wow the comments that Alcohol and guns should be outlawed... What a narrow
minded comment. I did a test. I set my gun on my nightstand when I left for
work. The mail man came to the house as well as the as well as the meter reader
and my Gardener and not once did that gun move get off the table or go out in
public and kill one single person. Guns do NOT kill people anymore than
SUV's kill people. it is the person behind it. However I could with that
gun if I so chose. It is ME who will be behind the SUV or any other car wheel if
I decide to drink and drive. If you know you are going to drink, driving
shouldn't even be an issue. The minute you get behind that wheel you are
choosing to put others at risk. It is as responsible as me leaving my weapons
loaded laying around where there is children. It is called responsibility. I
keep my weapons safe. I do not drink then get behind the wheel for the same
An added comment on mine. My 5 year old went into the house yesterday and came
out telling my dad that the bad lady needs to apologize. When is that going to
My dad was very lucky that he was not hurt. Stider303 I agree, I am not
impressed with her mom's comments as well. My parents house is a wreck, my
dad is doing better...but..... I want her taken care of as far as the law will
allow. My dad has forgiven her, he just wants his house back to order. I drink.
But I do not drive and I do not drink to the point of drunkenness. There is a
point when as adults we need to know our limits.
Nowhere did the mom, of an adult, say that she is sorry and that is enough. As
if that even matters. I'm sure driving and liberty and money will be
consequences. The biggest that she drove into a house. The woman did
not get that drunk because she drank before receiving her dinner. Utah laws are
ridiculous. What I find interesting is how on earth is someone who
has been drinking capable of being able to tell if they are not impaired to
drive. All cars should have breathalyzer to start with. Like someone said, the
consequences are the same for the person who did it intentionally and the person
who didn't mean it. A car is a lethal weapon. You may not drink the next
person to buy your vehicle may. They should also have a mechanism to cause them
to not overheat when parked and turned off and a little less sound and vision
proofed so people walking past can tell if a child was left inside.
Anytime someone is drunk and gets behind the wheel it's not by accident,
it's on purpose. I am glad that this drunken driver didn't land on
this man and severely injure him or worse. Thank you Bountiful Guy for your
comments. I also believe it's intentional not by mistake.
@ Chris B.If beer or mixed beverages serve the same purpose as
rootbeer or lemonade, then you should be content with consuming it without
alcohol. Drinks can be made with the same flavor and taste as beer, etc. without
any alcohol content. The reality is that they are not consumed for the same
purpose. They are consumed for the buzz that the drinker gets, and sense of
euphoria and disconnection from reality that they feel. How often do you see
someone consume root beer or lemonade to the point of vomiting? Any other
argument is disingenuous at best, as there are plenty of non-alcoholic
alternatives already available on the market.
Interesting arguments aside, the driver drove while impaired, the reasons do not
matter. Major property damage occurred from that action and compensation needs
to be made to the victim.The driver needs to be punished as per the
law. I am not impressed with mom's enabling comments.
I see the correlation between this incident and guns very clearly. When someone
commits a crime and a gun is present, the consequences are more severe than if
the gun were not there, even if the gun was not used. When someone commits a
crime and alcohol or drug impairment is present, the consequences should be
greater than if there was no impairment. If you are going to be drunk, you ought
to do it in the privacy of your home, not in public where innocents can be more
likely victims to your irresponsible conduct. And yes, being drunk in public
endangers the innocent public.
I agree with the person posting who questioned why guns came up in the
discussion. Why indeed? I think the issue is alcohol and irresponsibility. I
have a close friend whose son-in-law was killed when a drunk driver ran into his
home. The drunk driver then ran away and his wife claimed their Jag had been
stolen. I think that guy was even more at fault than the woman who ended up
parked in the living room and acknowledged she was at fault. However, DUI should
be a serious offense no matter what the circumstances. I think laws could be
harsher, and should be.
Eliot. Just as one gets punished for committing a felony using a gun with a
more serious consequence than if the gun were not used, anyone driving while
drunk or impaired should be given more serious consequence than one who drives
while not impaired. You can make up all the "what ifs" you want, the
principle is the same. Driving while intoxicated is a crime and deserves more
serious consequences than one who is not impaired. If we don't get these
irresponsible persons off the road, innocent people will continue to be victims
of those who can do nothing more than say, "I'm sorry, I should not
have been driving while intoxicated." If my drunk friend swerves off the
road and there is no pedestrian, it is the same as if there were a pedestrian.
His action was the same in both cases. Someone innocent can die from such
criminal behavior. Luck should not lessen the punishment. Driving drunk is the
crime. Perhaps when you lose someone close by the actions of a drunk driver,
you'll understand. It doesn't happen the first time they drive drunk.
Get them out of the drivers seat before the tragedy.
The only thing more ridiculous than the incident itself is the line of reasoning
here and everyone's inserting their own agenda into this response thread.
DUI is prosecuted aggressively in Utah. Since there is of this amount of
property damage she will receive an enhanced charge. Rest assured, this will
cost for a minimum of $5000-$10,000 just to handle the legal issues let alone
the actual damage she will be required to pay for.
Suppose your drunken friend on a Friday night swerved off the road and onto a
sidewalk, narrowly missing a pedestrian. Should he be charged with a crime as
serious as attempted murder?
