Pruitt Arrested

[BballTim]

People's reflexes are impaired after just one drink. Not even high functioning alcholics are immune to this..

  But to what degree? And, more importantly, how many activities that reduce a person's reaction time by an amount that's greater than that are perfectly legal? What if you're sick, tired, distracted, old, inexperienced, or have less than perfect vision? What if you're driving in the snow, rain, in bright sunlight or after dark? What if you're going 5 mph over the speed limit? I just don't see the logic behind people who rail against slightly impaired drivers  who "put their family's lives in danger" but don't give a second's thought to the hundreds of people that are on the road with them that put their family at as much or more risk for other reasons.

I think discussing this further with you is pointless if you don't see the difference between someone selfishly breaking the law by intentionally putting themselves behind the wheel while intoxicated and someone going 5 over, or being old etc...

Here's a little story I wish I could find the original on that I think says what many are thinking.

A man is hiring for a position as a truck driver and conducting interviews. He tells the candidates that the job will require him to navigate through some pretty treacherous mountain roads that are very narrow with very steep dropoffs and would like to know how close he can get to the edge based on his skill. The first guy says that he is so good that he can put that outside wheel within 6-8 inches of that edge and hold it there the entire time without any problem at all. The second guy says that he can have half his tire hanging off the edge and keep in perfect control. The third guy says that he would stay as far away from that edge as he possibly could at all times so as not to come near that edge. Guess who got that job?!

Drunk drivers think they can hug that edge, but they really are just an accident waiting to happen. Unfortunately usually the lives that are lost though are innocent children and parents. Excuse us for wanting these people to be extra cautious with our kids. I'll promise you one thing. Some drunk driver kills my child just to not be inconvenienced or pay cab fare and he better watch his back. Ever see "A Time to Kill"? Loved Carl Lee Hailey...

  So if some 85 year old kills your kid, you'll be less upset? You won't feel that the person getting behind the wheel when they were too old to react properly made a selfish decision? I don't understand that way of thinking. I'm not sure how much better I'd feel if one of my kids was killed by someone who had been driving a truck for 18 hours and lost control than if it was a drunk driver.

Yes I will be less upset because the person wasn't breaking the law. They weren't intentionally doing something that they knew had a very high probability of resulting in an accident and likely a deadly one. Intent is a very big difference and you know it. Even if you don't want to admit it...

  I'll agree that drunk driving is against the law while the other things I listed aren't. I've never said otherwise. But I think you're completely wrong about whether they intentionally did doing something that they knew had a very high probability of resulting in an accident. You seem to be saying that legality determines intent. They're two separate issues. If you hadn't slept for 2 nights and then you got behind the wheel are you saying that you don't know that your condidion increases your risk?

[Quinn]

now is he not only the goofiest looking celtic; but also the stupidest.
Any chance of Steph getting time tonight because of this?

[EJPLAYA]

People's reflexes are impaired after just one drink. Not even high functioning alcholics are immune to this..

  But to what degree? And, more importantly, how many activities that reduce a person's reaction time by an amount that's greater than that are perfectly legal? What if you're sick, tired, distracted, old, inexperienced, or have less than perfect vision? What if you're driving in the snow, rain, in bright sunlight or after dark? What if you're going 5 mph over the speed limit? I just don't see the logic behind people who rail against slightly impaired drivers  who "put their family's lives in danger" but don't give a second's thought to the hundreds of people that are on the road with them that put their family at as much or more risk for other reasons.

I think discussing this further with you is pointless if you don't see the difference between someone selfishly breaking the law by intentionally putting themselves behind the wheel while intoxicated and someone going 5 over, or being old etc...

Here's a little story I wish I could find the original on that I think says what many are thinking.

A man is hiring for a position as a truck driver and conducting interviews. He tells the candidates that the job will require him to navigate through some pretty treacherous mountain roads that are very narrow with very steep dropoffs and would like to know how close he can get to the edge based on his skill. The first guy says that he is so good that he can put that outside wheel within 6-8 inches of that edge and hold it there the entire time without any problem at all. The second guy says that he can have half his tire hanging off the edge and keep in perfect control. The third guy says that he would stay as far away from that edge as he possibly could at all times so as not to come near that edge. Guess who got that job?!

Drunk drivers think they can hug that edge, but they really are just an accident waiting to happen. Unfortunately usually the lives that are lost though are innocent children and parents. Excuse us for wanting these people to be extra cautious with our kids. I'll promise you one thing. Some drunk driver kills my child just to not be inconvenienced or pay cab fare and he better watch his back. Ever see "A Time to Kill"? Loved Carl Lee Hailey...

