7 votes

Drunk man gets knocked out by best friend to keep him from driving drunk

WARNING: *graphic language*


http://youtu.be/fbQgnaZ-EA0

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yea so lets give him a

Yea so lets give him a concussion and brain damage.... why not drive him home or take the keys?

Drunk man gets knocked up by best friend.

Confusion follows.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com

Also author of Stick it to the Man!

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Man-Richard-Moyer/dp/1484036417

Policing Ourselves

Without condoning the violence of the incident, the argument can be made that if more individuals allowed their friends and family to "police" them like this, maybe we wouldn't have the police state that we all get to live in now.

For those who disagree, is it the level of actions that he took against his friend that you disagree with, or simply that he took any steps at all to prevent his friend from driving drunk? Taking the keys or sitting in the car seat doesn't cause physical harm, but it is still going past words and using actions to prevent him from driving.

Friends and family members will always face situations where they want to prevent someone they love from hurting themselves or others. If they can't convince them verbally, and they take physical actions, they may have to pay for that decision and those actions, but there are usually no consequences when government officials go too far.

Nice

Very interesting and important point. Thanks

all comments are taking this too seriously

this is his friend and NOT A COP AND CANNOT BE COMPARED TO A COP OR OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY FORCING LAW ON YOU.
STOPPING A BLACKED OUT DRUNK FRIEND FROM BEING ARRESTED AND LOSING HIS LICENSE AND ALL OTHER ISSUES THAT COULD ARISE FROM DRIVING DRUNK

EVERYONE IS TRIPPING WAY TO HARD OVER HERE ON FREEDOM AND NEED TO COME BACK TO REALITY.
IT WASNT THE BEST METHOD AT PROTECTING HIS FRIEND BUT IT DID KEEP HIM OUT OF TROUBLE WITH THE LAW

Do you know what the term

Do you know what the term 'Blacked-Out' means? You certainly didn't use it in its proper context. How could you determine that the person was experiencing a 'Black-out' moment?

EVERYONE IS TRIPPING WAY TO HARD OVER HERE ON FREEDOM...

So then I suppose that FREEDOM is only ok when it only involves people making good, proper decisions?

My question then to you, is how do you determine, the 'good' and 'proper' thing; and if you are paying attention to everybody elses actions, who is paying attention to yours? Also, none of you people who support this action have ever explained how you plan on stopping it from spreading from friends and family member being permitted to do this, to strangers being able to do this, to police being justified in doing this.

...BUT IT DID KEEP HIM OUT OF TROUBLE WITH THE LAW

Well then, since his friend has shown a propensity to make 'bad' decisions and he wants to look out for his friend and those his friend may harm with his irresponsible actions, then wouldn't his friend have been justified in killing him? Certainly one cannot be around their irresponsible decision making friend 100% of the time, and killing him would have ensured that the guy could have never posed a potential danger to himself or others ever; now that would have been a friend.

ok

well I do understand the term blacked out and if he wasn't, he was at least close to it considering how limber he was before and after he was punched.
my comment about people tripping on freedom over here meant the relation everyone was making to a government force being used it just seems that you don't see the difference between a friend and a government agency.
and I wasn't relating trouble with the law with harming others
I was just meaning a friend doing what he had to keep his friend from having to pay 5,000 in fines.

look Im not advocating his method it was wrong for him to punch him I get it and I do understand why and how you are relating it to government using force I just believe that is quite a jump

I don't think you do get it.

I don't think you do get it. You CANNOT nor WILL NOT be able to keep this kind of act solely in the hands of friends and family members. If this type of action is condoned as viable for anybody, it will -in time- be acceptable for everybody to use for the very same reasons it was accepted for friends and family.

