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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox is literally a lawyer lol

Doesn't sound like a criminal defense DUI lawyer then.

---

Umbreon posted...

Wait, "last two"?

How many DUIs have you had Corrik?

3. But I shouldn't have had my first one under your philosophy, which was my most obviously guilty one.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You are victim blaming. Because two officers didn't subdue a person on any sort of intoxicants that they deserved to be assaulted and the criminal deserved to escape.

Listen. None of the shit you said made sense.

1. You don't escort a DUI offender to their home. Unless you are letting them off, which is 1970s shit. "Hey, you look like you are under the influence! Drive your car home while we follow ya, bud! Okay sleep it off! You had a long day!"

2. You don't write a ticket for a DUI.

3. You arrest someone you have reasonable suspicion for being under the influence of a DUI and take them to somewhere to have a legal reading of their BAC done (whether hospital or police station for blood test or breathalyzer)

4. You can shoot anyone who commits a violent crime and is fleeing a scene. It is your job to subdue that person who is a risk to the public.

5. They could have shot the dude during the scuffle if they wanted to just as legally. It takes one random punch to knock out a cop and for a violent offender to now have a gun also. Him shooting a taser or not is all superfluous to the situation though even greater in the cops defense.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

Legally, the police have absolutely zero obligation to protect ANYONE, as has been decided by the Supreme Court multiple times. While I have a problem with this ruling, since it means that police are funded by taxpaper money and are not doing EITHER of the two actions in their motto, it does call into question the idea that it's "their job" to murder a man running away from them.

---

Inviso posted...

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

Legally, the police have absolutely zero obligation to protect ANYONE, as has been decided by the Supreme Court multiple times. While I have a problem with this ruling, since it means that police are funded by taxpaper money and are not doing EITHER of the two actions in their motto, it does call into question the idea that it's "their job" to murder a man running away from them.

Legally having zero obligation to do something doesn't mean it can't be their job to do something.

My job can be to ensure we don't go over 20 emissions when legally I only have to ensure we don't go over 45. Y'kno?

---

Corrik7 posted...

You are victim blaming. Because two officers didn't subdue a person on any sort of intoxicants that they deserved to be assaulted and the criminal deserved to escape.

They don't deserve to be assaulted, but if they can do their job properly... I'd like to know why.

And escape? Where to? We have his car, we have his address. It's not like he's going to be in a condition to run very far under his condition.

Corrik7 posted...

Drive your car home while we follow

Oh, there's a misunderstanding here. Perhaps I didn't word things properly. He wouldn't be driving at all. He would be under arrest once he's became sober.

Granted it's probably more practical to take him to jail then and there. The point I was trying to make being, there are ways to not escalate a situation.

I thought you got the ticket in addition bro the arrest. Guess I mixed that up with "points".

Corrik7 posted...

You can shoot anyone who commits a violent crime and is fleeing a scene. It is your job to subdue that person who is a risk to the public.

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure if I shot a fleeing intruder in the back, I would be in the wrong. If so, I don't see why it should be different in their case.

And 3 DUIs? Boy you don't want to know what I think a fitting punishment for that is.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Legally having zero obligation to do something doesn't mean it can't be their job to do something.

My job can be to ensure we don't go over 20 emissions when legally I only have to ensure we don't go over 45. Y'kno?

That's not how police work and you know it.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/15/us/parkland-shooting-officer-reinstated/index.html

We've had lengthy discussions about how powerful police unions are, and all that matters is if their actions are legally defensible. If they are, then they get to keep their job. Every time. There's a reason people can even remotely make the case that they believe Chauvin is gonna be acquitted of all charges.

---

Umbreon posted...

Oh, there's a misunderstanding here. Perhaps I didn't word things properly. He wouldn't be driving at all. He would be under arrest once he's became sober.

Granted it's probably more practical to take him to jail then and there. The point I was trying to make being, there are ways to not escalate a situation.

I thought you got the ticket in addition bro the arrest. Guess I mixed that up with "points".

