Based booze cruiser fights fascism
My grandfather killed a nazi and became a hero. Ms. Sherry does it and she becomes the enemy. That doesn’t seem fair.
Your grandfather went to war to protect the world from a global enemy. Mr. Sherry got drunk and drove on the way killing a nazi. These two things are not even close to be the same. Lets just be happy a nazi died. No need to justify DUI.
It does. When you did not discriminate but happen to do the “right” thing you are not to praise.
Her inmate photo is something else. Sadly she got like 15 years. Free my girl.
She seems happy about it? Also shouldn’t her name be kept private? Are convicts details to be public knowledge?
It is public information yes (though it does depend on the state).
For example in Nevada (not related to her, just the state I’m in): https://doc.nv.gov/inmates/home/
If this situation was reversed, MAGA would have raised $100k for her legal defense by now.
At least 500k
She would have been pardoned by the President lol
Just like the mass murdering shooter who killed the Blackstone executive in his spree. I don’t condone mass shootings, but sometimes some good accidentally comes of it.
I’d say give her back her driver’s licence, but its only valid in towns occupied by the kkk/neo-nazis
Fascist Lives Don’t Matter.
🤘
controversial opinion
These nazi racist fuckheads are still human beings. As unfortunate as it may be and as implausible it might seem, any of us are capable of becoming or raising someone to become entrenched in a bad and hateful ideology. Dehumanizing them doesn’t stop their ideas from spreading. In fact, a big part of their ideology is the dehumanization of different groups of people. So please don’t encourage that practice.
Two counterpoints to this (although I like the spirit):the paradox of intolerance suggests that intolerance will easily spread if we tolerate it. So in a world where tolerance is abundant: intolerance itself should still not be tolerated.
In a way I feel this may be saying the same thing again, but when we speak of protected classes and human rights we generally think of immutable qualities assigned at birth. That is, it’s not okay to discriminate based on things such as skin color, height, sound of voice, heritage, language, race, disability etc. and you get the idea.
Modern ideas stretch this a bit, as sexuality and gender identity have recently (as in within the last century, and only then within more educated cultures) entered as protected facets of human expression due to our understanding of them as involuntary. Even an individual’s personal religion is universally considered to not be up for debate, even though each of the world’s religions are composed of transient beliefs that an individual is allowed to change whether they are comfortable with it or not.
Any group’s ideas for societal idealism do not and should not get these types of protections, because ideas obviously should change if a better idea is presented. It should be agreed upon that whatever utopia is (for however close the human race can get to it), it would need to be universally agreed upon by all living individuals as well as all possible human group permutations. This is seemingly insurmountably large, so some of us tried to take shortcuts by eliminating other groups, and to make a long story short you could say the world universally condemned these ideas as one of the first “global” acts.
The point is, if somebody has:
-
Willingly violated the social contract in defiance of available historical context and public information, and
-
Elected to voluntarily hold that an aforementioned Protected Class of people should be either eliminated or exiled (in service to making their version of utopia easier to achieve), then
Then this somebody has found themselves to be a member of the one group of people (a group founded on voluntary belief) that society at large would be better to either eliminate or exile.
Obviously debate is preferred but one cannot reason with somebody who believes deep down in another group’s inferiority.
I agree with all you wrote, and it’s a good point well made. However, in the context of what it’s replying to, it could be interpreted as condoning the death penalty for extremists, which I disagree with, if it was intended that way.
Death penalty, but more likely death in combat while trying to oust them from society. Like was done in WWII. These fuckers aren’t going anywhere voluntarily, it will take violence to remove them from society.
I see what you mean, in my case I believe that the only viable options are debate then expulsion in extreme cases.
I know I was being somewhat brash when I wrote this (middle of the night where I am) and would likely omit the “or eliminate” part if I written again. I know that was a popular option durning the Nuremberg trials for some of the worst orchestrators but I’m always of the “We have to be better/there has to be a better way” mindset.
My point is less about what rights they might deserve, and more about staying informed and vigilant of the ideological capacities of human beings, including yourself.
-
It’s literally the one message every old European used to preach to us younger generations back in the day. I remember how important it was to them to make us understand that the minute we start dehumanizing people we don’t like, we are repeating the cycle.
It is why movies like Der Untergang exists. We have to understand that the most despicable people who ever lived were still human beings and much closer to ourselves than we like to think.
