ADVERTISEMENT

Randy Howard killed in shoot out

Don't know who he is - er, was. Momma, whiskey, cheatin' women, trains, trucks and a good dog is a good country song.

Would it be unkind to say he personifies the term dead drunk?
 
  • Like
Reactions: -OB1-
Don't know who he was but honestly, anyone w/4 DUI's is a total loser and deserves to be dead anyway...so good riddance, I guess.
 
BelemNole said:
Strange story, since when are bounty hunters allowed to break into houses in the middle of the night to grab people up?
Click to expand...

It varies state-to-state. At common law, a bounty hunter was allowed to enter and arrest a bail jumper wherever he/she was located. This rule is derived from old SCOTUS opinions from the 1800's (see what mundane cases SCOTUS used to hear before Marbury v. Madison). State statutes have replaced the old common law in most states. In Tenn., the law allows the bounty hunter to break and enter the bail jumper's residence....but probably not the residence of a third party.
 
Last edited:
BelemNole said:
Strange story, since when are bounty hunters allowed to break into houses in the middle of the night to grab people up?
Click to expand...
John Oliver did a piece on this last Sunday. Good watch. It'll answer your question and disgust you
 
It's through luck and coincidence that any* DUIs remain "victimless".

Just because in some instances no one is killed, doesn't make it a "victimless crime". I'm guessing you just wanted to troll everyone for a bit - to help get you through a Friday afternoon.

*And yes, before you criticize me for any kind of hypocrisy, I'm including any poor decisions that I might have made in my youth, for which I simply wasn't caught, or that I didn't hurt anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MathisJones
Gonolz said:
Yeah, it should be like shooting a gun. If you shoot a gun at innocent people, but don't hit anyone, it is a victimless crime, right?
Click to expand...
Maybe if I stole someone's car, went out riding around for a while, but filled up the tank when I brought it back, it's actually a victimless crime?

Or if I intentionally start a fire that burns 1,000 acres of public land, but no one* is burned, then it's also a victimless crime?

*Squirrels, rabbits and deer don't have legal standing, so they can't be victims**.

**Take that, Bambi - you sunuvabeech!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: CJRN
Gonolz said:
Yeah, it should be like shooting a gun. If you shoot a gun at innocent people, but don't hit anyone, it is a victimless crime, right?
Click to expand...

What a horrible, horrible analogy. Do you think every single person who drives with a .08 BAC is basically shooting a gun at innocent people? Safe to say some of them are much better drivers at .08-.12 than 50% of the sober drivers on the road in Florida.
 
NDallasRuss said:
Maybe if I stole someone's car, went out riding around for a while, but filled up the tank when I brought it back, it's actually a victimless crime?

Or if I intentionally start a fire that burns 1,000 acres of public land, but no one* is burned, then it's also a victimless crime?

*Squirrels, rabbits and deer don't have legal standing, so they can't be victims**.

**Take that, Bambi - you sunuvabeech!!
Click to expand...

Neither of the crimes described above are victimless.
 
NDallasRuss said:
It's through luck and coincidence that any* DUIs remain "victimless".

Just because in some instances no one is killed, doesn't make it a "victimless crime". I'm guessing you just wanted to troll everyone for a bit - to help get you through a Friday afternoon.

*And yes, before you criticize me for any kind of hypocrisy, I'm including any poor decisions that I might have made in my youth, for which I simply wasn't caught, or that I didn't hurt anyone.
Click to expand...

It's not at all through luck and coincidence unless you believe that driving sober without getting into an accident of any kind is luck and coincidence. Certainly there are levels of impairment that necessarily make it luck and coincidence, but .08 is hardly an objective level of measurement. A good driver who can handle their alcohol is still a good driver at .08. A bad driver at .08 is still a bad driver. Driving is dangerous, some DUI's (without accidents) are deserved... but the .08 measurement borders on the absurd.
 
This thread has taken an amazing turn, I look forward to following it.
 