You have to take them straight to a proper place for a BAC for a DUI conviction. You can't let him sober up. Your literal job when dealing with a DUI is... Observe person for set time limit (15 mins or so). Build evidence if possible (ask to do sobriety tests and roadsides - you can legally refuse all of these btw. They exist for nothing more to incriminate yourself and provide reasonable suspicion). Then take you to get an official BAC at a police station breathalyzer or hospital via blood test.

What you are saying the cops should have done would have gotten him off of his DUI, dude.

It is very simple. The guy could have just not resisted, assaulted officers, and fled police after commiting a violent crime.

---

Inviso posted...

That's not how police work and you know it.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/15/us/parkland-shooting-officer-reinstated/index.html

We've had lengthy discussions about how powerful police unions are, and all that matters is if their actions are legally defensible. If they are, then they get to keep their job. Every time. There's a reason people can even remotely make the case that they believe Chauvin is gonna be acquitted of all charges.

Chauvin has no chance of getting off. If he does, I might go out and march too because he has no case. He might have been trained to use a knee to the neck. He might have put the knee to the neck because of initial resisting. However, there was no justification for continuing to do so for so long after resistance ended. He is going to be in jail a long time.

---

Umbreon posted...

And 3 DUIs? Boy you don't want to know what I think a fitting punishment for that is.

What do you think a fitting punishment is?

Here is what PA thinks is fitting.

https://www.davidmckenzielawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PA.Sentencing.jpg

---

They don't do that on the spot? I thought breathalyzers were portable. Uggh I swear if that's just cop show bs...

Corrik7 posted...

It is very simple. The guy could have just not resisted, assaulted officers, and fled police after commiting a violent crime.

The officers could also have just followed him at a distance until he inevitable passed out. He was passed out in his car wasn't he? The man wasn't going to get far.


---

Umbreon posted...

They don't do that on the spot? I thought breathalyzers were portable. Uggh I swear if that's just cop show bs...

The officers could also have just followed him at a distance until he inevitable passed out. He was passed out in his car wasn't he? The man wasn't going to get far.

Roadsides are inadmissable in court because they aren't factory calibrated, aren't reliable, and serve only to provide incrimination for the cop to justify arresting you. Most lawyers tell you to refuse to take them. Refusing those is allowed and is not a refusal, same as sobriety tests.

That is a possibility. He also possibly could have jacked a car with a taser and forced a driver into a high speed situation and killed 14 people in the process. I mean, who knows what could have happened.

The scenario where you ensure no public harm happened was killing the violent offender fleeing the police.

---

SmartMuffin posted...

Updated prediction: Unless the race riots are violently and forcefully suppressed, Trump will win less than five states. Biden will win Texas easily.

Why in your opinion is Trump acting like he wants so badly to do that but isnt actually doing it?
---

Corrik7 posted...

The scenario where you ensure no public harm happened was killing the violent offender fleeing the police.

That person is also part of the public
---

Corrik7 posted...

It is your job to subdue that person who is a risk to the public.

a person who drives drunk is an EXTREMELY big risk to the public. should they be shot by the police?


---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

a person who drives drunk is an EXTREMELY big risk to the public. should they be shot by the police?

If they resist arrest by fleeing, why not?

---

Why in your opinion is Trump acting like he wants so badly to do that but isnt actually doing it?

"Send a bunch of whiny tweets, but do nothing" is pretty much Trump's go-to move at this point. It's been what he's done on basically every issue his voters care about other than tax cuts. I suspect that one actually got done because Jared, Ivanka, and the neocon establishment agreed with it.

I guess there are two options. One is that Trump is lying to us and actually doesn't support any hardcore nationalist positions (this is sort of what a lot of republicans warned about back in the 2016 primaries, that Trump himself is a New York based elitist who is just good at reading the room and telling the unwashed rural conservative masses what they want to hear). The other is that he still hasn't quite figured out that being President doesn't just mean "you say stuff should get done and it happens." He has zero ability or desire to "follow-through" and make sure the people under him actually carry out his orders. He just figures they will, or if they don't, they must have been stopped by some nefarious Democrat. It doesn't even occur to him that everyone around him (including his children) would be actively undermining his orders.

---

Wow Im actually impressed at how good of an answer that was
---

Corrik7 posted...

What do you think a fitting punishment is?