I have carried with me, my whole life the knowledge that I am fallible and I am capable of evil no matter how good of a person I think I am. To a lesser extent, every time I have thought I was too clever to fall for x, y and z, that’s when I have fallen right into it. “I would never end up in an abusive relationship. I have too much self respect for that” 🤡 “I’m far too strong to become the doormat in this and that friendship” 🤡 “I’ll never fall for fake information online. I’m too observant” 🤡
I could never trust myself to believe I would be too smart, kind or principled to not fall into a destructive and abusive pattern of behavior if the circumstances are twisted just right. I think more people would benefit if they reminded themselves of their imperfections and got off their high horses. On Lemmy alone I have encountered far too many holier than thou types who are super duper anti fascist but ironically act exactly like fascists, but to them it doesn’t count because they are “on the right side of history”.
Am I sad that some nazi KKK guy died? No. But he was human. Most likely a very terrible human, but still human.
I do agree with almost everything you wrote, but I don’t understand the moral consequence. One do not have to think they’re too smart or too pure to take some kind of solace from the fact that there’s one less fascist walking the earth.
To me, that has nothing to do with being “better” as a human. It’s just that their project means my/our death. The more they grow, the more we die and vice versa. I do not dehumanize them nor do I think they’re stupid or deserve anything.
It’s as simple as : the more they grow, the more anything I care for will wither away.
You’re right, but it makes people uncomfortable so they don’t want to agree with you.
This isn’t like the economy. It IS a zero sum game. If they succeed, we lose. If they thrive in life, we lose. If they continue to live at all, we lose.
They can CHOOSE to come back to humanity, unlike their victims, but I won’t give them any consideration as having value until they do.
All that was said was that they are still human. Even if we dislike them. That is all. I find it interesting how defensive people are being about acknowledging that a terrible person is still a person.
If we stop acknowledging a bad person as a being a person, we have become what we hate. Its got nothing to do with caring or not caring about a kkk member dying. All we have reacted to was the claim that the guy wasn’t a human. That is the dangerous part.
ICYMI, I didn’t want to sound defensive. I mean it’s an interesting conservation, and I found it intriguing that I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote yet arrive at a slightly different conclusion. People don’t always look to pick fights, sometimes, it’s just about discussion.
The problem is that fascists know that normal people are empathetic in this way, and they use it against us. It makes it nearly impossible to stop them (without violence).
At some point you’re just bowing down to murderous psychopaths who literally want you dead.
Acknowledging and understanding they are human DOES NOT mean cowing down or bowing down to them. It means understanding that they’re human.
Not explicitly. But, in my experience, that is usually the implication when people say that.
These are Nazis. If you aren’t fighting them, then you’re allowing them to spread their hate.
If someone this to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!
So we should just give up and become them, is what you’re saying. That works well for two minutes and then you replace the problem with a new one. Russia is a good example of that, lol.
So we should just give up and become them, is what you’re saying.
If that was your takeaway, either you need to re-read my comment, or I do because that’s not at all what I meant to say.
You were essentially arguing that we should not show empathy to people like the guy who died because they wouldn’t show empathy toward us. That is the path to fascism.
Violence does not defeat fascism. Empathy does. Violence is effective at toppling dictators, but if that is all you do, then a new dictator will just take his place. Empathy is what stops the chain of Violence everytime. That is when strong men and women say no to Violence and yes to a better system that treats everybody with human dignity and rights. Even those whom we don’t emotionally feel deserve it. A criminal who has committed a terrible crime should be locked up and not be around the public, but while he or she is in prison, he or she must still be treated as a human because they are one. If we start making exceptions we lose our humanity and take away theirs. Then we have death penalties which sometimes results in wrong convictions and wrongful executions. Emotionally, I can feel that the death penalty is justice, but that is just emotions. In reality, it is one step toward a aystem that stops seeing people as people and that shit trickles down.
Also, having empathy for someone doesn’t mean you have sympathy for them. Acknowledging that someone is a human doesn’t mean you bow down to their world view.
deleted by creator
So give her partial credit on the community service part of the sentence?
The only one talking about community service is you, I fear. Can’t give credit for anything that wasn’t said.
There is only so much empathy you can lend out to a fascist black hole before it sucks you into its hateful gravitational pool. Purity tests like what you are proposing just makes them stronger.
I’m not saying you have to treat them with kindness. I am saying you have to reckon with the fact that they are still human. Or you will be doomed to follow the same path.
