Suspected drunk driver kills 3 Las Vegas teens in fiery crash
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Three Las Vegas teenagers on spring break have died in a fiery crash in Southern California after their car was hit by a suspected drunken driver. Authorities said the teens were stopped at a red light on Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach around 1 a.m. Thursday when another car rear-ended them.
Sad that our society tolerates drunk and under the influence driving. It is a disgrace
We actually don't. The penalties for DUI are quite harsh. And the majority of drivers never do. So how can you actually think this??
Just because people aren't holding outdoor protests at the Washington Mall, doesn't mean we tolerate drunk driving.
Drivers who are at risk of driving under the influence usually have an addictive to alcohol. It's not as if society as a whole encouraged these drivers to get drunk and then tell them it's alright to drive themselves home.
In addition, all US states have laws on the books that mandate businesses that serve alcohol make their bartenders and food servers take and pass TIPS or similar course on how to serve alcohol responsibly. And that would mean keeping track of all the customers, serving them no more than two drinks in an hour, offering them food, watching their behaviour for intoxication cues, and at the end of the night, if that customer is drunk, to make sure that they are not driving themselves to their next destination.
TIPS® (Training for Intervention ProcedureS) is the global leader in education and training for the responsible service, sale, and consumption of alcohol. Proven effective by third-party studies, TIPS is a skills-based training program that is designed to prevent intoxication, underage drinking, and drunk driving.
So probably with this incident, the police will investigate where this driver had been driving prior to the crash. And if the drinking establishment is found responsible for overserving the driver, they will face heavy penalties in addition to the driver going to court.
However, it is possible, as with all addicts, that the driver might have purchased his own alcohol (from a liquor store)... and then there would not be anyone to monitor his rate of alcohol intake.
We actually don't. The penalties for DUI are quite harsh. And the majority of drivers never do. So how can you actually think this??
Just because people aren't holding outdoor protests at the Washington Mall, doesn't mean we tolerate drunk driving.
Drivers who are at risk of driving under the influence usually have an addictive to alcohol. It's not as if society as a whole encouraged these drivers to get drunk and then tell them it's alright to drive themselves home.
In addition, all US states have laws on the books that mandate businesses that serve alcohol make their bartenders and food servers take and pass TIPS or similar course on how to serve alcohol responsibly. And that would mean keeping track of all the customers, serving them no more than two drinks in an hour, offering them food, watching their behaviour for intoxication cues, and at the end of the night, if that customer is drunk, to make sure that they are not driving themselves to their next destination.
So probably with this incident, the police will investigate where this driver had been driving prior to the crash. And if the drinking establishment is found responsible for overserving the driver, they will face heavy penalties in addition to the driver going to court.
However, it is possible, as with all addicts, that the driver might have purchased his own alcohol (from a liquor store)... and then there would not be anyone to monitor his rate of alcohol intake.
How about targeting access? Its what they did when opioid prescription drugs started becoming dangerous, they were quick to target access first and foremost, make it harder to get for those that are going to abuse it.
Its strange that everyone pretty much agrees alcohol prohibition didnt work, and they all just chalk up events like this to accidents that happen (no one to blame), but when it comes to prescription drugs, its entirely different, they want to go after the manufacturer, even restrict peoples access who take them as they should, so a pill prohibition is fine, even though it never worked for alcohol..??
We actually don't. The penalties for DUI are quite harsh. And the majority of drivers never do. So how can you actually think this??
Penalties depend upon money and lawyer, and if the cops made some silly simple mistake. A lady in my area killed two people, she got home detention or work release with years of probation. Other people who didn't have the $50K-$100K she had usually get years in prison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu
Just because people aren't holding outdoor protests at the Washington Mall, doesn't mean we tolerate drunk driving.
We don't tolerate drunk driving, but we tolerate, and hold in high esteem, the underlying cause of it. The drug alcohol. Only very few places in the US have robust mass transit systems, and even some larger cities that do have limited services anyway. We are a car focused country, we love alcohol, yet we rarely take steps to really hold drunk drivers accountable. One lady in my area got a mix of home detention and years of probation. Her lawyer likely cost her (or her family) $100K. She is a high priced, great attorney. For that kind of money, you can kill not one, but two people, and basically go on with your life. Get sued, who cares. Let insurance pay the max and whatever you owe file bankruptcy on. Can't do that, OK, just let them take the max garnishment amount allowed in your state. Pay the million dollar civil award over the next forty years never paying near the amount owed.
The rules of court are now so specific that if an officer makes one tiny mistake, the prosecutors/DAs feel they have no choice but to plead it down. Another woman killed a person and got a huge three year sentence, which with good time and going to college classes, she could be out in as little as a year. For those who can't afford good criminal defense attorneys, they usually get years behind bars.
Compared to DUI deaths, just under 10,000 year now, mass shooting deaths are minimal, yet we are calling for all sorts of restrictions on magazine capacity, types of weapons owned, if a person is mentally able to have a firearm, etc.. Why aren't we calling for these restrictions for alcohol, or even owning a vehicle if one is suffering from an alcohol addiction. Where are the calls for factory installed breathalyzers, maybe small sniffer devices built into vehicles?
Given how things are, I expect this to get worse before it gets better. Maybe when drunks start running over people by the tens and killing them the issue will get as much attention as the Parkland or Las Vegas shootings? Either way, the only thing one can do is stay off the roads during prime drinking hours and buy a huge vehicle with the best safety rating one can afford.
Oh, ours does. Never mind that the actual legal punishments are weak and ineffectual.
They don't even follow through with them all the time.
The consequences are next to nothing and the cops drop them off at the ER all the time with "outstanding warrants" that may or may not ever be carried through.
They tell me (the cops do) that it's so ridiculously common that a lot of the DA's are like, "Whatever."
Same with speeders. Or home break-ins. Some say they don't make it much of a point to respond promptly to house alarms, either.
I talk to a lot of cops, sheriff's deps, etc.
Same story everywhere.
I hate to be the one to say this, but as long as we have functioning motor vehicles and access to alcoholic beverages, these kinds of accidents are going to happen. Yes, we have very stiff penalties for DUI's, but in reality that only helps to prevent a repeat of the offense. And in many cases laws don't even do that much. An impaired driver is exactly that... impaired, and as they don't have the good judgment not to drive, they won't have good judgment to worry about the laws either. Unfortunately, all of the laws on the books only come into play after the damage is done.
I don't pretend to have the answer to the problem. Banning vehicles isn't an option, and doing away with alcohol punishes the majority of citizens who don't, & won't ever, drive drunk. Besides, a ban on booze didn't work very well the last time it was tried.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
