If a persons goes out to drink-
has 2 much to drink-
gets behind the wheel of his/her car and as a result causes a major accident and people die..but he walks away with just a few bumps and bruises.
He knew what he was doing when he walked into the bar
He knew what he was doing when he was order all his drinks
he knew he didn't have a ride home
I know he didn't plan on killing innocent people but he knew what he was doing could kill someone one. So why does he get off with a ligher sentence than someone who commits murder ??
2007-12-18 04:47:23 · 6 answers · asked by C 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
kateperez's no "plight" just its been on the new more and more lately either that or I've been watching the new more. And I do think the waitress or bartender should take some sort or responsablity. According the TABC class they are supposed to help liable. Just as when I was a cashier if a customer came in who seemed to have to much to drink under TABC law I was allowed to refuse to sell them beer/wine and I did got chewed out for it..but I have to drive on those same streets and like to make it home in one piece.
2007-12-18 05:52:16 · update #1
kateperez's no "plight" just its been on the new more and more lately either that or I've been watching the new more. And I do think the waitress or bartender should take some sort or responsablity. According the TABC class they are supposed to held liable. Just as when I was a cashier if a customer came in who seemed to have to much to drink under TABC law I was allowed to refuse to sell them beer/wine and I did got chewed out for it..but I have to drive on those same streets and like to make it home in one piece
2007-12-18 05:53:17 · update #2
ignore the first one please I was trying to fix an error....
2007-12-18 05:54:16 · update #3
okay I understand the differance but I'm asking is why a perosn who drinks than drives can do this sooo many times and still get off with a slap on the wrist
2007-12-18 09:57:36 · update #4
Because the citizens of the state (that would be you) did not let their legislature know that this should not happen.
2007-12-18 04:53:21 · answer #1 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are right of course, but symantics... he may have intended to have a drink. How many drinks? How many should the bar tender have given him? How many keys should the bartender take up when he serves the first drink?
There is a lot of responsibility here, and it does begin with the man who bent his elbow and took that first drink, but there are responsibilities of others--the waitress who served him, the bartender who poured the drink...
It's involuntary because he did not intend to do it. Clear cut. It is manslaughter because it happened anyway.
There are not a lot of people who go out on a night on the town and think before they start: "You know, I think I'll drink too much, pass out behind the wheel of my car, and run over a couple of innocent pedestrians tonight."
That is why it is not voluntary... They did not punch the gas, aim at the person, and gun the engine to be sure they killed the victim.
I apologize for your plight, believe that drunk drivers should all be behind bars until drinking is no longer an issue, and should not get off easy...
I'm just explaining the way things are.
2007-12-18 12:58:27 · answer #2 · answered by Kathryn P 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well it is involuntary manslaughter because he wasn't attempting to kill anyone and he really didn't try to, it just happened. The difference between this and first or second degree murder is that basicly he didn't preplan it or anything like that, so it's not a premeditated murder like first degree and it wasn't a heat of the moment action, so it isn't second degree. It was an accedent and involuntary.
Not saying I agree with it, and somtimes they are charged and convicted with first or second degree murder. But that is a basic explanation.
2007-12-18 12:55:28 · answer #3 · answered by Shalashaska 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because he was merely negligent in his conduct, and the negligence rose to the level of criminal conduct.
Conversely, the person charged with 2nd degree murder or voluntary manslaughter engaged in conduct intended to kill.
The main difference is the level of intent required to commit the crime.
** Note: This answer has not created an attorney-client relationship. This is a general discussion of the subject matter of your question and not legal advice. Local laws or your particular situation may change the general rules. For a specific answer to your question you should consult legal counsel with whom you can discuss all the facts of your case. **
2007-12-18 13:00:09 · answer #4 · answered by scottclear 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Personally I think drunk driving crashes are premeditated murder -- but as the person did not "plan to kill" someone.....they get off with a lesser sentence.
I agree with you - there is no accident with drunk drivers. There are intentional actions that take them to that point.
2007-12-18 12:53:57 · answer #5 · answered by Susie D 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Still no intent to kill.
2007-12-18 12:56:15 · answer #6 · answered by grumpyoldman 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