolutely get onto Corrik hardcore for stuff I would be less severe on others for because I hate his guts.

I don't pretend to be impartial, I am a very biased individual.

As for being a liberal, last year I had no problem saying so. Nowadays doesn't seem like it's good enough.

At least you can admit it. Though I don't even know who you are haha.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So, the rich shouldn't care about drinking and driving. Because they don't need their license to support their family? What in the fucking holy god are you even arguing right now?

The reason biking under the influence is likely a crime is because of the propensity that it can cause an accident that causes injury or lives. It is about someone accidentally swerving into a car lane and causing a wreck. I highly doubt it is because they think you might fall down and scrape your knee or be humorous to the public.

Listen. A law exists that says no biking under the influence. You justify breaking that law to go to a bar. It's simple as that. Why can't you just not do it? You know it is illegal.

I mean, I am not being holy god judging you here. I agree it is less dangerous than driving. May never be an issue ever. Just like someone drinking and driving may never be an issue either. But, your argument in defense of yourself is astronomically garbage lol.

again, i'm not "justifying" or "defending" shit. not sure why you keep trying to push me in that direction. i've already admitted multiple times that it's a fair point.

this all started because i was saying "if having a car is an absolute necessity for supporting your family (this is the argument herodeltiempo and others were making), why the fuck are you drinking and driving and thus risking having your license revoked?" then you go "well, YOU break the law by drinking and riding a bike! NOW do you see why those people are drinking and driving?" and to that i say "...no, i don't. because me drinking and riding a bike is a completely different fucking situation and totally irrelevant to the point i was making." you're trying to make some inane "appeal to hypocrisy" argument that makes 0% sense.

---

Corrik, the reason you come across as defending drinking and driving is because the past several times this subject comes up, you have gone on the defensive, trying to justify drunk driving as a completely standard and normal action that's only being punished the way it is to oppress the poor. And fine, perhaps you're right. But time and time again, you act like this major proponent of law and order, defending the police in EVERY instance of police brutality (and usually death) upon a black man. Hell, even with George Floyd, you've stated in THIS conversation that Chauvin was in the right to execute the techniques he was trained, and the ONLY flaw was that he applied his knee for TOO LONG.

It's just a matter of the hypocritical appearance. When the issue is one you have personally experienced the consequences of, you come out in support of all sorts of common sense reforms (that wouldn't necessarily work, but I'd agree should at least be ATTEMPTED), as a crusader for legal reform. But when it's an issue where you're standing on the outside looking in, you're completely unwilling to budge from your stance that the police are infallible, and perhaps there shouldn't be justification for shooting a man in the back as he's fleeing from you (or apparently shooting a prone man on the floor who might be reaching for his waistband). No calls to reform a police system in which Derek Chauvin thought that blatantly kneeling on a man's neck for 8 minutes, 46 seconds, on-camera, would have no consequences (because honestly, how many police officers HAVE faced genuine, legal consequences for brutality against black detainees?)

The disparity in your responses creates the aura that you think one matter is an issue that should be fixed, and the other is working as intended. This is even worse when you add the implication that you believe "I broke the law and it's unfair that I had my license suspended, thus harming my ability to provide for my family" is more unjust than "I broke the law and was killed, thus harming my ability to provide for my family." It all comes across as a matter of the crime YOU committed was treated too harshly (which was entirely under your own control, as you could CHOOSE not to drink at a wedding or a bar, or wherever), whereas the crimes committed by murder victims were fair and justified (keeping in mind that you're saying they shouldn't have resisted arrest, which is largely beyond their control, given that police are the ones establishing what is or is not resistance). Can you see why that comes across as defending drunk driving, given the overall circumstances?

---

I've had two cousins killed by drunk drivers.

Anyone defending it under ANY circumstances is a piece of shit and can go straight to hell.

---

Inviso posted...

Corrik, the reason you come across as defending drinking and driving is because the past several times this subject comes up, you have gone on the defensive, trying to justify drunk driving as a completely standard and normal action that's only being punished the way it is to oppress the poor. And fine, perhaps you're right. But time and time again, you act like this major proponent of law and order, defending the police in EVERY instance of police brutality (and usually death) upon a black man. Hell, even with George Floyd, you've stated in THIS conversation that Chauvin was in the right to execute the techniques he was trained, and the ONLY flaw was that he applied his knee for TOO LONG.

