Author Topic: School shooting Miami area 20180214  (Read 12471 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #630 on: June 10, 2019, 01:46:40 PM »
If being 'woke' involves joining a human centipede with a bunch of shut-ins like you and jacktard, I'd rather stay asleep, thanks all the same.

Itís alright. Though I donít agree with it I do understand your subservient need to blue pill yourself for queen and (her) country. ;)

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #631 on: June 10, 2019, 01:55:05 PM »
They aren't accepted as a given, if you're caught driving under the influence you will be arrested and hopefully jailed. There is actual legislation to prevent it happening, although you can argue about its effectiveness. When it comes to guns all you get is a shoulder shrug, as though being shot were an act of god instead of a preventable death.

The two issues are very similar, there are laws in effect to prevent deaths from each.  The deaths caused by both are criminal acts.  The problem is the laws are reactive, especially for drivers under the influence.  Just because the drunk's licence is suspended doesn't keep him from driving illegally, anymore than the law prevents a convicted felon or mental case from illegally getting a gun.  The one significant difference is a drivers licence is a priviledge, gun ownership is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. 


whiners gonna whine
« Reply #632 on: June 10, 2019, 01:55:06 PM »
Itís alright. Though I donít agree with it I do understand your subservient need to blue pill yourself for queen and (her) country. ;)

Of course you understand the need for subservience, people like you love to get rammed up the tailpipe by people like your Fearful Leader.


whiners gonna whine
« Reply #633 on: June 10, 2019, 02:03:05 PM »
I don't get how people are having actual spasms over deaths by guns, when vehicles kill far, far more people every day. Completely mystifying to me. Get some perspective.
Get a license!


School shooting Miami area 20180214
« Reply #634 on: June 10, 2019, 02:15:30 PM »
As long as alcohol-serving establishments don't have reasonably-priced, ample beds, people will drive drunk.  I mean, if a person pays for a ride home, how are they going to get their car back?  They would have to hire another ride or beg from a friend - much of which the neighbors could notice.  Also, on work nights when drunk, the issue becomes too complex to fathom.  Like, you're drunk, you don't want to drive but you know you need to be at work by 9AM.  You plan to work - you've worked many times after nights of drinking, no problem.  Your commute is way too long for cab fare or even Lyft.  You want to stay near your car.  You're not going to monkey around in the morning at home w/ no vehicle trying to figure out how to get your vehicle so you can get to work and back.  Does anyone see how this could be overwhelming to the drunk mind?  Better to have rooms or even portable beds in the places where people drink.  Responsibility can't be all put on the bartender, bec even if they cut someone off, the person could have a flask in their jacket, purse, or car.  So, might as well assume that drinking people will get drunk and give them beds.  Even a secure parking area where they could sleep in their cars would be better than offering nothing. 

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #635 on: June 10, 2019, 02:19:39 PM »
The two issues are very similar, there are laws in effect to prevent deaths from each.  The deaths caused by both are criminal acts.  The problem is the laws are reactive, especially for drivers under the influence.  Just because the drunk's licence is suspended doesn't keep him from driving illegally, anymore than the law prevents a convicted felon or mental case from illegally getting a gun.  The one significant difference is a drivers licence is a priviledge, gun ownership is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

Just because a law gets broken isn't an argument for not having it. We might as well do away with penalties for murder on that basis too.

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #636 on: June 10, 2019, 02:41:14 PM »
Just because a law gets broken isn't an argument for not having it. We might as well do away with penalties for murder on that basis too.

I didn't make that argument.  I am for enforcing both existing drunk driving and gun laws, but I'm enough of a realist to know there is an inherent problem with reactive enforcement of any law.  In your example, having laws against murder don't keep them from happening.  If having a law in and of itself was enough to preclude criminal acts, there would be no need for police.

As a legal gun owner who obeys the laws associated with buying and owning firearms, I am no more of a threat to the public than I am as a licensed driver who will not even take a sip of Communion wine and drive home after Mass. 

