🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38E48098.48D0E316@compuserve.com>, rally2xs@compuserve.com says...
>
>OK, but he didn't wake up one morning and say, "I'm going to kill three people
>today".  It happened, he contributed to it, but the actual malice wasn't
>there.  51 years, 34 suspended.

He knew that alcohol could impair your driving ability and judgement.  He
then proceeded to drink.  After he drank he then decided to drive even though
he know that his judgement and skill could be impaired.  He had a choice and 
made the wrong, and stupid, decision.  


>As for the 0.11 BAC, the point is that there's no way to know that you're at
>0.11 or 0.09 or 0.07 other than buying your own machine.  You aren't
>necessarily _intentionally_ driving drunk, you're just drinking, and maybe
>have erroneously calculated that you should be OK.

Alcohol impairs your judgement.  Even with a machine, if a person who has been 
drinking knows the results and is given a choice, they might make the wrong 
choice because they are impaired.  That is why it is suggested you don't even 
have one drink and drive.  That is not to imply that having one drink will 
necessairly impair you, it may, it may not.  It's just better to play it on the 
safe side.  

>So the bottom line is that he could have done what he did with no intention to
>either break the law or hurt anyone, and gets 51 years.  Is this right, or
>does it only make sense in a revenge sort of way?

This person made at least three stupid mistakes.  First he obviously drank too 
much and drove.  He then proceeded to have an accident.  Then he stupidly ran 
off.  
-----------------  
Alex     __O 
       _-\<,_
      (_)/ (_)