If you see a man, to this level of intoxication, walking out of a bar with his keys in his hand walking to his vehicle, please explain why a perfect stranger -you or someone else- or a cop wouldn't be as equally justified by the very same premise that a friend would be justified in knocking him out?

first of all

we hold public officials to a higher standard since we grant them a higher level of judgment
we don't hold the public to these standards
and to say that because a drunk guy punches another drunk guy to keep him from driving his vehicle and that will cause law officials to think that's ok is a little paranoid
this is an isolated incident between friends
I just seems like you are jumping to too many conclusions just off this one incident as if that will become the norm

You are certainly doing a

You are certainly doing a good job of holding public officials and cops to a higher standard; I would hate to see what the US would be like if people like you weren't doing such a great job of holding government thugs to account for their actions.

If people continue to tout this as a 'good' thing then it will become the norm, and then Cops will do it also, because you will not be able to prevent them from doing so.

REALLY SORRY FOR MY OUT OF TOUCH COMMENT

I TAKE IT BACK
THE FRIEND MADE A BAD DECESION STOPPING HIS FRIEND FROM DRIVING DRUNK
SINCE HE TOOK AWAY HIS LIBERTY TO DO SO
BECAUSE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FRIEND AND A GOVERMENT AGENCY.

Those who justify this also justify the Obamacare mandate.

Hey, you might try to get medical care without paying so we will force you to pay whether you take medical care or not.

I occurs to me that approval of this means you justify any and all preemptive actions of violence and coercion by anyone who thinks they are right. Be it the individual or the state.

Raw milk may hurt someone

so we need to punch the milk producers in the face to make them stop.

Same thinking as those who approve of this.

I think that vast majority of

I think that vast majority of you people should probably register over at Red-State.

To think that people on a PRO-LIBERTY website would be advocating the assault of an individual who was not harming anybody, is quite ridiculous.

Being drunk, is not an act of aggression. Driving, is not an act of aggression. Driving while drunk, is therefore also not an act of aggression. It may be irresponsible, but it is not aggression.

The funny thing is that you people agree that the friend should have done this. If that is true, then how can you not support some-other independent party doing the very same thing for the very same reason. If a friend/family member is justified to do this, and any other independent party is justified to do this, then so is a Cop or some-other Government Agent legally justified to do this. You cannot draw the line. When you say that in the name of prevention, then assaulting someone is not only ok, but it is highly advocated for you are opening a can of worms that you really don't want opened; because as soon as you let someone do this, then the Government Agents will automatically be justified to do it -Serve and Protect, and all that.

UHM NO!!!

You are taking this way outta proportion
im not advocating his method of punching him
but to jump from a friend to a gov. agency or law
is way outta line
obviously they were both drunk

If you agree with the premise

If you agree with the premise of the guys actions, then you are sanctioning those actions. How do you prevent the same premise from being justified by people who are not his friend or family? This is the problem with accepting this behavior by anybody. Because those who are justified to use this premise and physical action to prevent a person from drunk driving, will always grow to include more and more people, including strangers and then government agents because their job is to 'protect and serve,' and this individual who assaulted his friend was 'protecting' not only his friend but also his friend's potential victims. Therefore, if this behavior is acceptable, it will in time be under the purview of government agents to use like a tool against people who may potentially harm others.

Sounds like a nice police state which will emerge from out of your belief in condoning this behavior.

If you accept that a friend, or family member, can use any means necessary to prevent someone from doing something which might harm himself or others, then would I be justified in knocking-out my friend who disregards avalanche warnings to go skying and/or mountain climbing. This behavior also endangers my friend as well as potentially harming rescuers who may have to go find my friend.

So therefore, by the logic that you and so many here are espousing, I am not a friend if I don't use any means necessary to prevent my friend from heading to a snow covered mountain; right? However, since I cannot be around my friend 100% of the time, especially -I'm sure- after the first time if I were to knock my friend out- then wouldn't it be better for me to kill my friend to prevent any potentiality of my friend causing harm to himself and/or others; right?

Yes. They justify evey beating and killing by cop

when they approve of this. They even justify preemptive war when they approve this.

There was no love in that bastards eyes when he hit his "friend". He was pissed because his "friend" wouldn't submit to his will. He hit him because he knew his smaller "friend" couldn't defend himself. Sound familiar?

