Would somebody please think of all the children, that Bush could have run over and killed, during his drunk-driving days?
Where was M. A. D. D., when the country needed them?
M. A. D. D. = Mothers Against Drunk Drivers
.
2007-01-10 02:55:38 · 6 answers · asked by Brotherhood 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Killing someone while driving under the influence is a felony---it's called manslaughter, and in Texas it carries a mandatory prison sentence. Second offense drunk driving in Texas is a felony with a mandatory sentence to state jail and rehab program.
2007-01-10 03:01:10 · answer #1 · answered by Preacher 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How about making "having an accident" while intoxicated a felony? Sounds a lot more realistic. Millions of people drive millions of miles with "illegal" blood alcohol levels (equiv 2-3 beers) and don't have accidents, are THEY all felons? The constant reduction in the tolerable blood alcohol level over the years is a knee jerk that has had no appreciable effect on DUI traffic accidents injuries and deaths, but ruined many harmless innocent moderate drinkers. The U.S. Supreme court frowns on laws imposing punishment for crimes that MIGHT be committed.
Where is DAMM (Drinkers Against Mad Mothers) when we need it.
2007-01-10 03:16:52 · answer #2 · answered by Gunny T 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm a member of DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers, so I'm probably not the best person to ask...
Oh, and uh- Ted Kennedy has killed more people driving drunk than George Bush. In fact, the score is 1-Zip.
2007-01-10 02:59:10 · answer #3 · answered by I hate friggin' crybabies 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
particular i might want to. perchance not for a job that required driving a company/place of work motor vehicle basically yet, yet countless human beings have made the blunders of having in the back of the wheel at the same time as they ought to not have. i'm not minimizing its seriousness, yet when it a great deal surprised you into not in any respect taking this variety of probability back, it changed into really a gaining knowledge of journey. you may imagine about what you should claim once you're requested about it. obviously, you do not favor to inform them about being raped--that's amazingly own and none of their company. you would possibly want to assert something alongside the strains of having misjudged how actual you may develop into impaired, and upload that you discovered that you'll't even take the slightest probability with information from driving once you've had a drink. human beings comprehend that, truly once you've been youthful. in case you paintings out the way you'll take care of it at the same time as it comes up, you'll sense better positive about interviewing. solid success, i'm particular you nonetheless have a vivid destiny ahead.
2016-12-02 02:17:52 · answer #4 · answered by lemanski 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Drunk driving is a big problem.
But then again, if alcoholism isn't a "choice," isn't it discrimination to make these people into criminals?
(sarcasm - I have posted my views elsewhere)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070110/hl_nm/gene_alcoholism_dc
2007-01-10 03:00:46 · answer #5 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
drunk driving is stupid and people who drive drunk are stupid
rewriting history is also stupid and morally reprehensible
2007-01-10 03:04:39 · answer #6 · answered by bl 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