So, everyone is disappointed in Alan now, eh?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, February 14, 2011 18:42
VIEWED: 20575
PAGE 2 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

WISHIMAY

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:22 AM

Something tells me that IF-repeat if- he was drunk or buzzed, and let's say hypothetically had taken out a carload of kiddies, I'd hope you wouldn't rush to defend sucha person...on any planet. We're all entitled to a bad day, we are not entitled to inflict our bad day on others and get away with it, hopefully in any society. Cops or not, government or not...

For what it's worth, I hope he wasn't buzzed. And I'm glad everyone got home safe. I used to work at a gas station next to a bar, and have seen several people die and kill others and I say ON THIS ISSUE it's better to play it safe, especially since he "performed badly on the field sobriety test" he probably should NOT have been driving anyhow...no matter the reason!

STORYMARK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:30 AM

Wow, Chris. Just can't let this one go, can ya?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
Something tells me that IF-repeat if- he was drunk or buzzed, and let's say hypothetically had taken out a carload of kiddies, I'd hope you wouldn't rush to defend sucha person...on any planet.

In that case, it'd be lock-him-away time, IMO.

Quote:
We're all entitled to a bad day, we are not entitled to inflict our bad day on others and get away with it, hopefully in any society. Cops or not, government or not...

Of course. I'm just sayin' that he might have been relatively okay to drive (better than your average really old dude with a valid license)& that our society needs to look to the real a**holes to blame, & not the occasional low-level offenders.
Ever wonder why our jails are FILLED with non-violent perps?
'Cause it makes money for the "Rehabilitation" Industrial Complex.
And now Alan can pay $$$ into the system like the rest of them.

Quote:

For what it's worth, I hope he wasn't buzzed.

I hope he WAS!!! Much better than being full-on effed-up!

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:58 AM

Sorry.

The laughing Chrisisall

RIONAEIRE

Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:34 AM

I think almost everyone here is in agreement, driving under the influence is a bad idea and can be quite dangerous. The blood alcohol level chosen may seem arbitrary, but they had to pick a concrete amount, so it would be a quantifiable thing. If they went by how drunk someone seemed or didn't seem then it would be subjective to individual opinion, which can very widely. So they pick a blood alcohol number and follow that standard when measuring.

Did Alan really do it? I don't know. Will it drastically alter my opinion of him? Probably not, I don't really consider celebrities to be better than the average person, sure they and their movie making comrades produce entertainment that I love, but they are merely human too and they screw up just like anyone else. Its not a cool thing to do but if he gets in trouble then he should pay the fine or whatever any "normal" person would have to do.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, February 10, 2011 1:10 PM

Disappointed in Alan? No way. If I let scandals, politics, or bad behavior influence my entertainment choices, there wouldn't be much for me to ever see or hear. I do cut actors and actresses some extra slack, especially those that I'm very fond of like Alan.

ZEEK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:58 PM

Pretty sure that pain medication and things that say "don't operate heavy machinery" also fall in the "under the influence" bucket.

Alan's specific situation is made worse that there was another potential driver in the car who was apparently totally sober and able to drive after Alan was found to be impaired. Alan made a bad decision and it wasn't just a bad decision for himself it was a bad decisions that could have consequences for others. That's the big big big part of it. If he did something stupid to himself like trying to make his own bungie jump apparatus and ended up breaking his legs or something silly like that. Sure it's a dumb mistake but I wouldn't care cause it only put him at risk. Putting others at risk without their consent is never going to be ok.

OLDGUY

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:04 PM

hey...c'mon.. I mean..they stabbed him...they stabbed him with a ...giant wooden harpoon...right through the heart !!

not to mention his early demise as a lizard people..person...thingy...

who wouldn't need a drink?

seriously.. I'm dead set against DUI...lifelong friend lost her younger brother to a DUI driver.
Hopefully there was plenty of personal responsibility on hand that evening for Alan...that's really what Firefly was all about..defying unjust law, but accepting the price to be paid for free skies.
nothing to do with DUI.

TWO

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:29 PM

Alan Tudyk has been bound by law, as the saying goes. For two examples from Bushwhacked and Serenity:

(Bushwhacked) HARKEN: You and your crew are bound by law. Formal charges will be transmitted to Central Authority.
MAL:Commander, I'm not what you need to be concerned with right now. Things go the way they are, there's going to be blood.

(Serenity, page 73 of 190) He works the console, brings up a still of Mal (as Mal carries River out), then a police photograph.
JUDE: I wouldn't wonder. Malcolm Reynolds. Bound by Law five times, never imprisoned... hardly the type to harbor infamous fugitives with no money --
ENSIGN: Maybe Tam did have some money squared away --

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

PENNAUSAMIKE

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:50 PM

Just to throw out more fodder for the discussion mill:
Ya'll do realize that DUI is a victimless crime, right?
A DUI arrest is made based on what you MIGHT do.
At the point in which a DUI pullover is made, no one has actually been hurt.

I thought the two-tiered penalty article I posted about made sense because it addressed the offense in proportion to the risk/danger/damage.
The greater the risk the DUI offender posed
(and we are still talking potential, not realized, threat)
the greater the penalty incurred.

The idea* was attacked as "rewarding" less risky DUI offenders.
Our system already does that.
Manslaughter receives less penalty than premeditated murder;
but a person is still dead, right?
Armed robbery receives a greater penalty than simple break-in;
but a theft still occurred, right?

What I find amazing is the pendulum always swings from one side to the other.
on one hand, the justice system will allow recidivist violent criminals to offend over and over, but then the offered solution is zero-tolerance, which gives pot-smokers prison sentences that match murderers'.

I guess that I'm surprised at how many "Browncoats" support Alliance style government involvement in real life.
Yes, "Firefly" is just fantasy and I know it's not likely for a lovable band of armed criminals to do crime without hurting innocent folks.
But, I guess I would expect people to choose entertainment that mirrors their real-life views.
I'm not in favor of
socialized medicine
gun control
cradle-to-grave welfare
intrusive police rights
etc.

I just want my government to
defend our shores
build our roads
make crime more difficult for violent offenders,
help the unemployed between jobs,
and maybe explore space a little bit.

My only real bow to social engineering is that I don't think government should empower shipping our industrial/economic base overseas.
If nobody has a decent job,
who's gonna pay for all the crap we import?

I'll concede that if government clamps down on all irresponsible behavior,
we'll live in a safer society.
it's a fact, evidenced by the world around us, that societies that allow governments to run everything are stifling places to live.

"We tell them what to do and what to think, don't run don't walk we're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right."

*

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:

Years ago Road & Track magazine did an article proposing a two-tiered penalty system for impaired driving.
They proposed that the person who realized they had too much to drink, drove slowly and as close to carefully as they could, and weren't belligerent if pulled over; shouldn't be penalized the same as the the belligerent loud-mouth going 70 miles an hour while loudly proclaiming that he/she drives BETTER when drunk.

The benefits of such a system would be three fold.
First, you separate out the occasional, mistaken impaired driver from the habitual, personality disorder drunk driver.
Second, you offer an incentive for those who choose to drive impaired to do so with the least risk.
Three, you don't destroy the lives of those connected to the one-time offender who was unlucky enough to be caught. Nothing like the system taking a month or two of a family's earnings to send a ripple effect of destruction from a single bad decision.
Hopefully reason two, (impaired drivers would slow it down to minimze risk and penalty), reduces danger to others on the road.

Obviously, a repeat offender moves into the higher risk category at some point, regardless of how meek the impaired driving style.

I found it to be a common sense approach, but unlikely in today's "lawyered-up" society.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE