Traveler19491

"A new law requires managers of fishing companies to provide labour contracts, and to respect minimum levels of pay and of time off. They are also banned from employing youngsters under 15 years old."

"Late last year, 178 companies in the Thai fisheries sector signed a charter of good practice, under the aegis of the government and the International Labour Organization."

The Thai government can pass all the laws they want, but until they start to aggressively enforce those laws they might as well all get into a big circle, hold hands, and sing "Kum Bayah". It'll have about the same effect. The Thai fishing boats are making very nice profits...profits that are enhanced by free labor. Why give up the labor when there is no incentive? Jail a few skippers and their crews for 20 years for kidnapping, human trafficking, and enslavement, confiscate their boats with no compensation to any company with any ownership interest in said boats, and seize all profits ascribed to such boats from both the boats owners and any companies that bought prawns from those boats, going back five years. Then see how quickly and miraculously the problem resolves itself! Draconian punishments? You're f**king right. But then slavery is rather Draconian.

Every company in the Thai fisheries can sign any paper that comes down the line, but until those documents contain some teeth the Thai government is relying on self-enforcement. And I think you can guess how well that's gonna work.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

He seems to forget he is not a general anymore. Let someone else runs the country if he can't handle a little pressure from the press.

Its unfortunate that you can't comprehend there is privilege that comes with the position of being a leader of a country.

That is one of respect.

Do you think the US President would even allow a reporter like this in? No, part of being granted a Press Pass is to be respectful.

The PM raised his voice. That is how you remind a subordinate that they are stepping out of line.

Obviously you have always been an underling to not grasp even that simple truth.

There are a number of problems with your response to Mango Bob. First, you are correct in that there are numerous privileges that come with being in the position of leader of a country. However, evasiveness is not one of them. A leader's first, and primary, responsibility is to be forthright with his people, and that is accomplished via the press. It is the responsibility of a free press to hold its country's leadership accountable. The only disrespect that was shown in this encounter was the total lack of respect shown by the Prime Minister to the press, and by disrespecting the press he is indirectly disrespecting the people. The purpose of any leader is to represent his or her people. The purpose of a free press is to represent the people to those in power. This is how a balance is maintained, and how leadership is held accountable. The only lack of respect that was shown in this encounter is the lack of respect that the Prime Minister showed to the press in practically demanding that they turn a blind eye, and NOT hold him, or his administration, accountable. He expects the press to permit him to gloss over any problems, and ignore them. Cue the "Happy Happy Joy Joy" music.

Second is your assertion that by raising his voice, "That is how you remind a subordinate that they are stepping out of line". What you most obviously fail to grasp is that the subordinate is NOT the press, but the Prime Minister. Anyone in a position of leadership is superior in title only. A true leader recognizes that they are a servant of the people, and last I looked, a servant is always in an inferior position. The Prime Minister is NOT a monarch. In fact, he is not even an elected representative. He is, for lack of a better term, a self-appointed administrator, and administrators are never superiors.

Finally, you malign Mango Bob by making the self important claim that, "Obviously you have always been an underling to not grasp even that simple truth", which would seem to indicate that you feel yourself to be superior. I would ask...superior to what? Thailand is a constitutional monarchy, meaning that the monarch is a monarch in title only, and that the people are ruled by elected representatives. I have unlimited respect and admiration for His Majesty, the King, and for the boundless good that he has brought the people of Thailand. But the Prime Minister is not the King. As I have already illustrated, representatives are servants of the people, and as such are inferior to those they represent. The single biggest problem facing Thailand, and in fact the rest of the free world, is that the elected representatives have forgotten this basic truth. Elected representatives are there to SERVE the people, not the other way around. You have obviously spent your life feeling somehow superior to everyone around you, when the truth for you is far more bleak. As Jesus said, "...whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant". One of the more entrenched problems that prevent Thailand from becoming a first world country is the attitude that you evidenced in your response; an attitude of entitlement by those who are in positions of authority, or who have been fortunate enough to achieve some measure of success. They, for some unknown reason, seem to feel that their position, or their success makes them somehow better than anyone else. Not so. Position in Thailand is frequently due to patronage, and business success often entails corruption. It is that rare individual, in Thailand or anywhere, who is willing to be humble in their position and/or success who is the true leader. Arrogance and conceit are traits of small minded, little people.

