GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Osiris
I would think if he gets off with a "slap on the wrist" penalty due to family influences, it will create an even bigger rift ....

Definately, the likeliness of that in my opinion is doubtful due to the sheer political problems it would cause...of course you never really know how the fat cats will react.

Hey, no worries (tm@Beldin)...

Originally posted by Littiz
Thanx for the PM, Mah.
Indeed, if things went that way, he's a bastard to the bone!

I was only cautious, 'cause things often are augmented (maybe he didn't use those
exact words for instance), and because it's easy to judge, but we have to realize
that such things may happen to anybody (I mean, doing something stupid that ends
in tragedy..)

...as I said earlier, I do understand where you're coming from given the info that was initially handed out to you.

@Sleepy: Yes, I do hope that I won't be hearing "money talks." I really think that even if Ong can get back to school, he won't and he would rather find some other uni. The community is seething with anger because of his arrogance.

For his sake and [Edwin voice] his continued breathing[/Edwin voice] it would be best not to show up in U.P. at least for a couple of years. Some people there are raring to get a hold of him. It is not anymore about Precious, I'm afraid. But it's more now on what he stands for.

Re: Words of wisdom, pare...

Originally posted by Maharlika
...point duly taken, Askal.

Forgiveness is good, no, it's a GREAT thing to do...

...but what if it wasn't asked for? How could there be due closure when you lost your loved one and they insult you by offering 0.5 million pesos just to "forget everything"? ...oh sure, they're poor folks... they probably wouldn't get that amount of money in at least half of their lifetime...

Then again, you're right. Nothing will bring back Precious. Yup, let the law and justice take their due course...

...hopefully Ong's lawyer mother and judge father don't mess things up behind the court.

While admittedly, I've never had to forgive something that bad, I'd like to think that I could forgive someone even if they never asked for my forgiveness and if it makes the arrogant mofo who tries to throw money in my face look like a fool, then that's just a bonus. Nothing gets to a rich mofo like someone who can't be bought. I know I just crossed the line between genuine forgiveness and twisted mind games...again, I've never been in that position so I don't know what I'd feel in those circumstances.

As for Ong's parents...I think there's enough media attention on this to cancel out whatever juice Ong's 'rents can bring to bear. It makes me wonder though if Ong's attitude isnt just the product of equally messed up parents. I mean, I know enough parents from around here who tell their kids from the cradle onwards that money and influence can get them out of any mess to think the parents are responsible for the attitude if not exactly the accident itself.

On a similarly twisted note, I once had a teacher at the Ateneo College of Law (a shining tower of power and influence) who advised us that if we were ever to run somebody down, we should make sure we killed him because Philippine law prescribes certain limits on what is paid as restitution but does not impose such limitations on what can be paid out if the person survives and has to be hospitalized or supported through the course of rehabilitation, etc...

That was around the time I decided to drop from Law school.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
I absolutely agree, the law is the law, I was referring to the publics reaction rather than what will happen with the law, once you colour the story too much in the press the whole system breaks down. How can you have an unbiased jury if they have heard about the crime for hours on end on the news?

In our judicial system, we don't make use of a jury. Everything is decided by the judge.

@Askal: Yeah, pare. Tell me about it. Pathetic isn't it?

Twisted Teacher. I heard about that too. That's what the bus drivers there I heard were instructed to do.

Of course the law professor forgot to mention that paying restitution is just the civil aspect of the law and that deliberately killing someone to avoid paying more money is a criminal act and the difference between manslaughter and homicide; years in jail and life imprisonment. Somebody should tell the bus drivers...pronto...heheh

Originally posted by Maharlika
In our judicial system, we don't make use of a jury. Everything is decided by the judge.

Excuse my ignorance, even more likely that there would be bribery involved, however they would be very silly to do something like that, I think any verdict bar guilty will be viewed with a great deal of cynicism.

The rich have always been able to get away with more than those who aren't. The two best examples I can think of are OJ Simpson and Ted Kennedy. In most western-style legal systems, the side with the best lawyers will most often win, regardless of what they "deserve". The best lawyers charge the most money, because they can get it. Consequently, only the rich can afford top-notch legal counsel.

Back to the original topic, it is my opinion that drunk driving is one of the most preventable crimes out there and it also amounts to premeditated murder. Unlike a crime of passion or an accidental death (ie-driving too fast and hydroplaning into another car), someone decides to drink and then get behind the wheel of their car, turning it into a two ton weapon. Unfortunately, our society does not do a good job of discouraging DUI and we don't punish it harsh enough.

Hey, Sleepy...