  So if some 85 year old kills your kid, you'll be less upset? You won't feel that the person getting behind the wheel when they were too old to react properly made a selfish decision? I don't understand that way of thinking. I'm not sure how much better I'd feel if one of my kids was killed by someone who had been driving a truck for 18 hours and lost control than if it was a drunk driver.

Yes I will be less upset because the person wasn't breaking the law. They weren't intentionally doing something that they knew had a very high probability of resulting in an accident and likely a deadly one. Intent is a very big difference and you know it. Even if you don't want to admit it...

  I'll agree that drunk driving is against the law while the other things I listed aren't. I've never said otherwise. But I think you're completely wrong about whether they intentionally did doing something that they knew had a very high probability of resulting in an accident. You seem to be saying that legality determines intent. They're two separate issues. If you hadn't slept for 2 nights and then you got behind the wheel are you saying that you don't know that your condidion increases your risk?

You have no data whatsoever that can show that the effects of being "old" or the effects of being tired is as detrimental to the ability to control their vehicles as someone being drunk. Sure I would like to have a test for the elderly to make sure that they have the physical ability to drive. Sure I would like to see stricter requirements on truck drivers. Here is a stat though for you. Only about 5600 people are killed by sleepy truckers vs. over 17,000 people due to drunk drivers. That is 3x as many people and is due to illegal activity. Statistics also show that drivers under 30 are much more likely to be in an accident than the elderly. That BTW is also not illegal.

[BballTim]

Yes I will be less upset because the person wasn't breaking the law. They weren't intentionally doing something that they knew had a very high probability of resulting in an accident and likely a deadly one. Intent is a very big difference and you know it. Even if you don't want to admit it...

  I'll agree that drunk driving is against the law while the other things I listed aren't. I've never said otherwise. But I think you're completely wrong about whether they intentionally did doing something that they knew had a very high probability of resulting in an accident. You seem to be saying that legality determines intent. They're two separate issues. If you hadn't slept for 2 nights and then you got behind the wheel are you saying that you don't know that your condidion increases your risk?

You have no data whatsoever that can show that the effects of being "old" or the effects of being tired is as detrimental to the ability to control their vehicles as someone being drunk. Sure I would like to have a test for the elderly to make sure that they have the physical ability to drive. Sure I would like to see stricter requirements on truck drivers. Here is a stat though for you. Only about 5600 people are killed by sleepy truckers vs. over 17,000 people due to drunk drivers. That is 3x as many people and is due to illegal activity. Statistics also show that drivers under 30 are much more likely to be in an accident than the elderly. That BTW is also not illegal.

  Do you have any data at all that shows that the effects of being just at (not over) the legal BAC limit is as detrimental to the ability to control their vehicles as someone who is old or tired? Two can play that game. And I can't believe that you don't see sleepy truckers as an issue since  "only" a third as many people are killed. You trotted out that stat like it was 5-10 people a year, not 5600.

   And out of those 17000 people who were killed by drunk drivers, how many of them were killed by people who were either at or just over the legal limit? Every time I hear about a drunk driving homicide on the radio I hear terms like "twice the legal limit". I'll hazard a guess that the number of people killed by drivers who are barely over the legal limit is well below the number of people who are killed by sleepy drivers. In other words, a number too small to concern you.

  Also if you go back to my earlier post I listed being an inexperienced driver as being a hazardous situation, just like being elderly and driving, so if you're concerned that "drivers under 30 are much more likely to be in an accident than the elderly", just change my example from "killed by an 85 year old" to "killed by a new driver". The result will obviously be the same: you won't be concerned because it's not against the law.

  If you think that it's not a problem that people "endanger your children's lives" as long as the detrimental behavior that they are engaging in isn't illegal, more power to you.

[EJPLAYA]

Yes I will be less upset because the person wasn't breaking the law. They weren't intentionally doing something that they knew had a very high probability of resulting in an accident and likely a deadly one. Intent is a very big difference and you know it. Even if you don't want to admit it...

  I'll agree that drunk driving is against the law while the other things I listed aren't. I've never said otherwise. But I think you're completely wrong about whether they intentionally did doing something that they knew had a very high probability of resulting in an accident. You seem to be saying that legality determines intent. They're two separate issues. If you hadn't slept for 2 nights and then you got behind the wheel are you saying that you don't know that your condidion increases your risk?