Oh, and by the way, these are pretty much the ONLY types of reporters who get into the White House to confront the President. I know...I'm American, and have watched more White House press conferences than your leaders have ever had.

Good article with exception of the reference to Jesus, however I accept you were trying to make a point but you could have quoted a dozen others to make the same point leaving the religion aspect well out of it.

Thanks to both you and Oziex1 for the flowers. Just so you know, I'm probably one of the least religious people on the planet, and there was zero desire to inject religion. Just quoting an "authority" on humility, of which the target of my post obviously has none.

It will be very interesting to see how this unfolds. As I mentioned on another thread, this is actually a win-win situation for the PM. If there has, in fact, been a cover up (anyone care to place odds on that one?), the PM will have to throw everyone involved under the bus, but that certainly won't be any huge loss. A minor loss of face for the PM, but he will turn around and rant about how he was deceived, and, "...this type of behavior won't be tolerated in Thailand. We are determined to root out corruption and unprofessionalism at every level". He gains credibility with the Thai people, and the international community. So it will be in his best interest to closely follow the situation, and demand that the Brits get full and open access. I just hope he sees it that way, and doesn't blow it. And since sh*t rolls downhill, anyone who hasn't been directly "hands on" in the investigation will all claim the same...that they were deceived by their underlings. As usual, it'll be the peons whose heads roll, and the higher ups will emerge more or less unscathed.

It would seem that, to this point, the general has failed to grasp that as the unelected leader of, what was, a democratic country, there are myriad expectations of him. Upon assuming leadership, the general made numerous promises to the people of Thailand; promises that, so far, are, in the minds of the people, slow in coming. The general promised reforms, including transparency in governance. The reporter was fully entitled to bring to the general's attention the perception that he is being evasive, and failing to provide full and complete disclosure...something that the people, following his promises, are expecting. The general is a life-long career army man, and is unaccustomed to having his word, or, in the role of commander, his performance questioned. My advice...get used to it. The people have extraordinarily high expectations, and, in my opinion, the general's performance to date has been middling. After an initial outburst of surface house cleaning, there does not seem to be a commitment to following through on the difficult tasks that are necessary to seeing Thailand emerge from a decades long rule by corrupt, incompetent "big shots" who are loathe to give up the status quo, and are doing, and will do, whatever they can to maintain the perks they have become accustomed to. Reform was promised...the people are waiting, and waiting for crystal clear transparency from their leaders, elected or otherwise. I strongly believe that the general wants the best for Thailand. I have no doubt that there are those in high positions that are doing their dead-level best to undermine him. He has the highly unenviable task of keeping God only knows how many balls in the air. But this was the job he took on. So now it's time to take on the powerful interests, kick butt when and where necessary, and get the job done.

Saying something is not so does not make it not so.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fco-minister-summons-thai-charge-daffaires-to-foreign-office

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/13/uk-britain-thailand-idUKKCN0I21QY20141013

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/uk-summons-thai-diplomat-over-tourist-murders/2014/10/13/e6dc8902-52f0-11e4-b86d-184ac281388d_story.html

It would seem that the rest of the world disagrees with the PM.

It has been suggested that this case offers a golden opportunity for the Prime Minister to demonstrate his commitment to ridding the country of corruption, and restoring trust in the police. I concur.

It has also been pointed out that since the PM has already offered his support and congratulations to the police for their "excellent" work in concluding this case, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for him to now require that the case be reopened, evidence re-examined, and DNA submitted for independent, outside confirmation of the supposed positive results without appearing incompetent. I disagree.

The fact is that it would be quite easy for the PM to assert that, in the interest of judicial fairness to the accused, to clear up alleged discrepancies, and to assuage the skepticism of critics, he is now ordering a re-investigation. To assure the public of fairness and transparency, he could invite international observers, and require that the DNA tests be reperformed by an independent, outside service. Should it turn out that the "guilty" workers are shown to be innocent, the PM could then claim credit for his (and his government's) determination to see that true justice is done. Granted, it would be an implausible claim, at best, but would provide the PM with a "face saving" means of extricating himself from this morass. It would mean throwing the police chief, investigators, cops on the scene, interrogators, and every other, what would have been determined at that point to be, inept individual associated with this case under the bus, but then if they are, indeed, guilty of malfeasance, then they dug their own graves.