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Excuse my ignorance, even more likely that there would be bribery involved, however they would be very silly to do something like that, I think any verdict bar guilty will be viewed with a great deal of cynicism.

...I think "ignorance" is such a strong word. How are you supposed to know about our judicial system?

HLD's point on pre-meditated murder is a good one.

As for the rich geting away with murder (excuse the pun), what else is new? *sigh!* I have accepted that fact for a long time...

In the Philippines, there is homicide and murder. I think that in the US it's first degree and second degree murder?

Askal can correct me on this: homicide is having killed someone without meaning to while murder is deliberately killing someone.

We also have a crime called manslaughter, which is essentially negligent homicide.

First degree murder is premeditated murder. A planned assassination or the systematic stalking an killing of someone qualifies as first degree murder.

Second degree murder is the deliberate killing of someone that is not premeditated. The woman who ran over her husband with her Mercedes after she caught him with his mistress is second degree murder. Most often these are "crimes of passion" or other crimes (such as a robbery) gone wrong.

Manslaughter is killing someone without malicious intent, but for which the accused can be held criminally liable. Setting off fireworks in a building without approval from the fire marshall without a permit and burning the place to the ground is manslaughter. So is speeding, losing control and running your car into someone else. Another example of manslaughter is playing with a firearm, having it accidentally discharge and killing someone.

The basic difference is malicious intent. Murder implies that the perpetrator willfully caused someone's death, manslaughter means that while there was no malice in the action, the perpetrator was culpable in someone else's death.

Re: Hey, Sleepy...

Originally posted by Maharlika
...I think "ignorance" is such a strong word. How are you supposed to know about our judicial system?

It was the best word I could come up with at the time, perhaps it should have been something like "excuse my misinformation". I could have asked rather than presuming

I know this is going to sound callous but in some ways their fortunate they can prosecute him at all, there are cases in the UK of members of the MOD or military killing (either intentionally or not) citizens and getting away with it because of the weird system we have in this country regarding the MOD and law. So although things are bad, there still might be justice for the family.

Originally posted by Maharlika


As for the rich geting away with murder (excuse the pun), what else is new? *sigh!* I have accepted that fact for a long time...

Yeah, its really sad. Im sure it happens. Corruption is everywhere. But if it does happen ALL the time, Im in a bit of denial about that.

@HLD Yes. And the examples of current day events are well done.

Well I have a couple stories dealing with Drunk Driving...Ill start with the local incident...

Well I live close to a long and winding road. My dad teaches 8th grade English (about 14 year old students). 2 of his students were riding with a 16 year old, who had quite a night. And of course on the road when it gets the windiest, they hit a milestone (not the figurative things...a milestone that tells the directions of where the road goes, it juts out of the road where there is a fork). And this car was going around 50-60 mph right into solid stone. They were all killed...all very very young. My dad still feels very sorry for the students lost on that curve.

Now for the more known incident and less local...

In 1990, NASCAR driver Rob Moroso was running for rookie of the year and showed a TON of promise. And I mean a TON. He was the Busch series champion from 1989 (second highest devision in NASCAR, like CART and F-3000 are to F-1). He had run 22 or so of the 31 races. And he was well ahead of the nearest rookie in the standings. But one night, he got a bit drunk, and his car was found totalled from a collision with a telephone poll. He died that night. He was estimated at going 70-80 mph that night. While he only ran 2/3 of the season, and all the other rookies ran the entire series that year, he was so far ahead of them, he still won rookie of the year. One could only wonder where Rob Moroso would be in the series had he not gone for that ride that night.

Also on the local route, there seems to be a death ever other week, at least, and more then 3/4 of them are due to drunk driving.

sorry, my bad....i said homicide when I meant murder.

HLD said it all already. But to recap...murder has the element of malice; manslaughter refers to killing someone without specifying if malice was present; justifiable homicide is manslaughter with a well....justifiable reason for it...like self-defense.

The truly sad thing is that justice simply can't be done. There is no way to compensate for the loss of a life, particularly one that appeared so full of hope and talent. No way at all.

@fable...not only that, but there's no way to really stop drunk driving. People will always want to drive as soon as they want. People will always want to party. And people will always drink. Is it because they aren't educated enough on it? I don't know. All I know is that its becoming an unfortunate part of life that is more constant by the years.

Now I have a confession....

I drive drunk fairly often. I mean, if anybody did a breathalizer on me at 5 pm on any day of the week, I'm sure I'd qualify as drunk...people riding with me say my driving is a lot smoother when I've had a few drinks in me. I can hold my liquor and I know when to quit. Around here, designated driver doesn't mean cold sober...just "least buzzed."