Here is what PA thinks is fitting.

https://www.davidmckenzielawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PA.Sentencing.jpg

Well first off it would not be a damn "misnomer".

I don't know about the third offense, but I feel a permanent removal of your license works for a second offense. If you're that irresponsible, we don't need you behind a wheel. Too many idiots behind it as is.

---

Umbreon posted...

Well first off it would not be a damn "misnomer".

I don't know about the third offense, but I feel a permanent removal of your license works for a second offense. If you're that irresponsible, we don't need you behind a wheel. Too many idiots behind it as is.

A third DUI is becoming a Felony for the higher BACs in the upcoming law change. (If within 10 years).

---

Corrik7 posted...

If they resist arrest, why not?

No, NOT if they resist arrest. Because adding that into the equation adds the variable of the police officer's actions into the mix. Were the police accommodating or antagonistic to an inebriated, perhaps unable to control their faculties? Was the victim ACTUALLY resisting arrest, or did the police just say they were because it gives them a "Get Out of Jail Free" card in the same vein as "I feared for my life"? Remember, we live in a society in which police have shot and killed unarmed, drunken men for not complying fast enough with their orders. What if "didn't comply fast enough" is considered under the same umbrella as "resisting arrest"?

---

Inviso posted...

No, NOT if they resist arrest. Because adding that into the equation adds the variable of the police officer's actions into the mix. Were the police accommodating or antagonistic to an inebriated, perhaps unable to control their faculties? Was the victim ACTUALLY resisting arrest, or did the police just say they were because it gives them a "Get Out of Jail Free" card in the same vein as "I feared for my life"? Remember, we live in a society in which police have shot and killed unarmed, drunken men for not complying fast enough with their orders. What if "didn't comply fast enough" is considered under the same umbrella as "resisting arrest"?

How do you know if someone is Driving under the Influence? I mean, technically, we don't even know this guy here was actually under the influence either, yet. He never got to anywhere to prove it. He was just being arrested under suspicion.

---

Corrik7 posted...

If they resist arrest by fleeing, why not?

you seriously think shooting a drunk driver who's racing away is going to turn out well?

---

Umbreon posted...

I don't know about the third offense, but I feel a permanent removal of your license works for a second offense.

What do you suggest that people do then when a lot of people don't have licenses? I bet there are tens of thousands of people in PA alone with multiple DUIs. (If the recidivism stats are correct for the state).

This is where you get to the taking away a license isn't an appropriate punishment for the crime in my eyes. It affects t he poor more than the rich. Should the poor be unable to get to work to make money for their families, to the store to feed their families while the rich simply can afford to pay someone to drive them to do so? Is that an appropriate punishment?

---

Corrik7 posted...

How do you know if someone is Driving under the Influence? I mean, technically, we don't even know this guy here was actually under the influence either, yet. He never got to anywhere to prove it. He was just being arrested under suspicion.

sounds like NEITHER scenario warrants excessive force or death to me.

---

Maybe they shouldn't fucking be driving around while drunk/high? You know what else punished the poor more than the rich(Besides damn near anything)?

Being killed for "resisting arrest". Rich boy isn't getting shot.

You talk about the poor drunks driving in their cars who need to support their families.

What of the family who loses everything because one selfish asshole got drunk behind the wheel and rear ends them going 90?

If you can't drive responsibility, don't drive.

---

Corrik7 posted...

This is where you get to the taking away a license isn't an appropriate punishment for the crime in my eyes. It affects t he poor more than the rich. Should the poor be unable to get to work to make money for their families, to the store to feed their families while the rich simply can afford to pay someone to drive them to do so? Is that an appropriate punishment?

I agree with all this, I just dont get why you have faith that this will all just work out without people like you raising a fuss about it
---

Umbreon posted...

If you can't drive responsibility, don't drive.

I think you underestimate how car-centric American society is if this is your stance.

Everything is so inconvenient and clunky if you can't drive. You'd basically have to restructure all of American cities into ultradense ones like in other countries for this to be a fair punishment.

---

Umbreon posted... Maybe they shouldn't fucking be driving around while drunk/high? You know what else punished the poor more than the rich(Besides damn near anything)?