The spotlight is on Thailand, upon the Prime Minister, and upon the Thai judicial system. The PM has an incredible opportunity to clear the decks, if, in fact, the police have bungled this case. He can, and should, get rid of anyone guilty of less than adequate performance. This would, in one move, elevate his credibility substantially, gain the trust and admiration of the Thai public for his, and his administration's, work, and for his promises to bring substantive change to Thailand and the Thai people. It would also permit him the chance to start reforming the police from the bottom up, to reform police practices, and to demonstrate that incompetence will not, under his governance, be tolerated. While it would mean that he would have to suffer some criticism for the initial failures of the police in this case, that would be minimal, as the buck would be passed, he could plausibly claim that he was misled, but also claim that he was quick to remedy the failures.

For him, it's a win-win opportunity. If it should turn out that the accused are, in fact, guilty, he wins, and get's to say, "I told you so!". If it turns out they are not guilty, he wins by demonstrating that his commitment to change is real and meaningful. I just hope he sees the advantage to taking positive action in this case, and not relying on the demonstrated failure of "business as usual".

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Bringing drugs into a country with a death penalty means you have taken the risk of trying not to get caught

Now that u are caught ...why expect mercy ?

There is no room for recreational drugs ...medicinal drugs should be controlled to prevent abuse

As for recreational drugs ...there is a lot of fun out there in the world that does not involve any usage of drugs at all

I agree that if you know that a country has draconian penalties for drug activity, and are stupid enough to engage in that activity anyway, then you garner little sympathy from me if you get caught. However, having said that, the global "War on Drugs" has accomplished zero. It has been about as successful as Prohibition was in the US in the 1920's. It only served to create a black market for alcohol, enrich criminals, and result in untold numbers of violent deaths...and the alcohol still flowed. So it has been with the "War on Drugs". How many trillions of dollars have been spent combating drugs, money that could have gone to infrastructure improvements, education, health care...things that would have benefited society? Instead, all of that money disappeared into a black hole, and we have zero to show for it. Drug activity is higher than ever, the cartels prosperous beyond greed, violence escalating exponentially, and corruption rampant. How many law enforcement personnel have died in the useless fight against illegal drugs? How many innocent people have suffered at the hands of drug dealers? If you legalized all drugs, had the government oversee manufacture and distribution, and taxed the hell out of it (like tobacco and alcohol), you would, overnight, eliminate an entire arm of criminal enterprise, end the violence, and free up police personnel to fight other, more detrimental activities, such as terrorism (both foreign and domestic). The tax revenues would help reduce deficits, shore up educational programs, and enhance healthcare availability. In the US, the state of Colorado legalized marijuana, and has seen several millions of dollars become available for education. Incarceration for possession has plummeted, creating a cost savings in the prison budget. People will acquire the means of satisfying their illicit desires, be it drugs, sex, alcohol, gambling, you name it. Outlawing sin has never worked, and never will. There will always be someone willing to profit from others' desires, and willing to risk the penalties in order to enrich themselves.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Deserve it

Nonsense. The death penalty is always wrong.

Says you.

And me.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Ridiculous. You think you've hit on some new panacea for solving crime and preventing miscarriages of justice. You're just giving killers a card to play that they can count on to keep them out of the death house, and even creating a method for framing someone. And setting up yet more new hoops for investigators to have to jump through. Killers get enough breaks from the judicial system as it is. Again, you're trying to make it about the evidence; it's about the crime.