There's probably a reason he had 4 DUI's, and they weren't all checkpoint DUI's.

And that CLEARLY means he drove under the influence many times without bein caught. I know you'll say that means this guy must be the best drunk driver ever, but I'm not buying it.
 
oldscalphunter said:
What a horrible, horrible analogy. Do you think every single person who drives with a .08 BAC is basically shooting a gun at innocent people? Safe to say some of them are much better drivers at .08-.12 than 50% of the sober drivers on the road in Florida.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely true, yet people get emotional and argue against this infallible logic regardless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldscalphunter
MathisJones said:
There's probably a reason he had 4 DUI's, and they weren't all checkpoint DUI's.

And that CLEARLY means he drove under the influence many times without bein caught. I know you'll say that means this guy must be the best drunk driver ever, but I'm not buying it.
Click to expand...

Check point DUI's aren't the only way to get a .08 or less DUI. Any routine traffic incident past 11pm will get you a DUI investigation in Tallahassee.
 
On complex tasks, one beer results in decreased performance. Before you think, "not in me," this was demonstrated in active members of the special forces. .08 is enough to seriously change your reaction times and judgment. It is an illusion that you are able to control it just by paying extra attention. You are wrong and likely an idiot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LesClaypool
Banditking said:
On complex tasks, one beer results in decreased performance. Before you think, "not in me," this was demonstrated in active members of the special forces. .08 is enough to seriously change your reaction times and judgment. It is an illusion that you are able to control it just by paying extra attention. You are wrong and likely an idiot.
Click to expand...

Never, in any post, did I say it didn't affect reaction time. Reading comprehension is a son of a bitch for some of you. "Active members of special forces" lol... who don't drink very often. Great. Guess being an active member of special forces makes you a better singer, CPA, golfer, insurance adjuster, and driver after drinking. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Oldscalp,

So you are saying the Dui limit should be raised to .10 or what?

Should .08 be penalty free or just a fine and not a misdemeanor or felony charge? My understanding is .06 to .099 causes an impairment of depth perception and glare recovery. Niw what if in a fatal accident and you are at .08? Still charged with manslaughter?

.10 and up causes delayed reaction time, staggering and slurred speech and worse.
 
West Duval Nole said:
Oldscalp,

So you are saying the Dui limit should be raised to .10 or what?

Should .08 be penalty free or just a fine and not a misdemeanor or felony charge? My understanding is .06 to .099 causes an impairment of depth perception and glare recovery. Niw what if in a fatal accident and you are at .08? Still charged with manslaughter?

.10 and up causes delayed reaction time, staggering and slurred speech and worse.
Click to expand...

In case of an at-fault accident that causes bodily harm, I'd be fine with lowering the .08 threshold to .06. My gripe is not with any DUI arising from an accident. My issue is with DUIs arising from harmless traffic violations (e.g., 5 mph over speed limit; right on red at light with no right on red sign & no traffic; failure to come to complete stop at intersection with 4-way stop signs & no traffic; etc...) occurring after 11 p.m.

How much someone had to eat or sleep could increase/decrease the affect of alcohol on one's faculties.

Again, at least some people convicted of a DUI are better/safer drivers at .08 than 50+% of sober drivers in Florida. I don't know what over-the-limit threshold I'd prescribe for victimless DUIs (i.e., DUIs with no property damage, injuries, or traffic violation which, by itself, would not give rise to a reckless driving charge). As soon as you've been charged with a DUI (which could happen with or without a bac measurement or multiple indicators), you're marked by cops everytime they run your license plate. That makes you a DUI suspect any time you're driving after 10 pm... even if charges were dropped. Not to mention the incentives for overzealous dui enforcement by police departments and cops.
 
oldscalphunter said:
In case of an at-fault accident that causes bodily harm, I'd be fine with lowering the .08 threshold to .06. My gripe is not with any DUI arising from an accident. My issue is with DUIs arising from harmless traffic violations (e.g., 5 mph over speed limit; right on red at light with no right on red sign & no traffic; failure to come to complete stop at intersection with 4-way stop signs & no traffic; etc...) occurring after 11 p.m.