Now the herbal stuff...some of my students claim the herbal stuff doesn't affect their driving. I haven't found that to be true in my case so I do not indulge if I have to drive.

Ultimately, it's about responsibility and knowing your limits. Unfortunately, its usually the newbie drinkers who drink to get drunk and make bad judgements who end up trashing their cars and hurting people.

Originally posted by Askal
Now I have a confession....

I drive drunk fairly often. I mean, if anybody did a breathalizer on me at 5 pm on any day of the week, I'm sure I'd qualify as drunk...people riding with me say my driving is a lot smoother when I've had a few drinks in me. I can hold my liquor and I know when to quit.

Don't kid yourself. Ever did a reaction test while being drunk? After three or four drinks, your reaction goes down with 20-30%. (I'll try to find an english link somewhere later) And you don't want to drive smooth. You want to drive safe. IMHO people that are drunk and driving should be charged with at least attempted murder (if their promilage is high enough). In my country you still get off with manslaughter, and even less when it's a first offense. It's ridiculous. Somebody who is drunk and driving conciously takes the chance of killing or mutilating somebody. If you have the cash to spare, by some old junk car, and drive 30 km(18mph) into a brick wall. It's still a bit faster then when you are sprinting, full out, into a wall. There is no excuse to drinking and driving. Really.

@Audace

Without meaning to sound argumentative...the traffic here is so congested that from school to house, I seldom ever need to go to 3rd gear because the next bottleneck is less than a kilometer away.

I can honestly say without kidding myself that I drive safely, with or without alcohol, compared to most completely sober cab drivers going around Metro Manila. I trust my own driving better than some cab driver who runs red lights, don't signal when changing lanes, and thinks speed limits are optional.

I have a very active sense of self preservation and concern for the welfare of others. If I thought I was a menace on the road, I would not be driving, buzzed or sober. There are times when I pull over and wait to calm down when I feel the onset of road rage. How many sober drivers out there do that?

Is a 20-30% decrease in reaction time an average or median? If so, why is it such a large range? From a sample of how many? Was there even 1 person in that study who showed only a 1% reduction in reaction time after the same amount of alcohol? Isn't it possible that there are some people (and I'm not even suggesting that I am one of them) who aren't affected by alcohol the same way as others are? I don't doubt your statistics but first, I would like to take a look at the study itself and not just the stats.

Alcohol tolerance differs from person to person. Also, the less experience you have drinking, the greater the chance that alcohol impairs your judgement on whether you are capable of driving safely or not (assuming of course, you are not an alcoholic). I was suggesting that the driver of the beamer was probably not used to drinking and may even be fairly new to driving like many kids who start out at University.

I don't condone or excuse what Ong did. But I can't help but wonder if perhaps there's a knee jerk reaction whenever we hear about an accident involving DUI. I say the guy was irresponsible, not because he drank but because he drank too much and didn't have enough experience to judge whether he should be driving or not under those conditions.

I know I have an unpopular take on the issue but this is what I believe nonetheless.

Mah go out and rent the movie "Boondock Saints"

You will enjoy it.

Originally posted by Askal
Now I have a confession....

I drive drunk fairly often. I mean, if anybody did a breathalizer on me at 5 pm on any day of the week, I'm sure I'd qualify as drunk...people riding with me say my driving is a lot smoother when I've had a few drinks in me. I can hold my liquor and I know when to quit. Around here, designated driver doesn't mean cold sober...just "least buzzed."

Now the herbal stuff...some of my students claim the herbal stuff doesn't affect their driving. I haven't found that to be true in my case so I do not indulge if I have to drive.

Ultimately, it's about responsibility and knowing your limits. Unfortunately, its usually the newbie drinkers who drink to get drunk and make bad judgements who end up trashing their cars and hurting people.

Askal,
We have never met IRL, so I am not in a position to comment on the accuracy of your personal behavior. I do however have a long history as a club goer, a fellow partier, and a nurse. I can tell you in my experience, I have come across hundreds if not thousands of heavy drinkers. Their ages and experience levels range from novice teen, to well settled senior citizens. Across all economic levels from blue collar worker, to esteemed surgeon. In every instance where I encountered someone who claimed they could maintain as well or better than when they were sober, objective observation showed them to be mistaken. Their subjective impressions of their own behavior, often reinforced by the opinions of simmarly impaired peers, was invariably skewed. When observed in states of inebriation, by sober associates, their impairment was with out fail, a noticable deficit in their usual behavior.

As I said, this may not apply to you personally, but if I have serious reservations about the accuracy of your statements.

I sincerly hope no offence is taken, because none is intended. I only raise my comments because of the young people of the board who might be given a false sense security from the risks inherant in drinking and driving.