School shooting Miami area 20180214
« Reply #637 on: June 10, 2019, 02:59:58 PM »
As long as alcohol-serving establishments don't have reasonably-priced, ample beds, people will drive drunk.  I mean, if a person pays for a ride home, how are they going to get their car back?  They would have to hire another ride or beg from a friend - much of which the neighbors could notice.  Also, on work nights when drunk, the issue becomes too complex to fathom.  Like, you're drunk, you don't want to drive but you know you need to be at work by 9AM.  You plan to work - you've worked many times after nights of drinking, no problem.  Your commute is way too long for cab fare or even Lyft.  You want to stay near your car.  You're not going to monkey around in the morning at home w/ no vehicle trying to figure out how to get your vehicle so you can get to work and back.  Does anyone see how this could be overwhelming to the drunk mind?  Better to have rooms or even portable beds in the places where people drink.  Responsibility can't be all put on the bartender, bec even if they cut someone off, the person could have a flask in their jacket, purse, or car.  So, might as well assume that drinking people will get drunk and give them beds.  Even a secure parking area where they could sleep in their cars would be better than offering nothing.
Cops will harass someone who is doing the right thing and sleeping it off in their car and if you are in the driver's seat or have keys in the ignition they might even attempt to get you for a DUI/DWI but at minimum might try a PI.
So our City Council is building a facility like you mention. The goal, apparently, is instead of police arrest drunks they will send the drunks to this facility to sleep it off without any fines, arrest costs, etc.  Note this will be mainly for drunk college kids, homeless, etc drunk in public- not if you are operating a vehicle while drunk or commit some other crimes.  I'm not sure on what health facilities and security the facility would have.  I would think the City is taking a lot of potential liability by hosting a building of drunks- overdoses, fights, sexual assault, suicides, etc potentially.

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #638 on: June 10, 2019, 03:03:34 PM »
I didn't make that argument.  I am for enforcing both existing drunk driving and gun laws, but I'm enough of a realist to know there is an inherent problem with reactive enforcement of any law.  In your example, having laws against murder don't keep them from happening.  If having a law in and of itself was enough to preclude criminal acts, there would be no need for police.

As a legal gun owner who obeys the laws associated with buying and owning firearms, I am no more of a threat to the public than I am as a licensed driver who will not even take a sip of Communion wine and drive home after Mass.
Wise. The things is even IF you are not drunk, legally, or in the rare case that someone "can drive drunk," the simple fact you have alcohol in your system and you get involved in a accident- even one not your fault- it will complicate the case and not for your benefit. As cops always hear "I only had a couple beers" and the police, lawyers, and insurance companies will try to bring up alcohol as a 'factor' even if you weren't legally drunk or the accident wasn't your 'fault.'

School shooting Miami area 20180214
« Reply #639 on: June 10, 2019, 03:25:26 PM »
Cops will harass someone who is doing the right thing and sleeping it off in their car and if you are in the driver's seat or have keys in the ignition they might even attempt to get you for a DUI/DWI but at minimum might try a PI.
So our City Council is building a facility like you mention. The goal, apparently, is instead of police arrest drunks they will send the drunks to this facility to sleep it off without any fines, arrest costs, etc.  Note this will be mainly for drunk college kids, homeless, etc drunk in public- not if you are operating a vehicle while drunk or commit some other crimes.  I'm not sure on what health facilities and security the facility would have.  I would think the City is taking a lot of potential liability by hosting a building of drunks- overdoses, fights, sexual assault, suicides, etc potentially.
I had been looking at it from a working class, commuter POV, but you're right, there are many types of problematic drinkers in public.  Like you, I foresee ODs, fights, assaults, etc...  Especially if not separated by reproductive anatomy (can't really say gender anymore, bec it doesn't mean much).

Our area put in a day shelter and when I drove home from work at 8AM the other day, I noticed the people around it looked awful.  Dressed like prostitutes, looking like addicts.  They ought to do urine/saliva tests & criminal background checks on the spot for access to the facilities.  Other than toilets & hand washing, we should not enable criminals and addicts.  Why should a good poor person be forced in with animals just for lockers & a shower?  Appalling.  My tax dollars paid for it & I wouldn't even feel safe with those people.  I'm a liberal, but I don't support the hand-holding of derelicts.

I think liberals confuse compassion with enabling.

Not to be too negative, though - like, I do hope what they made works out in your area.  If it doesn't draw more creeps in.

This thread keeps changing names.