I am so disappointed. But let this be a lesson as to why this country is in the shape it is in. No big conspiracy needed, just inconsistent people making decisions based on emotion instead of integrity of principle.

sorry but liberty

demands taking responsiblity, if you can not see straight and you are getting behind a vehicle to drive it on a crowded road then you are an idiot. When you refuse to take responsibilty for your action you will lose your liberty, and others will lose it too.

Should the government stop a drunk driver who can not stay on his side of the road. YES.

Should the Goverment stop a drunk driver that is going through red lights at 90 miles an hour. YES.

When you are irresponsible you loose your rights. We have lost our rights in this country because we refuse to take responsibility for our own actions. Parents dont want to be responsible for their kids eduction, we have public schools. People decided that they wanted to feel protected by the government so now we have all sorts of drug laws. Why because someone wanted someone else to be responsible for their protection. At one time people wanted the government to ensure a great economy so the FED was made, why because people didnt want to take responsibility for their own economy.

When that drunk tried to get behind the wheel, a stupid and irresponsible act, he lost all right to liberty. I hope he takes responsibility next time, but its him and men like him that are the reason why we keep loosing our liberties. I am THRILLED his buddy took responsibility for him. He did the right thing.

You can not have liberty with out being responsible for your own actions.

Are you responsible for your

Are you responsible for your own life, liberty and property? If you are, then it is you who should be avoiding drunk drivers while they traverse the roadway. The fact of the matter is that people like yourself want to avoid your own responsibility by placing it at the feet of others.

You say that one cannot have liberty if they refuse to accept responsibility; you are correct. So, when are you going to accept the responsibility for looking out for yourself while you're on the road?

You are making collectivist arguments, like many others on a PRO-INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY website, which I find absolutely astounding.

It is not the Village's responsibility to protect you; it is your responsibility to protect yourself. If you do not want to protect yourself, that is your decision, however, you therefore do not have the right to limit the liberty of others to make-up for your lack of personal responsibility.

Your liberty ends at the other person's nose. If you do not understand what that means, your in luck, because I am going to explain it for you. It means that if a person is not physically harming anybody, then you do not have the right to harm them.

Either live by the principles of liberty or quit complaining about the government we currently have, because what you want will lead to -or be- exactly what we have today.

okay when the drunk driver kills somebody

what then?

Do you support the death penalty? Or do you say hey the drunk ran a red light at ninety miles an hour in the middle of the night with his lights off, but its both of their fault, so even though the drunk escaped unscathed its both drivers fault?

A man decides to shoot a gun in a residential neighborhood, is it non aggressive until he kills somebody, by accident? Then what, does he get the death penalty?

Lets take your thought and bring it all the way out, somebody does something reckless and stupid and kills somebody else. Now what should be done?

Do people not run red-lights

Do people not run red-lights when they are sober?

Then he can be prosecuted for vehicular manslaughter; however, you cannot charge a man with a crime when a crime has not been committed; at least you can't if you support liberty.

If the man is shooting and not harming anybody, then who cares? You do not have a right to not be afraid.

Why would he get the death penalty unless it was a murder which wouldn't be the case if the killing was unintentional.

Retaliation after-the-fact is not justice, nor is it considered defense. If one is not there for the incident nor knows the context which the incident is taken place in, then how can anybody ever justify putting somebody to death.

Our justice system isn't about justice. It is a collective sanctioned form of retribution. If it truly was a justice system, then the prosecutors would not stop investigating a crime until they had definitive proof that the individual had done something criminal, not just a statistical probability that the individual had done something.

Nothing anybody does, will bring a dead person back to life. So, whether the system murders him/her or imprisons them for life it is not going to change the fact that the victim/individual is dead.

Sure if it was murder and it can be proven unequivocally, then I don't have a problem with the person being put to death. However, nobody has ever been proven guilty unequivocally, and therefore I highly doubt that I could ever agree to murder somebody, because it -the individual's guilt- appears to be a highly likely conclusion.

The interesting thing is that you ask me what I would want done after something bad happens, and yet you want to criminalize behavior before somebody even has the possibility of harming anybody. That is the beginning of tyranny.

