Ted Kennedy dies

Originally posted by Darth Jello

I see what you did there.

And, a drunk person on a bicycle can cause a death, other than themselves. It's the same, really. Just that the death of the driver/s is less likely than if he or she was behind the wheel of another car. So, yes, technically, it is still manslaughter if they cause a death from their drunkenness.

Yes but again, here there is no legal distinction. I've had more than one police officer tell me that technically, if you are drunk and walking your bike somewhere, it is still considered DUI.

same in Canada, Mr. Jello

its not enforced, and they would way rather you bike than drive, but it is still operating a vehicle under the influence

Originally posted by King Kandy
Really? You think intentional murder and drunk driving accidents are equally bad?

If not worse...

normally, a murder has a cause. It is tragic, but the victim often is not a random, who is only killed by the negligence of another.

Originally posted by KidRock
Innocent people don't leave the scene of the crime and try to cover it up.

They really do.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Umm, actually yeah they do.

They really do.

😱 That makes no sense.

Originally posted by inimalist
If not worse...

normally, a murder has a cause. It is tragic, but the victim often is not a random, who is only killed by the negligence of another.

So hunting down and murdering someone else is not as bad as making a mistake that kills someone else? That strikes me as absurd.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😱 That makes no sense.

Well then you'll have to show that everything people do make sense.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😱 That makes no sense.

If you're a suspect, and lawyers have been stereotyped as coming up with bullshit to prove anyone guilty, and you're one of those crazy people who believe jail, and a bad reputation is bad, then yeah, you'd cover it up.

Even if it makes you look even more guilty, there are people who do that kind of thing.

That makes no sense.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...Well then you'll have to show that everything people do make sense.

So, highly intelligent, well educated Senators, do things that make no sense? Perhaps you are right. 😛

Originally posted by KidRock
So nobody has ever killed another person over a rumor they heard? People have never killed another because they thought they could potentially ruin their life and legacy?

Originally posted by KidRock
Absolutely. There is no such thing as a drunk driving "accident".

Seriously now, love or hate his politics, the man caused an accident that took the life of a woman and he fled the scene/tried to cover it up. That's cowardice and shows a lack of character.

It's also very, very sad that due to his families influence and prestige, he didn't even serve the measly two-month sentence he was levied.

Edit: If the guy had any sense of justice, he'd have insisted he serve jail time, it's not like he would have gone to a 'pound-me-in-the-ass' prison.

We've had semi-serious discussions with local Boulder police on the subject of DUI and how Boulder interprets its laws, granted there is a lot leniency towards cyclists in that city (WAAAAAY to much in fact), we were actually told that by the strictest interpretation of local law, if you pass out drunk in a bed, if the bed has wheels on it, you can be arrested for DUI. According to local law, the presence of wheels defines it as a vehicle and sleep is the typical way in which a bed is "operated".

Regardless, I apologize for getting off topic, and would love to discuss ridiculous judicial interpretation in another thread.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So hunting down and murdering someone else is not as bad as making a mistake that kills someone else? That strikes me as absurd.

This is where your logic is flawed.

Getting inebriated wasn't an accident.

Getting into a vehicle drunk, is not an accident.

I have to agree on the whole "it was an accident" in regards to drunk drivers, they typically drove to the place they'd be drinking.

But using the same logic, why is a confession under chemical coersion not admissible in court?

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is where your logic is flawed.

Getting inebriated wasn't an accident.

Getting into a vehicle drunk, is not an accident.

But killing someone was not intentional. Very sad, of course, and not a way of dismissing wrong doing but not nearly so dangerous or bad as a person who's willing to hunt down another person with the specific intention of killing that person, which you equated it to.

Originally posted by Robtard
I have to agree on the whole "it was an accident" in regards to drunk drivers, they typically drove to the place they'd be drinking.

It's called "drink responsibly" and get a cab.

If the person wants to get drunk, you ****in have a designated driver for your little group.

It's not really hard. If you plan to drink to drunkenness, make sure you set aside money to call a cab AFTER you drive your stupid ass to the place of drunkenness.

If it just happens, randomly at a party, you're not only ****ed, you're stupid.

Let's put it this way: there is absolutely no reason any innocent random person should have to pay for your irresponsibility, with their life. 😐

Accident or not, it's manslaughter.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
But using the same logic, why is a confession under chemical coersion not admissible in court?

Probably due to the fact that a chemical (a foreign agent) is making them confess and there could be grounds that the confession is therefore not their own.

Like torture, you torture someone long/hard enough; they'll confess to anything you ask of them.

and manslaughter is unintentional