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #640 on: June 10, 2019, 03:40:42 PM »
Wise. The things is even IF you are not drunk, legally, or in the rare case that someone "can drive drunk," the simple fact you have alcohol in your system and you get involved in a accident- even one not your fault- it will complicate the case and not for your benefit. As cops always hear "I only had a couple beers" and the police, lawyers, and insurance companies will try to bring up alcohol as a 'factor' even if you weren't legally drunk or the accident wasn't your 'fault.'

I know that many times, especially early in adult life, I drove after drinking when I had no business doing so.  Only by the grace of God did I not kill myself or someone else.  I decided twenty years ago I would never drink and drive again, and I have not.

I do take solace knowing the younger generation are seemingly more aware of not drinking and driving.  We would have never thought of naming a designated driver back in the day, while the advent of cell phones and services like Uber and Lyft make it easier to get home. 

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #641 on: June 10, 2019, 04:09:18 PM »
I know that many times, especially early in adult life, I drove after drinking when I had no business doing so.  Only by the grace of God did I not kill myself or someone else.  I decided twenty years ago I would never drink and drive again, and I have not.

I do take solace knowing the younger generation are seemingly more aware of not drinking and driving.  We would have never thought of naming a designated driver back in the day, while the advent of cell phones and services like Uber and Lyft make it easier to get home.
Same here I won't cast stones but some years ago sort of looked around and noticed that so many people I know got gotten DWIs or had some kind of accident and I said "I'm going to join them."  It was a different time and I think values have changed- certainly the penalties and cost have. Plus the guilt of hurting or killing a person due to your own step choices would be horrible.
The new generation doesn't even want to drive and drinks less. And cell phones to easier communicate (call a cab, UBER, parent, friend, etc.) Now maybe use marijuana more but drink less. And becoming more urban where, in some places, owning car doesn't even make sense.  Back when it was simply more acceptable to drink and drive. And drink in general. Heck it was legal if you weren't drunk, cops would often pour it out and "get on home boys," folks would joke about comparing distances to number of beers, etc.

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #642 on: June 10, 2019, 05:18:12 PM »
Same here I won't cast stones but some years ago sort of looked around and noticed that so many people I know got gotten DWIs or had some kind of accident and I said "I'm going to join them."  It was a different time and I think values have changed- certainly the penalties and cost have. Plus the guilt of hurting or killing a person due to your own step choices would be horrible.
The new generation doesn't even want to drive and drinks less. And cell phones to easier communicate (call a cab, UBER, parent, friend, etc.) Now maybe use marijuana more but drink less. And becoming more urban where, in some places, owning car doesn't even make sense.  Back when it was simply more acceptable to drink and drive. And drink in general. Heck it was legal if you weren't drunk, cops would often pour it out and "get on home boys," folks would joke about comparing distances to number of beers, etc.

Back in the mid 80s, I spent a couple weeks in South Korea, my first visit there.  At the time private automobile ownership was not common, most people travelled on buses.  I was surprised at the modern highways (built primarily for military traffic I assume), and amused to find their roadside rest areas had fully stocked/staffed bars. I was traveling in the personal car of a senior Ministry of National Defense engineer at the time, and he picked up us a couple bottles of soju, the sneaky potent national alcoholic drink.  When I asked him about drinking and driving he said, "Drinking and driving is not against the law in Korea, only drinking and having an accident while driving is against the law."

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #643 on: June 10, 2019, 08:34:46 PM »
I don't get how people are having actual spasms over deaths by guns, when vehicles kill far, far more people every day. Completely mystifying to me. Get some perspective.

And a completely false equivalence.  26 million cars and 3 million trucks in the 1920s in the USA. In 1924, there were 23,600 deaths due to auto accidents, 700,000 injuries, and more than $1 billion in property damage. Between 1960 and 1972 alone motor-vehicle fatalities increased from 38,137 to 55,278.

In 2018 there were 272 Million vehicles in the USA, with 37,133 people killed in vehicle related collisions.

In other words 7,325 vehicles for each death in 2018...in 1924; 1229 vehicles for each death. A ratio of almost 6:1 improvement in 2018.

I could go into the reasons for that, such as rules and regulation, imposing penalties for their transgression, better made roads and general infrastructure, far far better built vehicles, better made parts fitted etc. Did you know that Volvo announced a couple of years ago that by 2020, any of their new cars will be so good they don't expect anyone to be killed in one. But that would be lost on you.