You have no data whatsoever that can show that the effects of being "old" or the effects of being tired is as detrimental to the ability to control their vehicles as someone being drunk. Sure I would like to have a test for the elderly to make sure that they have the physical ability to drive. Sure I would like to see stricter requirements on truck drivers. Here is a stat though for you. Only about 5600 people are killed by sleepy truckers vs. over 17,000 people due to drunk drivers. That is 3x as many people and is due to illegal activity. Statistics also show that drivers under 30 are much more likely to be in an accident than the elderly. That BTW is also not illegal.

  Do you have any data at all that shows that the effects of being just at (not over) the legal BAC limit is as detrimental to the ability to control their vehicles as someone who is old or tired? Two can play that game. And I can't believe that you don't see sleepy truckers as an issue since  "only" a third as many people are killed. You trotted out that stat like it was 5-10 people a year, not 5600.

   And out of those 17000 people who were killed by drunk drivers, how many of them were killed by people who were either at or just over the legal limit? Every time I hear about a drunk driving homicide on the radio I hear terms like "twice the legal limit". I'll hazard a guess that the number of people killed by drivers who are barely over the legal limit is well below the number of people who are killed by sleepy drivers. In other words, a number too small to concern you.

  Also if you go back to my earlier post I listed being an inexperienced driver as being a hazardous situation, just like being elderly and driving, so if you're concerned that "drivers under 30 are much more likely to be in an accident than the elderly", just change my example from "killed by an 85 year old" to "killed by a new driver". The result will obviously be the same: you won't be concerned because it's not against the law.

  If you think that it's not a problem that people "endanger your children's lives" as long as the detrimental behavior that they are engaging in isn't illegal, more power to you.

I'm glad you are enjoying twisting facts and misrepresenting what I am saying, but I am growing very weary of this discussion. It is very tough to argue with someone who isn't interested in the truth and doesn't even believe what they are arguing, rather only entertained by playing devils advocate. Have fun! We can discuss something else another time. Life is too short. Just stay off the roads if you have been drinking.

[BballTim]

Yes I will be less upset because the person wasn't breaking the law. They weren't intentionally doing something that they knew had a very high probability of resulting in an accident and likely a deadly one. Intent is a very big difference and you know it. Even if you don't want to admit it...

  I'll agree that drunk driving is against the law while the other things I listed aren't. I've never said otherwise. But I think you're completely wrong about whether they intentionally did doing something that they knew had a very high probability of resulting in an accident. You seem to be saying that legality determines intent. They're two separate issues. If you hadn't slept for 2 nights and then you got behind the wheel are you saying that you don't know that your condidion increases your risk?

You have no data whatsoever that can show that the effects of being "old" or the effects of being tired is as detrimental to the ability to control their vehicles as someone being drunk. Sure I would like to have a test for the elderly to make sure that they have the physical ability to drive. Sure I would like to see stricter requirements on truck drivers. Here is a stat though for you. Only about 5600 people are killed by sleepy truckers vs. over 17,000 people due to drunk drivers. That is 3x as many people and is due to illegal activity. Statistics also show that drivers under 30 are much more likely to be in an accident than the elderly. That BTW is also not illegal.

  Do you have any data at all that shows that the effects of being just at (not over) the legal BAC limit is as detrimental to the ability to control their vehicles as someone who is old or tired? Two can play that game. And I can't believe that you don't see sleepy truckers as an issue since  "only" a third as many people are killed. You trotted out that stat like it was 5-10 people a year, not 5600.

   And out of those 17000 people who were killed by drunk drivers, how many of them were killed by people who were either at or just over the legal limit? Every time I hear about a drunk driving homicide on the radio I hear terms like "twice the legal limit". I'll hazard a guess that the number of people killed by drivers who are barely over the legal limit is well below the number of people who are killed by sleepy drivers. In other words, a number too small to concern you.

  Also if you go back to my earlier post I listed being an inexperienced driver as being a hazardous situation, just like being elderly and driving, so if you're concerned that "drivers under 30 are much more likely to be in an accident than the elderly", just change my example from "killed by an 85 year old" to "killed by a new driver". The result will obviously be the same: you won't be concerned because it's not against the law.

  If you think that it's not a problem that people "endanger your children's lives" as long as the detrimental behavior that they are engaging in isn't illegal, more power to you.

I'm glad you are enjoying twisting facts and misrepresenting what I am saying, but I am growing very weary of this discussion. It is very tough to argue with someone who isn't interested in the truth and doesn't even believe what they are arguing, rather only entertained by playing devils advocate. Have fun! We can discuss something else another time. Life is too short. Just stay off the roads if you have been drinking.