Go try and argue with somebody who cares. alt=rolleyes.gif>

A very enlightened response. Thanks.

hawker, I'm sorry, but you've got it bass ackwards. Yes, crime solving is about the crime, however, without evidence there is NO crime solving. But, the next, and most crucial, part of the justice system is just that...justice. And justice is NEVER about the crime, but about the evidence. I don't know where you're from, but in the US, our system says that you are innocent until proven guilty (at least that's how it's supposed to work. Not so sure it's working that way now, though), and that the burden of proof resides with the state, and that you must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In our system, you must be found guilty by a unanimous vote of twelve of your peers, and if even one of those twelve harbors what they feel to be a reasonable doubt, you can not be convicted. As I noted in a previous post, the presence of DNA alone is never enough to prove guilt, it only points an incriminating finger. There has to be substantial corroborating evidence. However, the absence of DNA can, and often is, enough to raise "reasonable doubt". No one is trying to give any guilty person a "card to play". The police have, with DNA, a very valuable tool to use to convict the guilty. But as coma pointed out, it is also an invaluable tool to either rule out the innocent, or overturn an erroneous conviction. I'm not quite sure what your objection is, unless you feel that the police should just be able to say, "Yup, you look guilty", and execute you on the spot? Living in a civilized and enlightened society brings with it what are sometimes onerous responsibilities; responsibilities the often require doing the uncomfortable, the difficult, the objectionable, and, occasionally, the thing that is personally offensive. The purpose, however, of those responsibilities is to insure that the same civilized, enlightened society remains that way, and, in fact, improves upon itself.

Give them hope?....Pig's Ding....jail them.

And when they get out? What then?

That's why there should be an arena where only one walks out.

I love it when the knuckle dragging cretins throw in some really "creative" suggestions like this. "Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!" Every single problem that any society faces is the end result of the failures of that society. BUT...you also have to factor in "free will", meaning that each individual makes, and has made, their own choices, and must be held accountable for them. The purpose of punishment is NOT supposed to be revenge, but correction. AND the punishment should always be GREATER than the crime, if it is to act as a deterrent. However, brutality for the sake of brutality, or revenge, never has, and never will work. The only thing that will work is a combination of corrective retribution, coupled with societal changes that will provide attractive alternatives sufficient to motivate the offender (or potential offender) to make different choices. Answering thuggery with thuggery only reveals the true nature of the individual/society.

You met a woman who was working and keeping herself, perhaps in meager circumstances but nevertheless she was independent.

You've encouraged her to become financially dependent upon you.

It will not end well and she will eventually despise you for the financial control you have over her.

I disagree. The OP is not making her dependent upon him, but has been trying to make her situation a bit easier. If the communication between the two of them has been of the nature that the end goal is a permanent relationship, then why would helping her to further that goal be a form of dependency? One caution, and that would be in regard to the 5000 baht gift to the parents. It is my understanding that if this were to become an ongoing thing, and your relationship ultimately went south, the family would still expect the girl to continue the periodic payments, and you don't want to put her into that kind of situation. I would nix anymore payments other than perhaps a small, occasional gift...not of money, but of merchandise.

I would agree, to a point, with those who are saying that a hard line needs to be taken. I also agree with the article's claim that society is to blame...again, to a point. Obviously, these young people are seeking some form of peer acceptance, and there definitely needs to be a constructive outlet for that. However, these young thugs have made a conscious choice to engage in violent behavior, and there most definitely needs to be a firm demonstration that actions have consequences. The solution lies somewhere in the middle; an acceptable form of community identity that will permit those who seek it a way to "belong" that will convey both acceptance and esteem, which will, hopefully, serve as a viable alternative to gang membership. At the same time, those who choose to go the gang route should not be coddled, nor should society shoulder all of the blame. When a person makes a choice, no one is making that choice for them. Yes, there is peer pressure to join a gang, but seldom is anyone holding a gun to their head. They need very clear demonstrations that, you do the crime, you do the time.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Only 27% goes on research the rest are salaries and travel expenses..

False. This figure is from an anonymous blog post that incorrectly quotes the figures published by ALSA.org. Only 21% of funds received go to salaries, administrative costs, and fundraising. The remaining 79% goes to research, patient and community services, and public and professional education. You can see the fact checked article here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/02/blog-posting/bloggers-incorrectly-blast-als-ice-bucket-challeng/

I dont know, but its fishy..

http://www.infowars.com/ice-bucket-challenge-als-foundation-admits-less-than-27-of-donations-fund-research-cures/

Sorry, but I can't give any credence to Alex Jones, Infowars, or any other conspiracy theorizing cretins. In fact, in the Infowars article they show the ALSA pie chart, which clearly shows where all of the money goes. Additionally, the author claims that the salaries of the executives are excessive. However, every watchdog organization that has scrutinized ALSA has indicated that these salaries are in keeping with similarly sized charitable organizations, and not excessive. Infowars is, once again, screaming "FIRE" where there's not even any smoke.