If the 1924 statistics were extrapolated to 2018, there would have been nearly 223,000 deaths. Though having been here nearly three years I have to say the general standard of driving is appalling at best, and simply deadly on a bad day. There is no provision for an annual test on vehicles over three years old, which is why on a rainy day you'll see lots of cars spun off the road because of bald tyres. The UK has a different system and much safer cars on the road generally.

Get back to delivering flowers, statistics don't suit you.

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #644 on: June 10, 2019, 08:42:45 PM »
And a completely false equivalence.  26 million cars and 3 million trucks in the 1920s. In 1924, there were 23,600 deaths due to auto accidents, 700,000 injuries, and more than $1 billion in property damage. Between 1960 and 1972 alone motor-vehicle fatalities increased from 38,137 to 55,278.

In 2018 there were 272 Million vehicles in the USA, with 37,133 people killed in vehicle related collisions.

In other words 7,325 vehicles for each death in 2018...in 1924; 1229 vehicles for each death. A ratio of almost 6:1 improvement in 2018.

I could go into the reasons for that, such as rules and regulation, imposing penalties for their transgression, better made roads and general infrastructure, far far better built vehicles, better made parts fitted etc. Did you know that Volvo announced a couple of years ago that by 2020, any of their new cars will be so good they don't expect anyone to be killed in one. But that would be lost on you.

If the 1924 statistics were extrapolated to 2018, there would have been nearly 223,000 deaths.

Get back to delivering flowers, statistics don't suit you.
Vehicle safety, stricter drunk driving measures, and infrastructure and signage improvements have been highly successful.  Though the advent of cell phones, open borders, and now these unlicensed scooter rentals are causing accidents to go up somewhat. Here pedestrian/vehicle ones are very common and now we have a Task Force to try to stop it. 

https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Transportation/Pedestrian_Safety_Action_Plan_1-11-18.pdf 

"Minority communities, non-English speaking communities, and lower-income communities [/font]have higher rates of serious crashes than other groups" <-- this is an amazing statement from the People's Republic of Austin's government Task Force. One of the few times I recall an official City actually being factual and concerned about the homeless and illegal problem.

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #645 on: June 10, 2019, 08:45:55 PM »
Of course you understand the need for subservience, people like you love to get rammed up the tailpipe by people like your Fearful Leader.

Total fail! ::)

What is it about you and failure?! :D

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #646 on: June 10, 2019, 08:47:56 PM »
Back in the mid 80s, I spent a couple weeks in South Korea, my first visit there.  At the time private automobile ownership was not common, most people travelled on buses.  I was surprised at the modern highways (built primarily for military traffic I assume), and amused to find their roadside rest areas had fully stocked/staffed bars. I was traveling in the personal car of a senior Ministry of National Defense engineer at the time, and he picked up us a couple bottles of soju, the sneaky potent national alcoholic drink.  When I asked him about drinking and driving he said, "Drinking and driving is not against the law in Korea, only drinking and having an accident while driving is against the law."
I expect a senior Ministry of National Defense person is not going to be pulled over for a DUI, even when he is not being chauffeured by some lackey. Koreans can drink btw. Their drinking abilities, stature, and scrappy enjoyment for a fight are interesting. The Irish of the Orient.

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #647 on: June 10, 2019, 08:50:13 PM »
Vehicle safety, stricter drunk driving measures, and infrastructure and signage improvements have been highly successful.  Though the advent of cell phones, open borders, and now these unlicensed scooter rentals are causing accidents to go up somewhat. Here pedestrian/vehicle ones are very common and now we have a Task Force to try to stop it. 

https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Transportation/Pedestrian_Safety_Action_Plan_1-11-18.pdf 

"Minority communities, non-English speaking communities, and lower-income communities [/font]have higher rates of serious crashes than other groups" <-- this is an amazing statement from the People's Republic of Austin's government Task Force. One of the few times I recall an official City actually being factual and concerned about the homeless and illegal problem.


Got to get immigration in the mix right?


I would venture it's much more to do with the general myopic, 'Don't give a shit about anyone else on the road but I will get past you no matter how risky a manoeuvre'  and just the lack of ability. The driving test is a joke.

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #648 on: June 10, 2019, 08:59:08 PM »

Got to get immigration in the mix right?