Being killed for "resisting arrest". Rich boy isn't getting shot.

You talk about the poor drunks driving in their cars who need to support their families.

What of the family who loses everything because one selfish asshole got drunk behind the wheel and rear ends them going 90?

If you can't drive responsibility, don't drive.

That's awesome. Not what I asked you but okay.

PA DUI Stats 2010
Repeat offenders stats:

• BAC = .15+ : 79.8%
• Percent of Drivers in Fatal Drunk Driving Crashes Involving Repeat Offenders w/BAC .15+
• BAC = .08-.14: 20.6%
• BAC = .15+: 79.4%

2010 PA Arrest Data
Driving under the influence:

• Under 18: 459
• Total: 51402

So this is 2010 data.

51k a year arrested for DUIS in 2010.

I found some more data.

49,730 DUI arrests in Pennsylvania in 2018, a decrease from the 52,189 arrests made in 2017. The number of DUI-drug arrests continues to be a concern, with 33,712 charges for driving under the influence of an impairing drug filed in 2018. This is a 28 percent increase over the previous three years.

So, you are around 50k a year reliably for DUIs.

Drug DUIs are automatically high tier.

High tier are 80% recidivism.

I mean, you are talking hundreds of thousands of people without licenses if not millions at this point, just in PA.

Then...

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for every one arrest made for drunk driving or DUI/DWI, there is an estimated 500 to 2,000 drunk driving incidents go unpenalized. (Possibly even low on this estimate).

18.9% of respondents admit to driving while buzzed. 2.1% admitted to driving while high, and 5.6% admitted to driving while buzzed and high. Remember buzzed driving is drunk driving and you can still face legal repercussions if pulled over while buzzed!

26.6% of all polled across America ADMIT (which means likely an underestimate as people admitting to crime isn't as likely) to driving under the influence.

If they reliably could catch EVERY single person driving drunk, you would have possibly upwards of 20 million unable to drive due to no licenses (and decimate rural America - remember... where you can't reliably rideshare, walk to bars, and etc.) It's an easy thing to say if you live in a city.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I agree with all this, I just dont get why you have faith that this will all just work out without people like you raising a fuss about it

They are slowly starting to get it, Jakyl.

Ignition interlock device (IID) installation is mandatory for first time offenders with a high BAC or who refuse the breathalyzer. It is also mandatory for anyone under 21 convicted of DUI IID installation is also mandatory for subsequent offenses. The idea is rather than taking away your license for a year after a DUI conviction, which could cause you to lose your job, allowing you to drive with an IID-restricted license prevents you from driving drunk, and lets you keep driving to and from work or school.

Just taking them awhile to get to the whole picture.

---

Corrik7 posted...

What do you suggest that people do then when a lot of people don't have licenses? I bet there are tens of thousands of people in PA alone with multiple DUIs. (If the recidivism stats are correct for the state).

This is where you get to the taking away a license isn't an appropriate punishment for the crime in my eyes. It affects t he poor more than the rich. Should the poor be unable to get to work to make money for their families, to the store to feed their families while the rich simply can afford to pay someone to drive them to do so? Is that an appropriate punishment?

Corrik, I think MOST of us are at least sympathetic to your argument. The problem we have is that, coming from you, the argument feels extremely tone-deaf and self-serving. You're talking about how the punishment for a law YOU broke is disproportionately excessive, and perhaps you're right. But when we argue that OTHER people breaking laws are disproportionately punished (often in a fatal manner), you immediately leap to the defense of the police.

You even agree with us that Derek Chauvin was excessive in his subduing George Floyd (for the crime of handing a convenience store clerk a counterfeit twenty dollar bill, mind you). But keep in mind, the tactics Chauvin used are taught by police. Keep in mind that he was OPENLY filmed through the entire duration of his suffocating George Floyd, and showed no shame or remorse during that video. Why would he? What prior circumstances would make him think that THIS time people would give a shit and hold him accountable? We've seen time, and time again that police who use excessive force against unarmed black suspects are given a pass, either by their departments, or by grand juries. The system is incredibly lopsided in favor of protecting police from consequences of their actions, even if those actions disproportionately have a negative impact on the poor (black) population.