Only 27% goes on research the rest are salaries and travel expenses..

False. This figure is from an anonymous blog post that incorrectly quotes the figures published by ALSA.org. Only 21% of funds received go to salaries, administrative costs, and fundraising. The remaining 79% goes to research, patient and community services, and public and professional education. You can see the fact checked article here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/02/blog-posting/bloggers-incorrectly-blast-als-ice-bucket-challeng/

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Thank god for DNA . Try it in Thailand. Cue mass exodus from the jails.

Seastallion and Boris;

you both argue indirectly on behalf of the death penalty. DNA removes all doubt concerning guilt or innocence, hence the death penalty is justifiable.

That's what I said....sort of. "Justifiable" might be a different argument.

Sorry, but the argument that, "DNA removes all doubt concerning guilt or innocence, hence the death penalty is justifiable" is nonsensical. Here's a scenario for you...my girlfriend and I had sex an hour ago, so my DNA is all over her. We get into a huge argument (which the neighbors hear), and I leave. Fifteen minutes later, her ex-boyfriend shows up, and in a jealous rage, kills her. He explains his DNA to the police by stating that he came over to try to reconcile and found her body. I'm a farang, so who's going to get the benefit of the doubt? Or even if this were in a Western country, who are the police going to be more suspicious of? DNA removes all doubt? Not hardly. At best, it's presence points a finger. But it's absence can raise a reasonable doubt.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What will be next? The "pneumatic-drill-challenge", churning up a sqm of concrete sidewalk to raise awareness of Parkinson´s disease, a "tap-dance-challenge", doing an Astaire on a busy intersection to raise awareness of the Restless-Leg-Syndrome?

Why not raise awareness that the US still lacks a decent affordable national healthcare system and people have to depend on donations through dumb publicity stunts

As a US citizen, I would be the first to acknowledge the gross failures of the US healthcare system. The US has probably the world's best healthcare technology, and, at the same time, the world's worst healthcare delivery system. We are the only industrialized nation in the world without universal healthcare.

That said, I find it interesting that you would feel the need to put your ignorance on such prominent display. The ice bucket challenge is not about raising funds for individual healthcare, but for continued research into a cure for ALS. If you had been personally affected by ALS, as I have (my sister's husband, and good friend of mine, has ALS), you might not be so quick with your "wit". If you had taken the time to think (no doubt an alien concept for you) before posting, you would have perhaps remembered that every single dread disease in existence, from cancer, to AIDS, has a foundation that seeks to raise awareness, and funding for research, through private donations. The ALS Association is raising funds for ALS research (alsa.org). Individuals from Robert Downey, to George W. Bush and Bill Gates have thought it significant enough to have cold water dumped on them in support. But then they, unlike you, are thinkers. Try it sometime (thinking, that is)...you might like it.

Dear Traveller,

thanks for making my point, albeit unintentionally. Today´s medical research depends on funding through long term commitment and reliability. The US have been wasting trillions of dollars in wars across the globe, from Afghanistan to Iraq, from Yemen and Libya to Syria - and now back to Iraq, and the funding of medical research for ALS depends on some dude pouring a bucket of cold water over his head and posting it on the internet. How long will be the shelf life of this stunt before some other "idea" pushes it off the radar and the social media? And where does the money come from after that? The internet is full of long forgotten "raise-awareness-campaigns" which only became necessary because funding of medical research in the US is woefully inadequate. If ALS was an "Autonomous Laser-guided Smart bomb" the funding would be no problem.

If you really think that this is the way to promote medical research then our opinions what considers "thinking" are slightly different.