I would venture it's much more to do with the general myopic, 'Don't give a shit about anyone else on the road but I will get past you no matter how risky a manoeuvre'  and just the lack of ability. The driving test is a joke.
Yeah it is horrible because so many like to drink and drive and also have no ideas about queuing or waiting on a traffic light- or even just using a crosswalk. Often they will cross in the middle of the street- even highway. Then wait in the middle to cross the next section. Crazy and people getting hit all the time.  Even drag their kids with them running across the road. (Like the signs near the border in Arizona and New Mexico that warn drivers about them.) And then add these rental scooters into the mix! And the bicycle types. It is nuts!

ps: driving test is a joke. Though recently they've made it, somewhat, harder with more hours require of drive time and some new rules like zero tolerance for alcohol, no one else under 18 in car, limited driving times until 18 (or is it 21,) etc. But still, basically, a joke. But logic being, I guess, you basically have to be able to drive to survive with any real job prospects or quality of life in most States, excepting some large cities where a car can actually be a costly burden.  Apps and increasing urbanization might change this.

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #649 on: June 10, 2019, 09:47:22 PM »
a completely false equivalence

Dude, dead is dead.


flowers

Like your ability to debate. Grow up you ponce.

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #650 on: June 10, 2019, 09:55:33 PM »
I expect a senior Ministry of National Defense person is not going to be pulled over for a DUI, even when he is not being chauffeured by some lackey. Koreans can drink btw. Their drinking abilities, stature, and scrappy enjoyment for a fight are interesting. The Irish of the Orient.

*lol* He wasn't that senior, I meant he was a senior engineer within the MoND.  But yeah, I've made the Irish and Korean comparison before, including being ruled for decades by Imperialist powers (England and Japan) who thought of them as almost subhuman.  I've spent a lot of time with both them, and yes, they can sure drink. 

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #651 on: June 10, 2019, 11:07:07 PM »
Yeah it is horrible because so many like to drink and drive and also have no ideas about queuing or waiting on a traffic light- or even just using a crosswalk. Often they will cross in the middle of the street- even highway. Then wait in the middle to cross the next section. Crazy and people getting hit all the time.  Even drag their kids with them running across the road. (Like the signs near the border in Arizona and New Mexico that warn drivers about them.) And then add these rental scooters into the mix! And the bicycle types. It is nuts!

ps: driving test is a joke. Though recently they've made it, somewhat, harder with more hours require of drive time and some new rules like zero tolerance for alcohol, no one else under 18 in car, limited driving times until 18 (or is it 21,) etc. But still, basically, a joke. But logic being, I guess, you basically have to be able to drive to survive with any real job prospects or quality of life in most States, excepting some large cities where a car can actually be a costly burden.  Apps and increasing urbanization might change this.
I see all the time that parents are not parenting.  The other day, a lady let her toddler run right across a small street entirely out of her line of sight, while she fumbled on the far side of the car.  Never corrected the kid, either.  I sure wish she would have at least taught him to look both ways, because I doubt schools cover that anymore.

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #652 on: June 10, 2019, 11:30:33 PM »
I see all the time that parents are not parenting.  The other day, a lady let her toddler run right across a small street entirely out of her line of sight, while she fumbled on the far side of the car.  Never corrected the kid, either.  I sure wish she would have at least taught him to look both ways, because I doubt schools cover that anymore.


Being taught that in public schools these days might violate someone's safespace, be considering bullying, and- worse- imply there are right or wrong answers and also might be spun, somehow, into implying gender is not fluid or a choice and some patriarchy. Rules?! For the road- how DARE YOU ENFORCE CULTURAL NORMS AND LAWS MADE BY DEAD WHITE MEN IN A CAPITALIST, SEXIST SOCIETY!!!

whiners gonna whine
« Reply #653 on: June 10, 2019, 11:32:45 PM »
*lol* He wasn't that senior, I meant he was a senior engineer within the MoND.  But yeah, I've made the Irish and Korean comparison before, including being ruled for decades by Imperialist powers (England and Japan) who thought of them as almost subhuman.  I've spent a lot of time with both them, and yes, they can sure drink.


Yep. They similarities are almost endless. Even lotsof shared surnames in each place and lots of 'who you know' and family dealings.