It's just a matter of the hypocritical appearance. When the issue is one you have personally experienced the consequences of, you come out in support of all sorts of common sense reforms (that wouldn't necessarily work, but I'd agree should at least be ATTEMPTED), as a crusader for legal reform. But when it's an issue where you're standing on the outside looking in, you're completely unwilling to budge from your stance that the police are infallible, and perhaps there shouldn't be justification for shooting a man in the back as he's fleeing from you (or apparently shooting a prone man on the floor who might be reaching for his waistband). No calls to reform a police system in which Derek Chauvin thought that blatantly kneeling on a man's neck for 8 minutes, 46 seconds, on-camera, would have no consequences (because honestly, how many police officers HAVE faced genuine, legal consequences for brutality against black detainees?)

The disparity in your responses creates the aura that you think one matter is an issue that should be fixed, and the other is working as intended. This is even worse when you add the implication that you believe "I broke the law and it's unfair that I had my license suspended, thus harming my ability to provide for my family" is more unjust than "I broke the law and was killed, thus harming my ability to provide for my family." It all comes across as a matter of the crime YOU committed was treated too harshly (which was entirely under your own control, as you could CHOOSE not to drink at a wedding or a bar, or wherever), whereas the crimes committed by murder victims were fair and justified (keeping in mind that you're saying they shouldn't have resisted arrest, which is largely beyond their control, given that police are the ones establishing what is or is not resistance). Can you see why that comes across as defending drunk driving, given the overall circumstances?

Because each time I am accused of defending it when I wasn't, and I have to re-explain what I actually said. Which will happen again. In a few months or so, someone will say the same. And, I will say I actually said this. And then people will try to pile on from 20 random ass directions again. If every time someone brought this shit up, someone just chimed in... Listen I don't like Corrik but he didn't actually say that... It would save us a topic of posts rehashing it.


---

The argument that it shouldn't be harshly punished because it hurts poor people more doesn't make sense, which that's the case 99% of the time.

You can rape a drunk girl, but if daddy has enough money and influence you get a slap on the wrist because "You have your whole life ahead of you".

---

Alright, going to get extremely direct for a bit.

TheRock1525 posted...

I've had two cousins killed by drunk drivers.

Anyone defending it under ANY circumstances is a piece of shit and can go straight to hell.

I direct this message towards most of the people in this topic who I don't consider to be garbage. Doesn't apply to everyone but yeah. To put it simply:

Rock's comment is what you need to say. Nothing else.

Don't argue with Corrik, red Sox, SephG etc. Don't treat them like reasonable actors or giving them the time of day. Dismiss them. Condemn them.

Look, I get it. Despite the charged feelings we all have right now, it's not easy to hate or dismiss people out of hand. It's important to understand where people are coming from. Otherwise you'd probably be a conservative! It's surprisingly difficult to hate. But these are people that have had YEARS to shape up. They have no hidden depths for you to discover. You know them well.

They will never change, and are not interested in doing so.

I'm not saying this because the topic being filled with unending arguments posts is silly (although it is). Its because arguing with them is actively detrimental. Even if you disagree with them or claim they're wrong and suck, it doesn't matter. You're giving them a platform and the time of your day, and by doing so, legitimizing them.

By arguing with them in good faith so often, you become part of the problem.

The time for treating them normally is long, long past. They don't deserve it and their worldview doesn't deserve to be given the limelight. Don't drag these things out. Stop.

Call them a piece of shit who deserves to go to hell, and be on your way. Better yet, say nothing at all and get some use out of the ignore list. Don't just disagree. Condemn and dismiss them.

---

Apparently we live in a society in a society where taxis don't exist. Or ubers. Or lyfts.

Why is this a conversation.

Am I supposed to believe tens of thousands of people put themselves into a position where they had no cash and no cards and no phone to call anyone for help.

Hell even if the magically hypothetical situation where my phone died and my wallet was stolen and there was no human being with a phone nearby I imagine I would sleep on the back seat of my car until I wasn't inebriated.

There are a million options and opportunities before you reach the point where you put your keys in the ignition. Your deserve no sympathy if you do it and the ONLY acceptable response afterwards is "I fucked up and I will NEVER do it again and I accept any amount of punishment and I'm lucky if I didn't kill anybody or myself."

---

Umbreon posted...

The argument that it shouldn't be harshly punished because it hurts poor people more doesn't make sense, which that's the case 99% of the time.

You can rape a drunk girl, but if daddy has enough money and influence you get a slap on the wrist because "You have your whole life ahead of you".

So, you agree that poor people should be unable to feed, shelter, and clothe their kids if they drink and drive and lose their jobs then when we have a device that can tackle the problem head on and allow the to continue to do so?

Well, that's the problem with economic disparity in America then! People actually support these things!

Then they will argue for welfare to take care of them to squeeze the middle class to support it.

