Unlike firearms, there is no guarantee in the US constitution for citizens to
own a vehicle.So, Lets ban all vehicles from everyone since
criminals can use them for weapons to commit mass murder.
Reading the obituary of Susan Madsen, I felt immense sadness at the sudden loss
of a wife and mother to five beautiful children who will go through the motions
of life without her. Needless, thoughtless, and completely unnecessary. I agree
with the charge!
He should absolutely be charged with murder. I don't care how impaired
someone chooses to make themselves, it is not an excuse to get into your vehicle
and begin targeting other human beings. Sorry his life is so pathetic from the
choices he has made. Now his pathetic life and choices have permanently took
the ability of this woman to make choices of her own. Her children are now
motherless, their kids won't be able to spend time with their grandmother
and so forth. All because of the stupidity of this man and the fact that Utah
(contrary to the critics) does allow the purchase of alcohol to the point to
impair people for days. That's not a lack of alcohol flowing. I would
argue, that is too much alcohol flowing. If we can save just one life, then why
not restrict it?
My favorite line from movies is when John Wayne responds to Dean Martin's
"I'm sorry" after drinking nearly cost them their lives.
"Sorry don't get it done, Dude!" This is tragic and senseless.
And the arrogance of some drinkers warrants very serious consequences. My heart
goes out to all the victims of this very sad excuse for a human being.
From the alcohol crowd, we keep hearing how great it is. They always say we need
more of it, more availability, more access. When your drunk you do stupid
things, and you should pay the price of taking an innocent life. What a stupid
Isn't it "Sam" instead of "Sim"?
Forty years ago I worked the graveyard shift at the SLC impound lot. Many was
the night I was confronted with some drunken slob who had been stopped for DUI
and was nevertheless released from jail, still drunk. Evidence of which was
graphically evident from the fact that they were barely able to stumble the 40
feet from the fence gate to the office.I absolutely hated handing
the keys to a car to someone who was obviously and seriously impaired. But,
after several instances of calling the department to confirm that was required
to do so, I eventually acquiesced to the organizational stupidity.I
hope the fact this creep has been charged with murder is evidence that, in
Draper at least, the police are more diligent in taking the crime of DUI more
seriously than the SLC police did when I worked at the impound lot.I
also hope this guy is imprisoned for the rest of his life.
iron&claydo you seriously not understand the difference between
a vehicle and a gun? A vehicle is designed to drive. A guns sole purpose is to
kill. Yes, other objects can kill, we all know that. But that is what a gun is
designed for, so it does it more effectively. So please stop with the ridiculous
comparisons. And by the way, I own over 15 guns myself, so I am not for the
government taking them away. Have some respect for the person who was killed in
this sick act of violence, and stop making it about gun policies when no gun was
involved.My condolences to the family of the victim. This should
have never happened and it was senseless.
@U-Tar.Most people who drink do so responsibly.Not every
drinker is a drunken menace, just as not all Christians are good people.
I wonder if Thompson's was on a suicide run?
Esquire,No, it is Sim - don't know what, or IF, it is short for
anythingBrahmabull,no, a gun's (possessive apostrophe
needed) sole purpose is not to kill. Is that all you use your armory for, to
kill? I have used many guns with no intent whatsoever to kill. Doesn't
matter anyway. The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms - it does not
guarantee the right to own or drive a carriage or any other conveyance.
I can't believe how much death, sorrow, destruction, carnage, health
problems, etc., etc. are associated with alcohol. When will society finally
wake up and learn that is is nothing but trouble. Alcohol abuse is a huge
burden on society with many innocent law abiding people paying the price for
this evil. Why the government turns a blind eye to the horrific problems
associated with alcohol is beyond me.