How much someone had to eat or sleep could increase/decrease the affect of alcohol on one's faculties.

Again, at least some people convicted of a DUI are better/safer drivers at .08 than 50+% of sober drivers in Florida. I don't know what over-the-limit threshold I'd prescribe for victimless DUIs (i.e., DUIs with no property damage, injuries, or traffic violation which, by itself, would not give rise to a reckless driving charge). As soon as you've been charged with a DUI (which could happen with or without a bac measurement or multiple indicators), you're marked by cops everytime they run your license plate. That makes you a DUI suspect any time you're driving after 10 pm... even if charges were dropped. Not to mention the incentives for overzealous dui enforcement by police departments and cops.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. But what is the solution. The reasonjng behind it is to prevent DUI fatalaties by getting those that consistently choose to drink and drive.

So your solution would be in ones where there is no accident to have a substantial fine, that increases with each incident and points on license accumulating to result in a suspended license. And the driver must have someone come pick them up and vehicle. Or vehicle impounded and person have to take a cab or another way home.

Certainly I would hope you think there needs to be some threshold where someone should not be behind the wheel and should they get caught, it should be worthy of an arrest.

I am just curious what your proposed solution would be, because I think what you are saying is true, but certainly you understand the other side.
 
West Duval Nole said:
I understand what you are saying. But what is the solution. The reasonjng behind it is to prevent DUI fatalaties by getting those that consistently choose to drink and drive.

So your solution would be in ones where there is no accident to have a substantial fine, that increases with each incident and points on license accumulating to result in a suspended license. And the driver must have someone come pick them up and vehicle. Or vehicle impounded and person have to take a cab or another way home.

Certainly I would hope you think there needs to be some threshold where someone should not be behind the wheel and should they get caught, it should be worthy of an arrest.

I am just curious what your proposed solution would be, because I think what you are saying is true, but certainly you understand the other side.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do understand the other side. Admittedly, I don't know what the threshold should be... though it shouldn't be .08 under circumstances I alluded to in prior posts. But obviously if someone is driving recklessly, they shouldn't be on the road... at all (sober or drunk). I'd be fine with arrests in those situations as well. My solution would be they take a different approach on minor traffic violations, such as your suggestion (citation, have someone come pick them up, maybe tow the car as the deterrence).

Right now, I think the incentives for dui enforcement are a problem & so is stripping reasonableness from an officer's approach to dui investigations (to which incentives play a role). Once the officer smells alcohol (perhaps his only accurate indicator on a dui), he's locked in on a dui arrest.

I don't ever deal with DUIs so beyond taking away the incentives & giving discretion back to the officers, I don't have a great solution. As far as the threshold question goes, I know what would be over the limit (.14), I'm just not sure where the under should be because everyone is different & every situation is different.
 
It's not hard to avoid driving drunk. I'm sure we've all done it at least once in our youth. We then grew up, realized how stupid and lucky we were, and never did it again. It's not rocket science.
 
Formerly Rockymtnole said:
It's not hard to avoid driving drunk. I'm sure we've all done it at least once in our youth. We then grew up, realized how stupid and lucky we were, and never did it again. It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. But you've likely done it as an adult. Driving after an 8pm football game (and tailgating for hours)? Likely over. Varies based on weight, but if you weigh 200 and consume 10 shots or beers in the 4 hours leading up to the game, and do not drink during the game, you're still over the limit 3 hours later.
 
Formerly Rockymtnole said:
It's not hard to avoid driving drunk. I'm sure we've all done it at least once in our youth. We then grew up, realized how stupid and lucky we were, and never did it again. It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

No, not all of us have done it before. Like you said, it's not hard to avoid doing it. maybe I'm that exception to the rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back