I recognize what happened to them was wrong and shouldn’t have happened, but I am glad it wasn’t a person of better moral character to be the victim.
This is a much better and well reasoned take than the one in the OP image.
I don’t believe they are the same species as me. They have devolved to the point where their brains lack empathy, a distinctly human trait.
You sound an awful lot like a Nazi right now.
You sound like an idiot
I don’t believe they are the same species as me. They have devolved to the point where their brains lack empathy, a distinctly human trait.
-You
The subhuman is a biological creature, crafted by nature, which has hands, legs, eyes and mouth, even the semblance of a brain. Nevertheless, this terrible creature is only a partial human being. Although it has features similar to a human, the subhuman is lower on the spiritual and psychological scale than any animal. Inside this being is a cruel chaos of wild, unrestrained passions, nameless desire for destruction, the most primitive desires, the most naked meanness
-Der Untermenshen, Nazi propaganda pamphlet circa 1942
You sound like a Nazi.
The difference, in my opinion, between Nazi ideology and believing Nazis not to be humans, is that one was a choice that someone made, and makes every day. The other was born a certain way and cannot change.
Bad choices = no moral value.
Is empathy only a human trait? Doubtful. Animals have been known to show empathy as well. Humans aren’t all that special, we’ve just learned to fuck over everything else on the planet.
Wouldn’t the fascists even argue that empathy is toxic?
They do, but they also perform double speak to counter their hypocrisy. They’re rather famous for doing it.
Not going to downvote but no I sharply disagree.
Nazi lives don’t matter. The paradox of tolerance goes both ways. Do not tolerate the intolerant.
Btw this story was in May 2018 and sadly is not from a recent event (Nazis regime is now in the white house)
Nazi lives don’t matter. The paradox of tolerance goes both ways. Do not tolerate the intolerant.
It’s not even a paradox. Being tolerant means allowing things you disagree with, but only up to a point.
It is fallacy to think that if we are intolerant to intolerance, we then become intolerant, thus defeating our own tolerance.
A fallacy mostly promoted by right-wingers.
The problem I have is that, although we shouldn’t tolerate Nazis, treating their deaths in car accidents as a non-event at best, or a national holiday at worst, does feel like moving toward the same dehumanising treatment that Nazis give to those they hate.
I don’t like it.
Genuinely curious your perspective: so what then?
How would you want to handle the growing fascism problem because I believe shaming, ridicule and cruelty are due with where we stand and with how bad things are and how much, much, worse they can get.
These are your enemies they have the entire govenment and a cult and they want to brutalize, make illegal and remove people (one way or the other).
What do you propose?
I believe I called them fuckheads so I don’t seem to have a problem with ridicule. My point of contention is in the reply tweet of “no human being was harmed”. I’m not trying to defend the thoughts or actions of these people, I’m just saying we have to recognize that they are people. I propose building a better world, proving those ideas wrong, and defending ourselves when necessary.
It doesn’t really matter if we think they’re people. It doesn’t really matter if they are. We (all the worthy humans) should treat them as non people.
I can’t see a negative here beyond false identification. If there was an objective, without a doubt way to measure if someone was a Nazi, I would support genociding them (and only them). Proactively. It should simply be as illegal to just be a Nazi on the same level as it would be to murder an entire country’s population.
Turns out that is either impossible or we’re millions of years from figuring out how to do that safely (safe in terms of not harming non Nazis). But the minute we do I’d be on board with punishing them for daring to be born. There is no world of timeline in which being Nazi isn’t worthy of immediate execution.
But since all of that is a pipe dream, in the mean time we can at least celebrate when they get taken out naturally. I wouldn’t like rub it in the family’s face (unless they were Nazis as well) or anything, but I’m definitely not even gonna act sad about it. The more pain they feel as they die, the harder I laugh. Tough lessons suck to learn. Sorry NOT sorry.
As a last note, I think that would be the better world, and it would be defending ourselves from their existence, which is a threat to everyone. As long as that idea is still in someone’s head, no one is safe.
Yes, it does. Because when you don’t acknowledge someone, you start pretending they shouldn’t have any rights at all, and then you can fall victim, far more easily, when they scapegoat someone, or fall victim to that hatred being redirected to an invalid target
I’m not trying to defend them. I’m trying to point out that you’re not defending yourself from that idea. In a world where all the nazis have been genocided, that is a world that accepts genocide as a reasonable solution. That world will commit another genocide and sooner than you might think. Especially when you consider that it didn’t start with nazism. There were confederates before them and there are zionists after them. If you accept one genocide then any other just has to find the right justifications. Recognizing human susceptibility to that idea is the first step in protecting yourself from it. If we fail to do so, the cycle will never end.