It's clockwork. Keep the poor poor and squeeze the middle class to make them poorer.


---

KamikazePotato posted...

post #479

https://media3.giphy.com/media/NnGGHE0muVqpO/giphy.gif

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Apparently we live in a society in a society where taxis don't exist. Or ubers. Or lyfts.

Someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Surprising.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Hell even if the magically hypothetical situation where my phone died and my wallet was stolen and there was no human being with a phone nearby I imagine I would sleep on the back seat of my car until I wasn't inebriated.

And would be given a DUI for this.
Lmfao. Man you are on fire being out of the loop. Haha.

---

At this point...

Yeah, I'm starting to think that's the best option.

God knows I put in the effort to hear people out. How many years did I spent trying to reason with Ulti?

Seeing someone constantly defend atrocity after atrocity because they have a "The law is the law" and "The police is always right" mindset. Someone who thinks resisting is deserving of death, but their personal crimes are minor and should be forgiven(Because you never have a choice whatever to drink yourself into a stupor or not while at a party)?

I tried. I'm not a close minded person who never tried to hear anyone out. But yeah, I've spent enough energy on this... particular instance.

---

Umbreon posted...

At this point...

Yeah, I'm starting to think that's the best option.

God knows I put in the effort to hear people out. How many years did I spent trying to reason with Ulti?

Seeing someone constantly defend atrocity after atrocity because they have a "The law is the law" and "The police is always right" mindset. Someone who thinks resisting is deserving of death, but their personal crimes are minor and should be forgiven(Because you never have a choice whatever to drink yourself into a stupor or not while at a party)?

I tried. I'm not a close minded person who never tried to hear anyone out. But yeah, I've spent enough energy on this... particular instance.

Yeah, you probably should stop responding since you keep making up what I have said. You are arguing with an imaginary person. Literally no one did what you just said. Keep on trucking with your twisting arguments to feel superior mentality, bruh.

"The law is the law" - Absolutely.

"The police is always right" - Clearly never said. Made up point 1.

"Someone who thinks resisting is deserving of death" - Never said. Made up point 2. Lmfao.

"their personal crimes are minor and should be forgiven" - never said. Made up point 3.

"(Because you never have a choice whatever to drink yourself into a stupor or not while at a party)?" - Never said and completely doesn't make sense. You don't have to drink to a stupor to be Driving under the Influence. 1 beer will suffice for some. Legal medications for others. Not knowing what they are talking about and made up point 4.

4 in one paragraph.

---

And to give more context to my post...

A big example of the 'becoming part of the problem' thing I'm trying to get across would be Roosterteeth, a company I've followed for a while. Roosterteeth has historically had issues with attracting right-win fans despite being an openly left-leaning company. Their black and female on-screen talent have received vitriol disguised as 'constructive criticism' for years now. The attitude from the top, and the attitude that permeated the rest of the left-leaning fanbase (who, for the record, were the majority) was to either wave it off or try to convince the assholes they were wrong. To engage them as if they were rational people arguing in good faith.

It didn't work.

The number of right-wing asshole in their fanbase has only grown over the years. Because they knew that they had found a platform where they would be heard, and by not being excommunicated, would have their opinions legitimized. It took the current protests and some employees and ex-employees opening up about how shitty they feel the company's response was for the higher-ups to change their tact. And for the record, I think the higher-ups at roosterteeth legitimately care. They just handled toxicity exactly the wrong way. The exact same way we're handling it now.

Now, we're not a major corporation who influences hundreds of thousands of people with our rhetoric, but this is still our little corner of the internet. This is a place where we can make a bit of a difference. And frankly speaking, we're not. Maybe arguing with them in good faith - even when they never argued in good faith back - at one point was the right decision (don't agree with this but whatever), but it no longer is. Stop giving them platforms. Respond to their shit with one post, AT THE MOST, condemning them, and leave it at that.

Our country is currently at war. Start acting like it, instead of coming here so you can get the thrill of dunking on wrong people when you're bored. Your voice matters.

---

Why has America given up on fighting the pandemic? My country's gradually stamping it out.

---

...alternatively just discuss stuff in a discussion topic and if you don't want to, don't.
and fuck any "war" rhetoric here, that just polarizes sides even further to push people even more in their camp. there's no reconciliation in a war, it's explicitly only one side dominating the other. no conversation, no discussion, apart from submission. that's just radicalization in a nutshell.

---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Why has America given up on fighting the pandemic? My country's gradually stamping it out.

In the time honored tradition of the US, we've declared "Mission Accomplished" and will pretend we've won and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

---

Wanglicious posted...

