NYC Mayor de Blasio blasted over drunk-driving comment

[FONT=&quot]New York City’s Mayor Bill de Blasio said in an interview Monday that he would categorize drunk driving “that doesn’t lead to any other negative outcome” a minor offense.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]DeBlasio was asked on CNN about New York’s stance as a sanctuary city and its refusal to turn over illegal immigrants who commit minor offenses.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He said that he did not want to “see families torn apart” over something very minor. He was asked if he considered grand larceny and drunk driving a “very minor offense.”[/FONT]

Click to expand...

NYC Mayor de Blasio blasted over drunk-driving comment | Fox News

So let's see, illegally entering the country, can't enforce that... it tears apart families.
Drunk Driving? Can't enforce that, it tears apart families.

Seeing a trend here, enforcing laws and holding people accountable... seems to be a problem for progressive lawmakers.

that was a very stupid comment for de blazio to make

shame on him

Renae said:

NYC Mayor de Blasio blasted over drunk-driving comment | Fox News

So let's see, illegally entering the country, can't enforce that... it tears apart families.
Drunk Driving? Can't enforce that, it tears apart families.

Seeing a trend here, enforcing laws and holding people accountable... seems to be a problem for progressive lawmakers.

Click to expand...

Liberals don't care if Americans are killed in drunk driving accidents as long as it's done by an illegal immigrant. Rahm Emmanuel stood on a podium and promised to protect illegal immigrants as much as he could from being charged with felonies.

reinoe said:

Liberals don't care if Americans are killed in drunk driving accidents as long as it's done by an illegal immigrant. Rahm Emmanuel stood on a podium and promised to protect illegal immigrants as much as he could from being charged with felonies.

Click to expand...

and you lean "very liberal", so I'm gong to have to conclude that you don't think drunk driving as a big deal. I'm not sure what difference it is whether the drunk is an illegal alien or not, other than the illegal has committed two crimes and can be summarily booted out of the country where his own government will have to deal with his drinking and driving.

Drunk driving is a serious offense. The drunk behind the wheel is just as dangerous as a mugger, and should be treated as such. Consider this:

Drunk #1 weaves his way home without incident, parks in his driveway, and stumbles to bed. No consequences.
Drunk #2 gets caught, pays a big fine, maybe has to go to rehab, or maybe just pays the fine and keeps on doing what he does.
Drunk #3 runs over a pedestrian and winds up in jail for vehiclular homicide. He's incarcerated for months, maybe years, loses his job, his home, his family, and is branded a felon for the rest of his life.

All three are guilty of the same thing.

Not much can be done about #1 other than step up enforcement. #2 and #3 should be treated the same, as they're guilty of the same thing. The outcome is largely a matter of luck.

I agree.

I do not think people should be thrown in jail for being drunk while driving when no one gets hurt or is in any great danger of being hurt (other than the driver) - unless the person has done it repeatedly.

I do not generally believe in people being charged with laws where no one gets hurt when no intent to hurt was evident.

If a guy is caught driving drunk, alone, at 4 in the morning, in the country and not driving recklessly and he was just over the legal limit - than he should be charged with a minor offense and warned that if he continues to drive drunk (and caught) that the penalties will rise fairly steeply, fairly quickly. What he was doing was NOT dangerous to others.

Now, if the guy is driving drunk (WAY over the legal limit), like an idiot with cars/pedestrians around and just happened to be caught before he hit something/someone - that is different. He should be charged with a more serious crime. What he was doing was clearly dangerous to others.


And drunk driving haters/MADD'ers save your arguments, I am not getting into it with you. Some of you are the most extremist people I have ever heard. It's almost like you think drunk driving is a capital offense (which is of course lunacy).

DA60 said:

I agree.

I do not think people should be thrown in jail for being drunk while driving when no one gets hurt or is in any great danger of being hurt (other than the driver) - unless the person has done it repeatedly.

I do not generally believe in people being charged with laws where no one gets hurt when no intent to hurt was evident.

If a guy is caught driving drunk, alone, at 4 in the morning, in the country and not driving recklessly and he was just over the legal limit - than he should be charged with a minor offense and warned that if he continues to drive drunk (and caught) that the penalties will rise fairly steeply, fairly quickly. What he was doing was NOT dangerous to others.

Now, if the guy is driving drunk (WAY over the legal limit), like an idiot with cars/pedestrians around and just happened to be caught before he hit something/someone - that is different. He should be charged with a more serious crime. What he was doing was clearly dangerous to others.


And drunk driving haters/MADD'ers save your arguments, I am not getting into it with you. Some of you are the most extremist people I have ever heard. It's almost like you think drunk driving is a capital offense (which is of course lunacy).

Click to expand...

If you drive at all buzzed, you deserve jail. Driving requires full attention. People die because others are stupid.

DA60 said:

I agree.

I do not think people should be thrown in jail for being drunk while driving when no one gets hurt or is in any great danger of being hurt (other than the driver) - unless the person has done it repeatedly.