And now we get a man running away from the police who was shot and killed after a DUI in which he was, by my understanding passive in his vehicle, and the situatione escalated to his death. And once again, there are too many people (like yourself) willing to forgive the police for causing a man's death, rather than considering that, perhaps, there are problems in how the law is shaped and enforced, that lead to a disproportionate punishment for Brooks' crimes.

Also, and I cannot stress this enough, "resisting arrest" is an entirely subjective term that could range from firing a semi-automatic rifle at arresting officers, to squirming under the knee of a man who has you pressed harshly against pavement. I'm sure that you could, if necessary, make the case for "resisting arrest" in ANY arrest situation, if you do desired.

---

Inviso posted...

Corrik, I think MOST of us are at least sympathetic to your argument. The problem we have is that, coming from you, the argument feels extremely tone-deaf and self-serving. You're talking about how the punishment for a law YOU broke is disproportionately excessive, and perhaps you're right. But when we argue that OTHER people breaking laws are disproportionately punished (often in a fatal manner), you immediately leap to the defense of the police.

I am talking about something I have gone through so maybe can tell you a different perspective of why I feel it is inappropriate from the other side. I have already served my shit. None of this is self-serving to me. I been through the gamut. I am talking for those who might go through it down the line. How does it self-serve me? Am I going to magically get my license back in the past and be able to drive then somehow? lol

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I think you underestimate how car-centric American society is if this is your stance.

Everything is so inconvenient and clunky if you can't drive. You'd basically have to restructure all of American cities into ultradense ones like in other countries for this to be a fair punishment.

even with this information i still agree with DYL. if being able to drive is so important in the US and you know how harsh the punishment is if you get caught after drinking and driving, maybe don't drink and drive?

i seriously don't get why people apparently want to drink and drive so badly to the point that this is a huge issue. i drink a lot (i'm a borderline alcoholic) and i've never once driven a car after having had one drip of alcohol. driving in general is dangerous enough. drinking and driving is dangerous as fuck and you should never do it. like, this is extremely easy to understand.

---

If you need your car and having your licence removed will hamper your economic position.

DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE.

You might need to drive to support your family, but I promise you don't need to fuckin drink. You can be teetotal and support your family so maybe try that instead of doing something that risks you losing your licence.

This isn't a complicated concept.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i seriously don't get why people apparently want to drink and drive so badly to the point that this is a huge issue. i drink a lot (i'm a borderline alcoholic) and i've never once driven a car after having had one drip of alcohol. driving in general is dangerous enough. drinking and driving is dangerous as fuck and you should never do it. like, this is extremely easy to understand.

How do you avoid driving after drinking? Start there and work your way back.

---

Corrik7 posted...

How do you avoid driving after drinking? Start there and work your way back.

i never put myself in a situation where i'm reliant on having to drive a car after drinking. pretty easy.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i never put myself in a situation where i'm reliant on having to drive a car after drinking. pretty easy.

Not what I asked you. Again. You said you are a borderline alcoholic. How do you avoid driving after drinking. What do you specifically do when you go to bars to get home without driving?

---

If you're in a situation where you are going to drink, and there's a chance you may have to drive afterwards, you don't get to drink. Simple as that.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

If you're in a situation where you are going to drink, and there's a chance you may have to drive afterwards, you don't get to drink. Simple as that.

Yeah. It is simple as that. Anyone who has ever gone to a bar or a wedding can tell you that isn't the reality though.

I love all the it is simple as that and it's not complicated posts though when...

If you resist arrest, steal a weapon from the cops, assault them, and flee as a violent offender and getting shot somehow is complicated though. lol

---

Corrik7 posted...

What do you specifically do when you go to bars to get home without driving?

i ride a bicycle. or i take the train.

---

My stance is probably pretty extreme on this as I have no respect for alcohol whatsoever and think it's the most dangerous drug facing this country.

I'd be all for Prohibition 2.0 TBH. Alcohol and it's acceptance fundamentally disgust me.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i ride a bicycle.