  The only facts I can recall from your arguments are that drunk driving is illegal, 5600 people a year are killed by sleepy drivers and 17000 people are killed by drunk drivers. And, really. "5600 people a year are killed by sleepy drivers" isn't really a fact. "5600 people a year are killed by people who admit to being sleepy drivers" is more the truth. The fact that you think that the thought that people who get behind the wheel when they are too tired to drive is as bad as getting behind the wheel if you're barely over the limit is too outrageous for anyone to believe is a signal that I'm wasting my time in this discussion.

  In any case, try not to drive when you're tired or a feeling little ill, unless you feel that you're somehow entitled to endanger other people's children's lives.

[EJPLAYA]

Yes I will be less upset because the person wasn't breaking the law. They weren't intentionally doing something that they knew had a very high probability of resulting in an accident and likely a deadly one. Intent is a very big difference and you know it. Even if you don't want to admit it...

  I'll agree that drunk driving is against the law while the other things I listed aren't. I've never said otherwise. But I think you're completely wrong about whether they intentionally did doing something that they knew had a very high probability of resulting in an accident. You seem to be saying that legality determines intent. They're two separate issues. If you hadn't slept for 2 nights and then you got behind the wheel are you saying that you don't know that your condidion increases your risk?

You have no data whatsoever that can show that the effects of being "old" or the effects of being tired is as detrimental to the ability to control their vehicles as someone being drunk. Sure I would like to have a test for the elderly to make sure that they have the physical ability to drive. Sure I would like to see stricter requirements on truck drivers. Here is a stat though for you. Only about 5600 people are killed by sleepy truckers vs. over 17,000 people due to drunk drivers. That is 3x as many people and is due to illegal activity. Statistics also show that drivers under 30 are much more likely to be in an accident than the elderly. That BTW is also not illegal.

  Do you have any data at all that shows that the effects of being just at (not over) the legal BAC limit is as detrimental to the ability to control their vehicles as someone who is old or tired? Two can play that game. And I can't believe that you don't see sleepy truckers as an issue since  "only" a third as many people are killed. You trotted out that stat like it was 5-10 people a year, not 5600.

   And out of those 17000 people who were killed by drunk drivers, how many of them were killed by people who were either at or just over the legal limit? Every time I hear about a drunk driving homicide on the radio I hear terms like "twice the legal limit". I'll hazard a guess that the number of people killed by drivers who are barely over the legal limit is well below the number of people who are killed by sleepy drivers. In other words, a number too small to concern you.

  Also if you go back to my earlier post I listed being an inexperienced driver as being a hazardous situation, just like being elderly and driving, so if you're concerned that "drivers under 30 are much more likely to be in an accident than the elderly", just change my example from "killed by an 85 year old" to "killed by a new driver". The result will obviously be the same: you won't be concerned because it's not against the law.

  If you think that it's not a problem that people "endanger your children's lives" as long as the detrimental behavior that they are engaging in isn't illegal, more power to you.

I'm glad you are enjoying twisting facts and misrepresenting what I am saying, but I am growing very weary of this discussion. It is very tough to argue with someone who isn't interested in the truth and doesn't even believe what they are arguing, rather only entertained by playing devils advocate. Have fun! We can discuss something else another time. Life is too short. Just stay off the roads if you have been drinking.

  The only facts I can recall from your arguments are that drunk driving is illegal, 5600 people a year are killed by sleepy drivers and 17000 people are killed by drunk drivers. And, really. "5600 people a year are killed by sleepy drivers" isn't really a fact. "5600 people a year are killed by people who admit to being sleepy drivers" is more the truth. The fact that you think that the thought that people who get behind the wheel when they are too tired to drive is as bad as getting behind the wheel if you're barely over the limit is too outrageous for anyone to believe is a signal that I'm wasting my time in this discussion.

  In any case, try not to drive when you're tired or a feeling little ill, unless you feel that you're somehow entitled to endanger other people's children's lives.

I don't. I am careful to not let my actions be irresponsible enough to endanger the lives of others.

The twisting by the way was you trying to make it sound as if I wasn't concerned with people losing their lives to sleepy drivers or the elderly ones. I don't want anyone being irresponsible whether it is illegal or not. I do reserve my most hateful feelings though towards those who are breaking the law and intentionally putting people in danger. I would be much more upset with a long haul truck driver causing an accident than an elderly person who isn't aware they are unsafe. TP to you for your persistence!