Well, Hi there again, Mike. I would be quick to state that you and I agree on one thing, and that would be the profound lack of appropriateness in the priorities of the US budget. I also agree with your assertion that the US has squandered unimaginable amounts of money in manufactured wars around the world. However, I would point out that not all American citizens agree with the policies and priorities of our government. But that is a weak point of a democratic republic...we can only elect our representatives. We have little control over what the idiots do once in office, other than to send them home at the next election. I would also agree that our government should take a much larger role in the funding of medical research into dread diseases. However, even if 100% of the US budget were dedicated to medical research (which, I think you would agree, would be a ridiculous postulate), it would still be inadequate to the need. Hence the need for private funding. The problem of funding is compounded by a shortfall in the public's awareness of many of these diseases. Tell me, are you familiar with myesthenia gravis, a disease which affects the victim's ability to swallow? Did you know that there is a foundation that raises money for research and public awareness about this disease? There are so many diseases, and so little funding, that something has to be done. No, dumping ice water on one's head isn't going to provide a cure. But what it does is to raise public awareness, and help researchers further their work. In a world that is profoundly overrun by inane "reality" shows, morbid news from every corner, a global population that seems hell bent on becoming more and more stupid with every passing day, and determined to destroy themselves through their own ignorance, it is, to me at least, refreshing that a few people are willing to engage in a silly activity that has the potential to bring a cure for a disease that affects tens of thousands just a little bit closer. And it saddens me that someone like yourself feels it necessary to excoriate those who choose to help others by this means.

What will be next? The "pneumatic-drill-challenge", churning up a sqm of concrete sidewalk to raise awareness of Parkinson´s disease, a "tap-dance-challenge", doing an Astaire on a busy intersection to raise awareness of the Restless-Leg-Syndrome?

Why not raise awareness that the US still lacks a decent affordable national healthcare system and people have to depend on donations through dumb publicity stunt

As a US citizen, I would be the first to acknowledge the gross failures of the US healthcare system. The US has probably the world's best healthcare technology, and, at the same time, the world's worst healthcare delivery system. We are the only industrialized nation in the world without universal healthcare.

That said, I find it interesting that you would feel the need to put your ignorance on such prominent display. The ice bucket challenge is not about raising funds for individual healthcare, but for continued research into a cure for ALS. If you had been personally affected by ALS, as I have (my sister's husband, and good friend of mine, has ALS), you might not be so quick with your "wit". If you had taken the time to think (no doubt an alien concept for you) before posting, you would have perhaps remembered that every single dread disease in existence, from cancer, to AIDS, has a foundation that seeks to raise awareness, and funding for research, through private donations. The ALS Association is raising funds for ALS research (alsa.org). Individuals from Robert Downey, to George W. Bush and Bill Gates have thought it significant enough to have cold water dumped on them in support. But then they, unlike you, are thinkers. Try it sometime (thinking, that is)...you might like it.

Obviously, no one read the headline........"OPINION".  Chill, people.

 

 

How much sympathy would there be for this woman if in her drunk, drug-befuddled state she had run her car into a group of people, rather than a tree, killing them?

 

She was a thoroughly irresponsible menace to society, and society is better off without her.

 

Whilst I don't particularly approve of killing drunk people banging aggressively on one's front door in the middle of the night, in this case this man has rid society of a menace.

 

 

Given the fact that you know absolutely zero about this young woman, what her plans were for her life, what positive contributions she may have made in the past, what she meant to her family, I find it interesting that you can so easily condemn and dismiss her.  Obviously, from the tenor of your post, you have never once in your life done anything irresponsible, never made a poor judgment call, never done the first thing that had a negative impact on someone else, and not once, especially in your youth, made a really poor decision.  I'm assuming that, in your opinion, anyone who gets behind the wheel after one or two too many (which I'm sure you have NEVER, EVER done) is menace to society, and society would be better off without them.  Granted, what she did endangered the lives of others, but no more so than happens every Saturday night, in every city, town, and village in every Western country on the planet.  The fact is that she didn't injure others.  Had she done so, then she would have faced the consequences.  And no one deserves to die for their bad judgment.  Even the law distinguishes between poor judgment (man slaughter), and premeditation (murder), and punishes accordingly.  You, on the other hand, must have a God complex.  And I'm quite happy for you that she wasn't your daughter.  Come to think of it, I'm happy for HER that she wasn't your daughter.