So you go somewhere in bike riding range! Awesome (though I think that probably isn't super safe either to be riding a bike while drunk, especially if by major roads), but anywho. Take away that option. You no longer can ride a bike because no bars are within bike range! Now what? Do you just not go out? That's the predicament of most of America. You grow up with people from a different age where if you crashed when drunk into a tree that the cops drove you home and asked you to pick up your car in the morning. You grow up with alcohol centered families, entertainment based on bar cultures, and with no cabs, rideshares, or walking or biking distance bars in the vicinity.

People who drink and drive in rural areas likely wouldn't in cities with those options and vice versa.

Is it an excuse? Not really. But, it is why drinking and driving is so prevalent. It's the number 1 arrest probably in most states now (and that's with studies saying for every 1 arrested there is 500 to 2000 that go unarrested).

Do you think all those sporting events, restaurants, comedy clubs, strip clubs, bowling alleys, casinos, arcades and etc that sell alcohol at their venues are really all people who aren't driving? Hell, PA started selling open container alcoholic drinks from restaurants in to go cups due to the coronavirus. Lol. You think they are driving 20 minutes home with their liquor slushie to drink it?

---

At least in California riding a bike while drunk is also a crime.

As for how to not do it, simple. Don't drink. Problem solved.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Yeah. It is simple as that. Anyone who has ever gone to a bar or a wedding can tell you that isn't the reality though.

I love all the it is simple as that and it's not complicated posts though when...

If you resist arrest, steal a weapon from the cops, assault them, and flee as a violent offender and getting shot somehow is complicated though. lol

That those two statements and reverse them.

That's how you sound to the rest of us.

---

Politics Containment Topic 304: Drinking and Driving Is Okay When I Do It

---

red sox 777 posted...

At least in California riding a bike while drunk is also a crime.

it's a crime in my country as well.

yeah, it is dangerous. that's a fair point. it's a lot less dangerous than fucking drunk driving, though.

---

red sox 777 posted...

At least in California riding a bike while drunk is also a crime.

As for how to not do it, simple. Don't drink. Problem solved.

If you don't want to die from heroin, don't do it! Problem solved. No narcan anymore. I mean, you can do that for everything.

Are states really trying to solve why it is happening though? If their goal is no drinking and driving, are they accomplishing it the way they are going about it? I don't think so really.

---

Like this idea that you absolutely HAVE TO go to bars is sort of baffling for me. Sephy was like this with the bar closures for virus prevention too. Why is going to bars such a necessity? It's not even the only way to drink - if you need alcohol you don't need to go to a bar to get it.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Alcohol and it's acceptance fundamentally disgust me.

I mean, yes, I agree with this piece, but stretching that into "Bring Back Prohibition", when we have literally the first version of it as a case study in why it doesn't work is stupid.

And then compound it with what we've seen (I hesitate to use the word "learned" here even though it should be the right one) from the War on Drugs, and it'd just be mega disaster.

red sox 777 posted...

Like this idea that you absolutely HAVE TO go to bars is sort of baffling for me. Sephy was like this with the bar closures for virus prevention too. Why is going to bars such a necessity? It's not even the only way to drink - if you need alcohol you don't need to go to a bar to get it.

It's growing up in bar cultures mostly. But, it isn't even bars. Its anywhere. I don't think most people (who aren't alcoholics) are going to bars just to drink. They are going to socialize with people while drinking.

I don't drink and drive at all anymore. I either stay at my cousins/grandmothers or get picked up and dropped off. But, I would be an absolute hypocritical ass to say I don't understand why 50k people a year are getting DUIs (and remember Drug duis are a big thing also).

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

even with this information i still agree with DYL. if being able to drive is so important in the US and you know how harsh the punishment is if you get caught after drinking and driving, maybe don't drink and drive?

i seriously don't get why people apparently want to drink and drive so badly to the point that this is a huge issue. i drink a lot (i'm a borderline alcoholic) and i've never once driven a car after having had one drip of alcohol. driving in general is dangerous enough. drinking and driving is dangerous as fuck and you should never do it. like, this is extremely easy to understand.

I mean I'm very pro prison reform and criminal rehabilitation so the idea of a permanent punishment sucks to me anyways.

Maybe help this person with using alcohol responsibly instead of restricting their mobility until they die

---