...alternatively just discuss stuff in a discussion topic and if you don't want to, don't.
and fuck any "war" rhetoric here, that just polarizes sides even further to push people even more in their camp. there's no reconciliation in a war, it's explicitly only one side dominating the other. no conversation, no discussion, apart from submission. that's just radicalization in a nutshell.

Anyone saying their country is in a war hasn't actually been in one anyways. It's a preposterous comment.

---

definitely. like i get the idea of "it's the culture war!" as essentially an exaggerated oversimplification of things but if you're gonna actually take it literally and start treating it like war then the entire purpose of war is domination, by any means necessary. including, and especially, death and killing.

what a great attitude for a topic whose purpose is to contain political discussion.

---

Corrik7 posted...

And would be given a DUI for this.
Lmfao. Man you are on fire being out of the loop. Haha.

Some Factors that Might Come Into Play

A jury will generally look at all the circumstances of a case in determining whether an impaired motorist was operating or in actual physical control of the vehicle. Typically, the closer the driver was to being able to set the car in motion, the more likely the jury is to convict. So, an impaired motorist found sleeping in the back seat with the motor shut off might have a good shot at beating the charge. But a drunk motorist whos caught draped over the steering wheel with the car running is more likely to be convicted.

Again that would be my course of action in the magical scenario where I have no money and no phone. I would not ever be in that scenario but if I were I would have my keys in the glove box while sleeping in the back. BUT because phones exist and its unthinkable that I would be in that scenario without one (or in that scenario without having first made prior arrangements) so I would do literally anything but drive.

---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Why has America given up on fighting the pandemic? My country's gradually stamping it out.

Because the "man" in charge values profits than our lives. Granted Americans in general are also very stubborn "We can do anything better than anyone else!"

Don't worry, when a lot more people die they'll explain why we were "helpless" to do anything about it all.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Some Factors that Might Come Into Play

Again that would be my course of action in the magical scenario where I have no money and no phone. I would not ever be in that scenario but if I were I would have my keys in the glove box while sleeping in the back. BUT because phones exist and its unthinkable that I would be in that scenario without one (or in that scenario without having first made prior arrangements) so I would do literally anything but drive.

So you plan to pay an attorney probably upwards of 5k+ to have a jury trial to try and possibly beat a DUI case.

Okee dokee.

When you are at a jury trial, you are way past being arrested for a DUI.

---

...i'm also honestly surprised you guys are still arguing the DUI stuff. my eyes just gloss over it entirely because far as i can tell like 80% of it is trolling/flaming Corrik, 10% is his response that seems to go all over the place, 5% is actual discussion, and 5% is wondering wtf you all are you doing. besides trolling him, anyway. because that's blatantly the biggest takeaway in all this, y'all have been doing that shit since what, page 2 or 3? again?

---

Corrik7 posted...

So you plan to pay an attorney probably upwards of 5k+ to have a jury trial to try and possibly beat a DUI case.

Okee dokee.

When you are at a jury trial, you are way past being arrested for a DUI.

Again i would never drink without a plan. Because I'm not a piece of garbage who is willing to risk other people's lives.

But if i did drink without a plan I would have money for a cab.

Or if I had no money I would use my phone to order a ride.

And if I couldn't do that I would embarrass myself by calling everybody I know until someone came for me.

.

And then yes if drunk FD had no plan, no money and no phone (somehow) he would rather get in trouble for sleeping drunk in the car rather than drive the car a single foot.

---

i wasn't trolling and flaming corrik at all when arguing the DUI stuff.

corrik, on the other hand, has been constantly throwing shit like "lol!" and "your defense is astronomically garbage!" at me.


---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Again i would never drink without a plan. Because I'm not a piece of garbage who is willing to risk other people's lives.

But if i did drink without a plan I would have money for a cab.

Or if I had no money I would use my phone to order a ride.

And if I couldn't do that I would embarrass myself by calling everybody I know until someone came for me.

.

And then yes if drunk FD had no plan, no money and no phone (somehow) he would rather get in trouble for sleeping drunk in the car rather than drive the car a single foot.

That's great. You are unfortunately in rural America on a trip. You didn't realize Ubers and lyfts and cabs don't run out there cuz you falsely assume they existed everywhere. No one will give you a ride even though you did ask. You are tasked with walk back to your rental 5 miles drunk, sleep in your car, or drive home.

You choose sleep in your car. You got picked up for a DUI. Now refer to the scenario I pointed out and tell me if you are going to a jury trial. Reminder, you have to return to the area you were arrested for your trial.

---

oh he'll totally troll and flame back. there is that, somewhere in the like 10 to 1 "argument."

---