Shame, cruelty, and ridicule, but as humans. Let them own what they did.
I would ask you, is it OK to fight Nazis in a war? If you say yes, then what’s the difference?
The point isn’t whether or not it is okay to fight nazis. The commenter only states that the guy who died is still a human even if we don’t like him.
That is a fact. If we start dehumanizing people we don’t like, we open ourselves up to becoming monsters no matter how justified we feel we are.
I struggle with this myself. I have a deep-seated disgust toward narcissists and emotionally, I do not consider them human beings. Rationally, I know that they are and that if I continue to refuse to accept that they are one of the countless aspects of humanity, I open myself up to my own narcissistic aspects, where I see an entire subsection of humanity as lesser than me, as pests instead of human beings with a severe personality disorder that most likely came from repeated childhood neglect and abuse.
It is okay to feel strong negative emotions toward people we don’t like, but we cannot allow ourselves to dehumanizing them because that is how we become monsters ourselves.
Empathy is hard because it isn’t always the easiest or most comfortable path. It can feel downright injust at times, but that is all emotions talking. The more we think about it, truly reflect on it, the more we will understand that choosing empathy over emotional outbursts, will serve us and society far better in the long run. But it is fucking difficult.
You make good, valid points.
But there are people that will continually take from or harm you and ask for empathy afterwards.
Your philosophy needs to deal with those situations as well.
Never harming back has negative consequences for your self.
Choices where you harm or oppress others for your own benefit means losing your humanity.
I will not be strong armed into giving moral weight to people whose entire existence revolves around subjugating and hurting people.
Just because someone is biologically human, does not mean they deserve any consideration from me. Context is king, and if you’re a shit person, you can die. I’m so done with pussy fitting around these fuckwads and letting them own everything just because we don’t want to be mean to them.
You are missing the point. It’s not about being mean or not mean. It is about acknowledging that bad people are still people. Doesn’t change the fact that they suck and deserve punishment for the crimes they commit. But pretending like they aren’t human is how you become like them. That is all.
Are you incapable of fighting someone you consider human?
I consider Nazis human, and id 100% get in a fight with them.
Same
one of the primary protections of the constitution is that nobody can infringe upon your constitutional rights. if they do, they lose some of the protections given to them through the constitution.
I think it’s fair that if some racist fuckhole wants to kill people based on their color or gender identity, it’s only fair that we celebrate when they die. obviously death is not the goal, however a celebration that the hate they injected into the world is now slightly weaker over all is.
my point is, if you lead a life of an asshole you will be remembered as an asshole.
You can celebrate their deaths all you want. But when you start dehumanizing them you’re taking notes from their playbook. Be better than them.
Be better than them.
I am already better than them. I don’t advocate for needless violence or aggression against people who have shown me neither.
However, I advocate for the use of deadly force against anyone who attempts to circumvent my rights and freedoms in an attempt to oppress or imprison me unjustly.
I won’t forget they are human. If I would, that would make it much more difficult to explain why they had to die. An animal kills for survival. A beast kills for sport. A human kills for principle.
It’s not about the death or act of killing, it’s about sending a message. “I am here, and I refuse to submit to your unjust will.”
Yes yes, we won’t use this as an excuse to fix the broken clock
I disagree with the comment directly below you.
I like my mom way more than my dad, and I took on her political beliefs(which are objectively better).
But we are all creatures of our environment.
Ummmm.
No?
Fuck nazis and kkk and southern pride and confederate apologists and white supremacists and bigots of all kinds.
Like get fucked. Straight up well known nazis can fucking die. They are worthless. They make a choice to continue being that way. They can do irreparable harm.
Like, fucking no. Just no. You’re pathetic.
The ability to strip away the title of “human being” is exactly what they are arguing for. You just have different criteria.
if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The world would be better off if everyone with racist views disappeared today. Let’s not defend those who would not hesitate to oppress us.
I hope one day you come to realize this is as stupid of a take as saying, “violence is bad!” towards someone bloodied and bruised who just defended themselves from an attack.
At a certain point, someone deserves to be punched in the face. At a certain point, someone deserves to be treated less than a cordial human being.