I do not generally believe in people being charged with laws where no one gets hurt when no intent to hurt was evident.

If a guy is caught driving drunk, alone, at 4 in the morning, in the country and not driving recklessly and he was just over the legal limit - than he should be charged with a minor offense and warned that if he continues to drive drunk (and caught) that the penalties will rise fairly steeply, fairly quickly. What he was doing was NOT dangerous to others.

Now, if the guy is driving drunk (WAY over the legal limit), like an idiot with cars/pedestrians around and just happened to be caught before he hit something/someone - that is different. He should be charged with a more serious crime. What he was doing was clearly dangerous to others.


And drunk driving haters/MADD'ers save your arguments, I am not getting into it with you. Some of you are the most extremist people I have ever heard. It's almost like you think drunk driving is a capital offense (which is of course lunacy).

Click to expand...

4am, drunk, driving under the speed limit in the country does not mean that he is not risking the lives of others.

Let's try it this way: The same scenario could happen, but in this instance, a family of four woke up to leave for Disney World, a 15 hour car trip, and jumped in the car to head out at 3am. They meet the drunk driver who didn't stop in time at a stop sign... because he was drunk. The entire family dies.

Do you suggest that, because such an encounter was improbable, that he was being safe and just missed the stop sign because he was drunk, that he should have a minor offense? No - you claim that because someone got hurt, he should be charged severely.

However, if that family's trip weren't until the following night and no one got hurt, since there wasn't a "great danger" (read: high probability) that someone would get hurt, it's a minor offense?

You suggest the punishment should be relative to the odds of hurting another person, so long as they don't actually hurt someone? But not relative to those odds if the driver hit's the wrong side of chance and destroys somebody's life. That certainly doesn't seem discouraging of D&D, especially if they could get a great lawyer. Gray area everywhere...

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to come down on the side of drunk driving here. As a reminder, when a soft bag of flesh meets a 2-ton vehicle made of metal traveling at 70+mph, the soft bag of flesh will not fare well. I want whoever's in charge of that 70+mph vehicle to also be in charge of their faculties.

I have always had issues with DUI laws


First the arbitrary .08. So of you have BAL of.079999 you are great to drive safy on the roads but at .08 you suddenly an impared uncoordinated death machine. I would prefer to see something besides the one size fits all standard crap we try to force on everyone.
Second the draconian way that if someone tries to be responsible and sleep some off and sober up sitting in their car they could face the charges as someone driving around swerving all over the road
Third we treat other distracted forms of driving with a slap on the wrist. If the purpose is safety on the roads then let's get serious about all forms of dangerous driving not just politically beneficial forms


Not defending Drunk Drivers but also realise the way we are trying to address the problem is not working and needs reforms.

Mac77 said:

that was a very stupid comment for de blazio to make

shame on him

Click to expand...

De Blasio has a serious case of the stupids anyway, so it's no surprise.

DA60 said:

I agree.

I do not think people should be thrown in jail for being drunk while driving when no one gets hurt or is in any great danger of being hurt (other than the driver) - unless the person has done it repeatedly.

I do not generally believe in people being charged with laws where no one gets hurt when no intent to hurt was evident.

If a guy is caught driving drunk, alone, at 4 in the morning, in the country and not driving recklessly and he was just over the legal limit - than he should be charged with a minor offense and warned that if he continues to drive drunk (and caught) that the penalties will rise fairly steeply, fairly quickly. What he was doing was NOT dangerous to others.

Now, if the guy is driving drunk (WAY over the legal limit), like an idiot with cars/pedestrians around and just happened to be caught before he hit something/someone - that is different. He should be charged with a more serious crime. What he was doing was clearly dangerous to others.


And drunk driving haters/MADD'ers save your arguments, I am not getting into it with you. Some of you are the most extremist people I have ever heard. It's almost like you think drunk driving is a capital offense (which is of course lunacy).

Click to expand...

I'm glad you feel that way because I like to shoot my guns off in the back yard, but I don't intend to hurt anybody and I never have to my knowledge. I don't see why the police and my neighbors take such offense to it.

As a driver, I want the drunks off of the road.
As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay fifty or sixty grand a year keeping a drunk in jail.
So, suspend the license the first time.
If they're driving without a license, impound the car.
After two or three cars are in the impound, then throw them in jail, and sell the cars to help pay the costs.

That should reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road, don't you think?

The problem with the whole D.U.I. thing is that it has become a game for the cops. I've got a neighbor who used to be a patrol cop, and he said that he and his fellow officers used to bet on who could write the most D.U.I. tickets in a night. The legal limit is .08 in most states. For me, that is about two beers in an hour. I assure you, I am more than capable of driving myself home after two beers. However, if I happen to be unlucky enough to be the target of some a-hole cop's bet, my professional life is all but finished. I am not saying that drunk driving isn't an issue; it is. I am just saying that one incident of questionable judgement in which nobody was harmed should not destroy a person's life.