There are no excellent outcomes with alcohol. From a small level to a large
level, there are no excellent outcomes. I would say, there are no good
outcomes. From health issues, to addiction, to stupid behavior, to hangovers, to
property damage, insurance claims, to lost wages, to it's pathway to
unemployment, to introduction to harder substances, to homicide, to DV, to
injuries from violent behavior, to paralysis, to broken families to a million
tears of sorrow and regret... alcohol is a conscious choice one makes. Please
make me a list similar to the one above for the pro's of alcohol
consumption that can't be experiienced without it. Please help me know
what I am missing out on. Yep, tis your decision to do it... but man, does that
decision include a lot of other innocent people that are put at risk besides
yourself. There is a difference between accidents and accidents that occure
because of a decision to consume alcohol. Someone called it the beverage of
Hell... Well, maybe there is some truth to that, since alcohol usually raises
Brahmabull,I had better notify the community organizations and my
city that sponsor the turkey shoot where clay pigeons are flung into the air for
entrants to shoot with their shotguns for competitive fun and recreation and
advise them that they are misusing their shotguns now that you have enlightened
us that "the sole reason for owning a firearm is to KILL".Not to mention the fact that many homeowners have guns for protection from
home invasion. A homeowner could just show that he is armed to stop a home
invasion, or, shoot a criminal intent on rape, pillaging and plundering in the
kneecaps with a shotgun to stop them in their tracks, no killing involved.
Samhill: Isn't it possible that when these individuals were released, they
were no longer under the influence & they started to drink as soon as they
were released, before they got to the impound lot? I do not think any law
enforcement officer would knowingly release someone who is still drunk to get
his vehicle out of impound while still being intoxicated.
I am loathe to blame only alcohol only for this man's actions but I believe
it played a very significant part. We are the dumbest people on earth to allow
alcohol sales & consumptions that has killed hundreds of thousands (maybe
millions) either through liver poisoning or just plain stupidly...like this
story. But then we ban or attempt to ban a whole host of other products because
they are potential "harmful" like saccharin, Ackee fruit, raw milk in
some states, etc etc. What hypocritical idiots we are as a nation.
If the FDA were asked to approve a new drug that had the following effects:responsible for 50% of all traffic fatalities (20,000 annually)responsible for 70% of all spousal abuseresponsible for 50% of all
campus rapeskills greater than 500,000 annually from liver disease,
cancer, overdose/addictionwould they even debate whether to approve
it? Yet we have people on this site who tell us all that there are lots of
responsible users, and we should not punish those for the acts of a few. Maybe
so, but look at the numbers people. Does it really make our society better? and
with regards to comparing it to Christians (some good, some bad), if people of
any faith killed 1/100th of the number as alcohol on an yearly basis, there
would be a public lynching. This Buds for you
Lia from Sandy, I am glad you are responsible! I am simply pointing out that
drunks are not. Too much foolish tragedy happens when people get stone drunk,
not only behind the wheel. I am simply saying that they need to be held
accountable for actions that impact others.
Lock him up please. Thanks.
lost in DC, Iron&claySo you still stand by your argument that a
guns specific purpose is not to kill? Were they designed to target shoot? No.
Were they designed to intimidate people? No. They were designed to kill. Kill
animals, kill people. I never said that is all they CAN do, I am saying that is
the primary function of a gun - to kill. I suspect you are both intelligent
enough to know that, but that you just want to argue for the fun of it. There
are many safer alternatives to guns if you are looking to target shoot. Why not
go buy rubber bullets? Right? After all, these guns that fling a ball of lead
through the air weren't designed to kill. Good one.
Iron & clayYou misquoted me by putting this "the sole reason
for owning a firearm is to KILL", in quotation marks as if I said it above.
Read my other comment again, and you will not find that comment. Nice try. I
said firearms were designed to kill. No that that is the only reason to own one.
So go re-read what I said and maybe you will get what I was saying. If not, I
can't help you any further. Especially since you though you would take the
liberty of misquoting me, and then putting it in quotation marks as if it was a
direct quote. Remember I am on your side as far as guns go. I just can't
alight my thoughts with the argument of making cars illegal because a few people
want to make guns illegal. That is like comparing apples to salmon. I tend to
agree with the proposal of some gun laws, such as closing the gun show loop
hole. Anything that prevents criminals easy access to guns I am all for. If you
are a law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about right now. The guns
Brahma, I "kill" a lot of paper targets with my guns. The occasional
bottle or can, and sometimes I kill watermelons. My guns haven't killed
any people and I don't intend to do so, unless that is the only option
left.I agree with the charge of this guy. However, I disagree with
the motive. Sim is going to run for re-election and there is the potential that
he's doing this to make him look tough.
Brahmabull wrote: "A guns sole purpose is to kill."I would
argue that a gun is lifeless and does not contain AI to make the decisions to
kill. Rather it is the person using the gun that makes the decision. I do agree
with the other commenters, since the gun is unable to make the decision to kill,
that decision would be left with the one holding the gun, which would then make
it sound like the only reason people own guns is solely to kill. Which
isn't true at all.The same logic can be applied to a car. We
drive cars, most of us never intend to kill people with them, but they can be
used to kill people. Most of us use cars for work, commuting, recreation as gun
owners use them for recreation, protection etc. A car protects me better than a
bicycle or skateboard would. A gun protects me better than a 5 minute response
time for police.Either way this guy is a drunk. Alcohol played a
huge part in is impaired murderous decision. That's no excuse for what he
did in destroying this family
With apologies to all those pro/anti guns/alcohol/drugs, this is about an
individual with very little regard for anyone else. He is a bad person drunk or
sober. I'm sure he didn't beat his "room mate" for the first
time on the day in question. Congratulations to the judge and i hope the DA can
make the murder charge stick.
Liberal TedIf you honestly took from my comment "guns were
designed to kill" that I was implying that the gun is the one doing the
killing, then I really can't help you. Carry on
@U-tard...Interesting Utah County logic. Would you apply this same logic that
you so eloquently stated in your previous post to "The gun crowd" if
there was one involved with this crime? Guns are not against your religion I
take it? Guess what? Alcohol is not against mine & there are countless
responsible adults that use (gasp) alcohol.
BrahmabullYou are changing your story. Your first post said their
SOLE purpose was to kill, now you are saying “primary” purpose.
“sole” and “primary” are very different. Doesn’t
matter anyway, the constitution still guarantees our right to own them,
regardless of what they were designed to do.Rubber bullets? They
are still shot by……… GUNS! Guns that can also shoot steel,
lead, and copper bullets.BTW, I don’t think you can get a good
enough spread pattern with rubber bullets to shoot clay pigeons.What
ever happened to the possessive apostrophe? I know you said you had at least 15
guns, but you keep referring to the plural when your context says possessive.Misquoting? No, the following is cut and pasted from your original
commentYou did not say “they were designed to kill” you said,
“A guns (sic) sole purpose is to kill.”
I absolutely agree with the murder charge. IMO, anyone who drinks, drives and
causes fatalities should be similarly charged. People make conscious decisions
to drink and drive. Enough with mollycoddling people who needlessly take lives.
The W.H.O. just released a report on world alcohol consumption and in essence
there is a worldwide problem. You can google it to see the specifics, but the
most disturbing finding is with worldwide deaths, 1 in 20 is a direct result of
alcohol consumption. Where I am the grocery stores look like liquor stores that
sell groceries with the displays expanded and spread throughout the store at
isle ends and in produce. I have personally complained to the manager and in
email to the corporate offices. So far no result or explanation, but if more
speak up changes can be made.
U-Tar, Agreed. And don't you think the alcohol crowd sound
like the gun crowd? -dlj.
Don't blame the alcohol, the vehicle, the gun, or anything else.
There's no substitute for personal responsibility and accountability. Yes,
we need to get the drunks and other impaired drivers OFF the roads
permanently--but it's not government's job to protect people from
their own stupidity and personal choices.
iron & clay - talk about indifference to human life. Your need to turn this
tragic event into a political commentary is as obscene as the behavior of Mr.
Thompson. A woman died leaving a young family behind. Have some reverence,