Ironically, I still agree with, “we need to remember these are human beings”. Yes, yes we do. Because we need to ALWAYS remember the sheer depravity other human beings are capable of. That does NOT mean they deserve respect or even life.
Allowing terrible, despicable people to continue being terrible, despicable people is EXACTLY how we got here. Yes, the paradox of tolerance is a difficult chestnut to crack, as it should never simply be, “I hate who they are”. Though when someone espouses the very hate you fear and wants to bring that in to the world, it should be obvious…
Just like violence should not be condoned, self defence cannot be condemned, either. What you ask for is condemning self defense because it is not pretty. In times like this, you NEED to understand the emotional equivalence of self defense. Just because someone is willing to throw a punch in direct response, DOES NOT make them equivalent to the people willing to throw the first punch at someone doing nothing wrong.
Nazis and kkk and other scum are attacking the very humanity you want to defend. Yet you want everyone to continue to allow these attacks. You are FAILING the paradox of tolerance.
Jumping back here to say that
we need to ALWAYS remember the sheer depravity
otherhuman beings are capable of.Is the only thing I’m saying
this is as stupid of a take as saying, “violence is bad!” towards someone bloodied and bruised who just defended themselves from an attack.
Self defense is different than drunkenly flattening a pedestrian lmao
I’m speaking to the response to people celebrating the victim happening to be a terrible person, not to drunk driving… Please pay better attention to what the person I’m responding to actually said.
What if that pedestrian was Donald Trump?
Drunk driving, like, as a rule, is really, really bad. It’s incredibly very awful. … But I’m still gonna pop the shampaign.
You’re arguing against things I did not say nor imply. I have made no argument here against self defense nor for civility.
I am abiding the paradox of tolerance by not tolerating dehumanizing rhetoric. Because I believe that rhetoric enables fascism.
No, you’re just trying to shame people celebarating bad people no longer being bad people. Congratulations on utterly failing to understand what I said at all.
You are failing to understand the ugly reality of the paradox of tolerance. It is a paradox NOT for where it starts, but for where it ends. If you cannot even celebrate demonstrably horrible ideologies taking losses, then again, you are FAILING the paradox of tolerance.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I have said absolutely nothing about whether or not to celebrate the death of a nazi, neither does the paradox of tolerance.
Where did I say celebrate death? I said the horrible ideology took a loss. and you claim I’m the one that needs to work on reading comprehension…
What those criteria are matters
And they’re all bad.
Purely wrong. Jail is often times a worse punishment than death, yet all you fucking fools defending nazis and kkk would absolutely agree some people deserve to go to jail. What are those criteria? Are they also bad? Why do you want horrible people being allowed to go around continuing to be horrible? Because that’s EXACTLY how we got here.
You are right. If we exclude any population from rehabilitation, we exclude ourselves.
Until they are rehabilitated though, I will treat them as maggots. Being human does not automatically grant you untouchability for your actions. It doesn’t absolve you of your sins. It does not mean anyone around you must tolerate your continued existence.
No, I can’t blame anyone for visiting harm on Nazis. But that is a temporary solution. If we are to nullify supremacist ideologies, we must eacape survival of the fittest world views. Any ideology that requires violence will be surpassed by the next strongest, including the ideology that kills Nazis and white supremacists.
Why do you think considering someone human is mutually exclusive with wishing death upon them/thinking it’s fine for them to die.
Jury nullification?
When did that work last?
The politics of the victim probably couldn’t be mentioned during the trial. They often suppress that sort of stuff
On the vehicular manslaughter sure, on drunk driving charges, I should hope not. Sure this time a Nazi scumbag who deserves to die was killed, but next time it might be someone wholely innocent. Just because we hate the victim doesn’t mean what she did wasn’t reckless.
If we are taking it seriously, that lady is lucky to be alive let alone able to open a car door at a BAC of .42. Secondly if she was at a .42 and looked that well put together when they let her out of the drunk tank the next morning it’s just not fair.
You can get amazing amounts of alcohol in your blood and still function, you just gotta do it slowly.
there was an old redditism that the best way to get off with murder is to use your car and call it an accident… I wonder if this is that. Get plastered, kill a nazi, go to jail for 5 years instead of 20.
there was an old redditism that the best way to get off with murder is to use your car
Not a redditism. An urbinist-ism. Reddit had a healthy contingent of urbanists, but you’ll find us here on Lemmy too, over at !fuckcars@lemmy.world, or !urbanism@slrpnk.net. (Or, frankly, because it’s a movement with significant overlap to anticapitalism, just all around the threadiverse.)
