*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, August 24th, 2013 7:16am PDT - promote requested by original submitter pumkinandstorm.

Subject A: #1, no #2
Subject B: #2 and #1
Subject C: No sample...

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

Why do I get the feeling that in spite of the city attorney's excuses that there are almost certainly spots in the jail where officers can put a beating on someone and not get caught on video.

*news *wtf

I am naked now.

Adding video to channels (News, Wtf) - requested by ant.

Every jail has a tuning room, nanrod.

Know your Supreme Court Rulings?
In April of 2012 the "high" court decided that jails may perform suspicionless strip searches on new inmates regardless of the gravity of their alleged offenses. As one justice put it, "[p]eople detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals." As evidence for that claim, the majority invoked 9/11. "One of the terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93."

King County is a corrupt shitbox and ranks with the worst municipalities whose "law enforcement" take incredible license with her citizenry. Seattle after all, is one of the epicenters of G-Summit protests having an educated, frustrated, and passionate 18-45 yr-old demographic who are very vocal and way less organized and the cops have to have some practice heads to smash-in.

These voyeur cunts with cameras in a room that can be monitored while someone disrobes?? Bunch of sick, pathetic fucks.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

People who drive drunk deserve far worse than humiliation. The government should be suing them for putting everyone else at risk.

I'd rather the government go after people who actually do harm.

Being sober is no excuse.

-scheherazade

Wait, so drunk drivers don't do any harm? That's news to me. I guess all those statistics must be wrong.

The problem is with grouping people into "drunk drivers" - as if they are a monolith.
You wouldn't say "black people commit more crimes, so black people are harmful" ... that would be considered racist - because it characterizes all the individuals of a group as the same as the worst individuals of the group.
But people who drink and drive don't get that measure of consideration. Across the board they are treated as if they had done harm, whether or not they actually did.


Simple matter really.

Drunk drivers that do harm, do harm.
Sober drivers that do harm, do harm.
Drunk drivers that don't do harm, don't do harm.
Sober drivers that don't do harm, don't do harm.

The harm is in the harm, not in the drunk.


Jail, etc. is real harm to a person's life.
Lost time, lost payments (leading to lost house/car), lost relationships, etc.
If they didn't do any harm themselves, then the punishment is not justified.

Sober drivers get a hand-wave for the harm they cause, as if not drinking or not being on a cell phone makes you unaccountable for your actions.


Drinking is fundamentally a personal matter. It involves only ones's self.
Running into another person/property and damaging them/it involves other people (ergo society), so society has moral domain to intervene to help the victim(s).

There's a certain perversion to persecuting people who behave in a disliked manner (and did no harm and had no victim), and then neglecting the plight of victims when whoever harmed them hadn't been behaving in a disliked manner.

We are all individuals, morally responsible for our individual actions.
We should be accountable for our real actions.
Not theoretical "actions that could have been, had things gone differently".


I'm not a fan of people driving drunk, but I would never harm someone for doing it without doing any harm themselves, just because I don't like it.

I'm also not a fan of people failing at their obligation to maintain control of their vehicle, and injuring/maiming/crippling/killing people, and then not being held accountable for the damage they caused because "it was an accident".
Why should the victim be accountable for paying for the damages? They didn't do the damage.

Instead of playing big brother and approving/disapproving of personal behavior, we should be focused on helping victims get justice.
"IMO"

-scheherazade

Your argument is purely reactionary. You're essentially saying that we should just let people drive as drunk as they want and only punish them when somebody inevitably gets hurt. Shouldn't we try to prevent people from getting hurt in the first place? Isn't that the whole point of having laws? If laws only matter once the blood is on the floor, why bother having them at all?

There's no reasonable justification for driving drunk. Alcohol impairs your cognitive functions and when driving, you need those functions at their sharpest. There's an established correlation between driving drunk and getting into accidents (often resulting in casualties). Therefore, it is completely reasonable to punish people for driving drunk. It has nothing to do with "disliking personal behaviors" and everything to do with statistical fact. If your personal behavior puts other people at risk, then yes, the law should punish you for it.

That aside, I completely agree that everyone should be punished for causing harm, regardless of their BAC or mental state when doing so.

Laws must be reactionary, because you should not be punished for harms that you haven't yet committed.
'Imagined future harms' are a poor reason to take action against anyone.
Fundamentally, you're not in charge of other people's imagination. That's their business, not yours.

Inevitability is not an issue, incidents are inevitable for all drivers, without exception, so long as they keep driving.
Any non-zero probability will have an incident, given enough time.

Every driver is unique, and it is not deterministic that "driver A + 3 beers" is worse than "driver B".
It's not deterministic that driver B has a lower probability of incident.

These guys were good enough to get a license, and are legally 'suitable' to drive.
They are above the "absolute bar" determining 'ok' or 'not ok' to drive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeIJ0kQtLyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I-OqmQc5hI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiRDv4nxe64
(Seriously, watch them end to end... it's amazing.)

Imagine the drivers that you know. Do you think a few beers will get them even close to as bad as the people in the links? Because it's enough to get them a DUI. Hence the irrationality of just saying "drink = unsuitable to drive".

There are lots things that impact your cognitive function.
too tired
too excited
too bored
too entertained
too preoccupied with memories
too preoccupied with anticipation
etc, etc, etc...
A driver at 90% attention due to these reasons is considered ok, but a driver at 95% attention [for whatever reason] ... that just happened to drink alcohol ... is a criminal. Again, irrationality.

The fact that you're operating in a diminished state /specifically/ due to alcohol is not meaningful.
How much you are diminished [regardless of why] is what matters - but that isn't even in the drinking and driving public discussion.
Heck, some people aren't even prepared when at 100% attention and 100% sober (like the folks in the links).

I generally dislike how unprepared drivers are.
Just being able to drive around a few blocks, parallel park, and answer a few questions from a booklet you just read 5 minutes prior, is crap criteria.
IMO, it shouldn't even be criteria until much later.
IMO, people should be able to proficiently autocross in the wet before they are even given a chance to begin learning the road rules.

IMO, people consider driving a necessity (which it is if you want a normal life), and they throw driving into the same bucket as walking.
Something they need to do every day, it's mundane, nothing special, nothing worth concerning yourself about.
If they have an "accident" (the term accident should really be "operator error" 99% of the time), they even get offended if you say that they screwed up.
Like as if it's just an "Oh well, shit happens" sort of thing, and blaming them for what they did is profane.

At the same time, there's a religion of "drinking and driving hate" that has mushroomed into something not far from crazies frothing at the mouth.
"He drank... and drove! Burn him! Burn him!" ...
Imagine being the person that was arrested, watching people talk to you like you're the antichrist himself ... and you never even hurt anyone. Discussing amongst themselves 'what they need to do to you'.

Punishing only harm has two benefits :
A) It focuses on real victims.
B) It only involves people who were demonstrably not suitable drivers (the harm is the demonstration) - without any emotional bias for the reason behind the unsuitability.

Using the law for deterrence is possibly even illegal in itself (If I had my way, it would be seen as so).
There is supposed to be "no cruel and unusual punishment".
If you ask "what makes is it cruel/unusual?" - the answer will be that it causes excessive suffering.
Deterrence consists of punishing people in excess (making examples), in the hopes that it scares 3rd parties.
So then the idea is that the suffering should be in proportion to the crime.
Making examples, is by definition, punishing in excess of what is deserved.
DUI laws are by design an exercise in exactly this.

-scheherazade