saw this on another board....

**SHATOUSHKA** · November 6th, 2003, 05:15 PM

click click

i thought about posting the link to the other
board, but i didn't wanna risk being held
responsible for someone's posts there...

with that said....

read the article... more to come

TastinGood · November 6th, 2003, 05:41 PM

If a drunk driver wants to go run into a phone pole and hit their head against the windshield, more power to 'em. I dont have a single problem with that.

However a lot of times it seems like drunks hit other people. And that pisses me off. Let's face it, most of the time the drunk driver is going to be on the roads not out of necessity but by choice.

However

I will also state that from reading that report that it seems to be jumping on the DUI bandwagon a little too soon. While we werent there and wont truly know what happened, it seems that the Honda could have swerved into the path of the vette leaving it nowhere to go. The same thing could have happened whether the vette driver was drunk or not.

I suck at getting points across so I'll keep trying.

The article was titled "Fiery Death For Victims Of Suspected DUI Driver" but whether or not he was drunk may or may not have had anything to do with the accident. His speed probably had more to do with it than anything however nothing in the headline suggested that. "Fiery Death For Victims Of Speeder" was probably never a consideration.

I'm not trying to defend the driver, however, as Im sure that if he were drunk that his reaction werent as sharp as they normally would have been. But I guess I think its too early to be talking about manslaughter when he might not have even been responsible for the accident.

But what the hell do I know.

TastinGood · November 6th, 2003, 05:43 PM

let me reiterate that I think that all drunk drivers should be punished severly.

**SHATOUSHKA** · November 6th, 2003, 11:04 PM

the fact that the car exploded caught my attention.

**Tard** · November 7th, 2003, 03:28 AM

The headline said "suspended DUI driver" which doesn't mean he was drunk this time. However, the baggies of white substance sound like a speed (coke, meth, etc.), considering he was flooring it in the fast lane & STILL back-ended & demolished the car before him.

No mercy. The prick should get an injection for Capital M-1, not "manslaughter"....

TastinGood · November 7th, 2003, 03:53 AM

I interpreted it to say that the vette was in the slow lane and as it approached, the honda changed lanes in front of it.

"The Honda Prelude was in the fast lane, west of Balboa Boulevard, when the 2003 black Corvette came up from behind at high speed, said CHP Officer Alex Gonzalez.

A witness said the Corvette was going more than 100 mph, Gonzalez said.The driver of the Prelude moved to the right, apparently into the path the man at the wheel of the Corvette had chosen to take, Gonzalez said."

And as far as saying that we should string the guy up....we dont even know that he did anything wrong.

Let's use a different example. Let's say that the guy was driving drunk along the interstate when all of a sudden a person jumps from an overpass into the roadway directly in front of the car. (For the example we'll assume he is uninjured from the initial jump)

Now, just because the drunk guy hits the jumper, does that mean the drunk guy is at fault?

Sure, book him for driving drunk....but dont neseccarily assume he was at fault for the other peoples deaths.

I blame gasoline.

**SHATOUSHKA** · November 7th, 2003, 03:57 AM

i think its a little careless to put alot of
weight on an eye-witness account. while there
is no doubt the driver may have exceeded the
speed limit (maybe)... the tout of 100 mph is
still heresay....

and wtf is it with corvettes and fucking accidents???

*marks off list*