And it’s completely true, too. I can easily think of half a dozen cases where someone killed someone else with a car and got away scott-free in my country alone (in fact: with just one exception, the ones that come to my mind are all in my city alone). And only one of those cases even went to court as far as I know.
In Italy there’s been a big push against this in the last decade.
There’s now a law called “road murder” (omicidio stradale) which makes the penalties for killing someone while driving, especially if intoxicated, more similar to intentional murder (rather than manslaughter). It’s essentially aggravated manslaughter, when you cause the death of someone while driving recklessly.
That’s brilliant.
Honestly I’d push for a change in law such that a crash between a car and a more vulnerable road user is legally presumed to be the car’s fault unless evidence is provided to the contrary. The big problem we’ve had far too many times where I live, and in many other parts of the world, is that because you can’t prove the driver was riding negligently (or more to the point: because you can’t convince a car-brained jury pool or judge panel to find that they were negligent), far too often they get off scott-free.
Generally speaking, here it’s often presumed that it’s the car’s fault, or at least that’s how I feel it’s perceived.
Still, negligent driving includes DUI, driving while on the phone, driving too fast, driving in the opposite lane, not stopping to a red light or yield, illegal passing of another car and failing to stop after the incident occurred.
Moreover, the law now specifies that DUI is a criminal offense even when no incident occurred and blood level of alcohol is above 0.8 g/l, with possible jail time from 6 months to a year.
It’s become quite strict. Although I’m not sure how much it will actually affect the number of incidents, I’m not always very pro to “just increase the penalties” kind of laws. We need a more comprehensive plan to reduce the likelihood of incidents as much as possible, especially deadly incidents.
Dan Sheehan (of “NOT A WOLF”) wrote a piece about how easy it is to get away with vehicular murder on his blog: https://www.reallyveryhuman.com/p/where-can-a-car-kill-me
I have a cousin who once said that he’s gotten more tickets on a bike in Manhattan than anytime he’s driven through the city. He then followed that with, “in fact, I’m pretty sure that as long as you don’t hit anything that pays or collects taxes, the police will tell you to go away because you’re interrupting the flow of traffic.”
How tf do you get a ticket on a bike? Just hop on the sidewalk and down an alley or two and nobody’s going to catch you.
I ride in the parks after curfew bylaw and we pretend they’ve done their job for a moment where they “chase” me to an alley they can’t drive through and I wait for them to fuck off for 2 minutes.
Sadly this article is paywalled
Go go gadget archive.ph !
(Paste the link there)
Go go gadget archive.ph[1] !
No luck.
Try another, maybe wayback machine has it.
The prosecutor is gonna bust the fattest nut of his life during discovery if he reads the defendant’s credit card statements
In Canada you’d be unlucky to even get jail time at all, it’s fucked. We’re kinda infamous for this.
One I remember was a driver going 120 km/hr in a 60 zone, ran over some girl guides, and kills an 8 year old.
2 years of house arrest.
She lists on her WriteAPrisoner page that her biggest inspiration is Maya Angelou, a black civil rights activist. She also has her bachelor’s in journalism. Not impossible lol.
Unfortunately her earliest release date is midway through 2033, 15 years after incarceration in 2018.
Genuinely true! Killing with cars is a misdemeanor.
This depends on the state and depends wildly on the circumstances. Driving in a reckless manner, e.g. while intoxicated, and killing someone is probably a felony everywhere.
In theory, sure.
Removed by mod
I mean, how long did it take the cops to get there? Because .42 is crazy fucking high. It can absolutely kill you it’s so high. She would have had to have more than 10 drinks in an hour for that. That’s about two thirds of a fifth between the time it was called in and when the cops got there.
I’m not saying it’s not doable. I’m saying if she did that she was trying to die.
People have been caught with those levels before. You need to be an expert tier alcoholic to pull it off, though.
Now I’m wondering if she didn’t just kill the dude and then chug one of those big Kirkland vodka bottles.
She’s going to prison for at least another 15 years before she’s eligible for parole.
But I hear you in the car accident bullshit
I’d buy her a drink!
some people do their best work when drunk
We are in an administration that lives by “the ends justify the means”, so I’ll allow it this once.
Let them eat eachother.
John Brown would be so proud!
I can’t fix her because there’s nothing to fix.
I can’t, but I want more of her.
