You seem to be on a crusade to absolve impaired drivers / gun toters of all responsibility for their actions. What's up? Are you one of those people who got loaded, screwed up royally, and won't own it? Everybody's fault but yours? Just askin'..........

In todays America.

Uh oh, one of the watchers is after me...You better run my name and find out.

For the record, Im referring to the drunk guy as the victim because thats what he was. If the other people were paying attention as they should the wreck wouldnt have happened.

Oh, you were there?

Oh, you were there?

He never should have been driving! Anything subsequent is on him.

Dont agree?

Imagine he was an unlicensed, uninsured illegal and not drunk. What would you say? "He should've never been on the road". Murder is the case then huh?

So if I got drunk and went out boating and fell in the lake and drowned and the guys with me were wasted should they be charged with a crime, just wondering guys, a lot of a different opinions on here it seems

Hopefully he has learned a lesson and no longer drives after drinking.

Oh, you want to go through proceedings on the TFF?

point A: he was toasted, snot slingin puke on a cops shoes drunk. no he should not have been driving at all

point B: even though he was driving and was involved in a double fatality wreck he was not at fault according to witnesses. since the other people ran the red light it is on them for the wreck and he still gets his life trashed with a dui.

point C: been there, done that, wore out the T shirt. a dui will pretty much ruin your life for a number of yrs. and if the book is thrown at him his life will suck worse than a cast joke on a bad day. double manslaughter and he wastes tax money with a trial, prison that we pay for etc. let him get to pay for it in lawyer fees, fines, mandatory monitoring, antibuse (if they still do that chit), probation, sr22 etc. etc.
if all comes down to what the judge decides and I would wager they will not be nice about it at all.

You know what? I've realized that either you are incredibly stupid, or you're a troll. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you're just stupid, I'll explain it to you in simple terms:

Here we go. Ready?

A driver, for whatever reason, ran a red light. The driver with the green light, who struck the red light runner, was intoxicated.

Are you still with me? I know it's complicated, but try to follow along.

Driving while intoxicated is a criminal offense. I could waste everybody's time explaining why, but hopefully you can rise high enough above your impairment to grasp the concept. If not, take my earlier advice from the weeder post and have a conversation with your attorney. There's actually a very good reason for the law.........

Are you still with me? I can slow down a little if you need me to............

So, after the resultant collision, a peace officer was called away from his primary duty of jacking up weeders (for no reason at all, other than they appeared to be weeders) to investigate and report the wreck. It's kinda required of them, as peace officers. I know that's a difficult concept for you to grasp, but trust me on this........

Still with me, crankn101? I know it's complicated, but if you put down the joint and the beer and try really hard you might understand some of it. Here we go with some more; Ready?

The officer who responded conducted an investigation of the collision. Apparently (as is actually supposed to occur) he discerned that the striking driver (Unit 1, in collision reporting talk -- you're obviously excused from comprehending legal concepts) was impaired. Further investigation -- since I wasn't there (but you were?) I can only work with the provided information -- revealed that the operator of Unit 1 was intoxicated, at least in part, from the ingestion of an alcoholic beverage(s). Since I wasn't there, I'll go out on a limb here -- based on over 35 years' experience -- and surmise that an odor of alcoholic beverage was detected, among other indicators. Just a guess, though.

Still with me crankn101? We're almost done. Hang in there.......

Since the intoxicated driver was involved in a collision, the investigating officer IS REQUIRED to document the info on him / her. I won't even bother to go into the "if it was your daughter he/she hit" routine; if that concept is above your level then I'm just wasting my breath anyway. Bottom line; the driver was intoxicated. It's a criminal offense. The intoxicated driver was charged with DWI -- not with causing the collision. If you honestly feel that a "crankin101 get out of jail free" endorsement is legally binding, morally justified, or any other kind of BS you've hallucinated (I already told you to put down the pipe), you need to communicate directly with the Governor. Whining on TFF ain't gonna get it done.

crankn101, from your posts you apparently feel that it's okay to smoke weed, get drunk, and drive a vehicle and carry a weapon in public. How do your friends and family feel about that? Do you even have any friends?