The purpose of alcoholic beverages (as well as certain legal and illegal drugs)
is to affect mood and provide an escape from life's pressures.The
purpose the automobile is to transport people and their possessions.The
purpose of firearms is to defend lives and property.All three can
kill. Their use should never be combined and society should impose appropriate
consequences for their misuse resulting in harm; just as for misusing kitchen
utensils, sporting goods, tools, hands, rocks and sticks.But I have
to wonder, what brought firearms into the discussion about an intoxicated driver
and the damages she wrought?
@AzTimYour argument is just too easy to shoot down. An SUV has a
worthwhile purpose. Alcohol and guns don't. Alcohol only does one thing:
Inebriate. Guns only do one thing: Shoot.@Chris BNot
even close. Root beer and lemonade rehydrate, something humans need to do to
survive. Alcohol actually dehydrates.
Brave,"Perhaps you can elaborate on what valuable human purpose
alcohol serves"Certainly.Alcohol consumption can
calm the nerves, increase circulation, lighten mood, facilitate social
interaction and enjoyment, and enhance the dining experience with many fine
cuisines: cheeses, chocolates, pastries, meats, and more.Wines,
beers, hard ciders, mixed drinks, all were invented and continue to be developed
as part of a long, rich, intercultural culinary heritage that is as old as, and
complimentary to, religion itself as well as family values.In our
LDS culture the positives aspects of alcohol consumption are denied,
misrepresented and demonized, mostly out of fear that "drinking" will be
too attractive for our youth and even adult members to resist, resulting in
"sin".But in the early Church this was not the case. Jesus
and the Apostles all "drank", as did the Prophet Joseph and all of the
early Brethren for many years! They all recognized the value of alcohol when
properly used.The WoW became an enforced "commandment"
shortly after nationwide "temperance" movements culminated in the 18th
Amendment (January 16, 1920). As with so many things, the Church just followed
@ Brave Sir Robin"Guns and alcohol should be illegal."Such horrible logic!For argument sake, suppose the home
owner in this story had been struck by the "flying" SUV and killed. An
out of control, speeding SUV certainly is lethal, but we wouldn't ban
SUV's or make them illegal because of the death. The issue was the person
operating the vehicle and the alcohol that impaired the mental and physical
state of that person. The alcohol made the person and, subsequently, the SUV
unsafe. A gun, like an SUV, does not impair the person operating it. How often
do we see gun violence tied to alcohol and drugs?
timid sparrow,It serves the same human purpose that Root Beer or
@I M LDS 2Couldn't agree more. Guns and alcohol should be
illegal. But I do have one question: You said "alcohol...is designed to
serve other, valuable human purposes". Perhaps you can elaborate on what
valuable human purpose alcohol serves, at least in the context of consumption
(i.e. not including use as a motor fuel, etc.)? If consuming alcohol serves any
other purpose besides creating a high, I'm not aware of what that purpose
Eliot. May I cite a story that illustrates a weakness in what you are saying.
A friend of mine spent every Friday and Saturday night drinking at bars. He
always got drunk and he always drove home. Even though for 25 years, he did the
same thing, he used to tell everyone that he never intended to get drunk and
therefore was not responsible for the fact that he got drunk every single time.
I used to scream at him that he knew full well that he was going to get drunk
and could kill someone and the "I'm sorry" could never restore the
life he would take. Then one day he got in a serious wreck in his drunken state
and spent months in the hospital very lucky to be alive. He was especially
lucky that he never killed anyone "by accident". He came to realize
that every Friday he intended to drink, get drunk, and drive drunk. And every
time he did that, he very likely could kill someone while impaired. Every crime
committed with a gun could be rationalized away as you do. With many, it
doesn't wash. It is intentional.
I know what the solution is: More drinking! Come on, when are we going to
legalize adulthood here in Utah?
"Alcohol is a scourge to society and should be treated as such."Guns don't kill people, and neither do alcohol nor cars.People kill people using guns, alcohol, and cars.What's the
difference?Alcohol and cars are designed to serve other, valuable
human purposes and only kill when abused.Handguns, by contrast, are
designed for one purpose: to kill.
Over time, I have come to realize that the "silly laws" of Utah
pertaining to the sale and use of alcohol are wise indeed. Alcohol is a scourge
to society and should be treated as such. It is time for the Utah legislature to
make our laws involving DUI the toughest in the nation. The first offense for
alcohol related driving conviction should be 3 months in jail and if anyone is
hurt by the culprit, then 6 months minimum. Yes, it will be terribly
inconvenient for the perpetrator but after a few high profile cases I believe
the message will be sent to anyone considering getting behind the wheel
impaired. Too many innocent people are being killed and seriously injured by
drunk drivers, drug abusers and pill poppers. I'm tired of reading about
selfish drivers and the sad stories about the victims and their families.
She should be punished and take responsibility for the damage she caused but her
actions do not constitute attempted murder. Even though she was lucky she did
not kill the guy in the house, it is obvious she did not set out with the intent
to kill him.
Well. She's sorry. That should be compensation enough even if someone had
been killed. This should be as serious an offense as attempted murder. The
only difference between murder and attempted murder is pure luck. The act by
the perpetrator is exactly the same. I hope the consequences are severe for
such irresponsible behavior.