 

 

I do know more than "absolutely zero about this young woman":  I know that she chose to drive whilst drunk and under the influence of drugs.  And yes, I have "NEVER, EVER" driven drunk.

 

A close relative of mine, a 17 year old girl, expected to go to university, was run over by a drunk truck driver whilst coming home on her motorcycle.  She died.  The truck driver was stopped a few miles further on.  He was so drunk he couldn't even stand up and didn't even know he'd run over her and her bike.  It's fair to say that I'm not a fan of drunk drivers/murderers.

 

As for "The fact is that she didn't injure others", that was purely a matter of chance.  Had she then "have faced the consequences", those consequences would be far less than the consequences for my niece whose whole, promising life before her was wiped out.

 

And as for "no one deserves to die for their bad judgment", no one deserves to die because some stupid, inconsiderate, antisocial scumbag decides to pour alcohol down their throats, become intoxicated and then drive home.

 

Whilst personally I'd like the law to be so draconian that nobody would ever even contemplate driving drunk, until that day I won't shed a tear for drunk drivers who die as a result of their own actions, be it from crashing headlong into a wall or getting shot for terrorising people in the middle of the night by aggressively banging on their door.

 

No, the fact is that you know zip about this young woman, other than that she made a stupid decision that, admittedly, endangered others.  While I sympathize deeply with you over the loss of your niece, your rant does nothing to help her, nor does it do anything to mitigate your own pain.  Wishing pain on others is nothing more than a sad attempt to spread your own sorrow.  The fact is that we are each human, and subject to making terrible mistakes, and all too often those mistakes lead to tragedies that have a horrendous impact on others, as is obviously the case with you and your niece having to suffer because of some idiot truck driver's selfish irresponsibility.  But stop for one moment and think...would you be willing to look this young woman's mother in the eye and tell her that society is better off without her?  Are you so callous that you would seek to intensify the pain of another, just to vent your own anger?  How, exactly, does that help you, your niece, or anyone, for that matter?  It would be far better, and far more cathartic, if you were to direct that anger toward something productive...perhaps lobbying for increased sentences for drunk driving?

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

Good. This guy deserves a life sentence.



I know of nowhere in the US that it is legal to shoot someone from inside your home to the outside, unless that person is pointing a gun at you. The BBC manages to find some people who "call into question" having guns for self defense. This isn't self defense. It's murder even in the US.

The guy is innocent....he committed no crime.  

And your dazzling legal mind bases that statement on what?

How much sympathy would there be for this woman if in her drunk, drug-befuddled state she had run her car into a group of people, rather than a tree, killing them?

 

She was a thoroughly irresponsible menace to society, and society is better off without her.

 

Whilst I don't particularly approve of killing drunk people banging aggressively on one's front door in the middle of the night, in this case this man has rid society of a menace.

Given the fact that you know absolutely zero about this young woman, what her plans were for her life, what positive contributions she may have made in the past, what she meant to her family, I find it interesting that you can so easily condemn and dismiss her.  Obviously, from the tenor of your post, you have never once in your life done anything irresponsible, never made a poor judgment call, never done the first thing that had a negative impact on someone else, and not once, especially in your youth, made a really poor decision.  I'm assuming that, in your opinion, anyone who gets behind the wheel after one or two too many (which I'm sure you have NEVER, EVER done) is menace to society, and society would be better off without them.  Granted, what she did endangered the lives of others, but no more so than happens every Saturday night, in every city, town, and village in every Western country on the planet.  The fact is that she didn't injure others.  Had she done so, then she would have faced the consequences.  And no one deserves to die for their bad judgment.  Even the law distinguishes between poor judgment (man slaughter), and premeditation (murder), and punishes accordingly.  You, on the other hand, must have a God complex. Your ability to determine a person's worth based solely on the merest fragments of information, and then extrapolate that into a decision on who should live and who should die is truly stunning.  I'm just quite happy for you that she wasn't your daughter.  Come to think of it, I'm happy for HER that she wasn't your daughter.