Stay on subject

I never said arrest. I said if you see someone about to do something reckless and dangerous it is your responsibility to stop them not put them in prison.

Heres the problem with your logic. There are some things that you can do that will put other people in danger. You say hey thats okay because individual liberty. But when you are putting other people in obvious danger its no longer your individual liberty its a violation of NAP.

You on one hand say a person driving blind drunk running red lights is okay as long as he somehow doesnt hurt nobody, but when he kills someone he should get a slap on the wrist. How many times does someone have to drive drunk and kill people before he gets the death penalty?

Your logic says as long as you kill somebody while doing something stupid and irresponsible with no intent then you should just get a slap on the wrist. Oh and after you keep killing people while doing stupid and irresponsible things no one should try to stop you because then its a violation of your liberty.

Heres what happens in the real world. Somebody somewhere does something stupid and irresponsible, a tragedy happens. All of a sudden the government uses that tragedy to make a new law which takes away our liberty. You then moan and complain that you can not be a moron, and that when you are a moron you get in trouble.

All of this could have been stopped by a friend who wouldnt let you be an idiot. Because of a friend we dont have one more oppressive law.

Are you people really this

Are you people really this dense?

I never said arrest. I said if you see someone about to do something reckless and dangerous it is your responsibility to stop them not put them in prison.

What if the person who sees the person is a cop? What if the friend, instead of assaulting his friend called the cops instead? You do sanction arrest for wanting to drive while drunk, you just don't want to admit it. How I know this, is because what you are suggesting will be applicable to police, and if a friend can assault somebody, then a cop can not only assault the person but also arrest them.

There are some things that you can do that will put other people in danger. You say hey thats okay because individual liberty. But when you are putting other people in obvious danger its no longer your individual liberty its a violation of NAP.

You do not have the right to not be afraid. You have a responsibility to yourself to avoid bad situations. You do not have the right to force a person -who is not harming anybody- to stop doing what they are doing, because you are afraid. No; I'm sorry, but Drunk Driving is not a violation of NAP, but assaulting ones friend to prevent them from Drunk Driving is.

Your logic says as long as you kill somebody while doing something stupid and irresponsible with no intent then you should just get a slap on the wrist. Oh and after you keep killing people while doing stupid and irresponsible things no one should try to stop you because then its a violation of your liberty.

I suppose that you've glossed over the part where I said that it would be vehicular manslaughter -under our current laws. There is no need for new laws, since all of the old laws are still applicable. I don't know how you can claim to be a supporter of liberty and still not be able to understand that you cannot do anything physical to prevent someone from doing anything stupid without violating their liberty. If the individual didn't harm anybody, then their is no justification to harm the individual.

Heres what happens in the real world. Somebody somewhere does something stupid and irresponsible, a tragedy happens. All of a sudden the government uses that tragedy to make a new law which takes away our liberty. You then moan and complain that you can not be a moron, and that when you are a moron you get in trouble.

Apparently it is hard for you to understand. Just because the government does something doesn't mean that it is right or justified.

I got it. If we all put ourselves in cages then we won't have to worry about the government doing it to us, because it is really for our own good.

If it were illegal

for a cop to stop a person in that condition from driving to pick up his daughter drunk, it would still be morally right for the cop to stop him. Sometimes, people accept the consequences of breaking the rules. If my personal rule is the NAP, I just have to accept that to do the right thing here, I have to break it and I don't get my NAP gold star.

Defend Liberty!

That is like Bush saying to

That is like Bush saying to save the Free Market he had to abandon Free Market Principles.

If you are not going to adhere to principles when it is hard to do so, then you might as well not bother to claim you have principles at all; because they are meaningless.

If being able to say

I adhere 100% to a principle involves not doing the right thing, I'll just sacrifice my ability to say so. I believe in property on a principle, but if I need to steal a towel off my neighbor's porch to help someone who is losing blood, I'll just call myself a thief, then.

Defend Liberty!

Then you are a thief. People

Then you are a thief. People wonder why our government is the way it is, when people accept not living by the principles which they espouse. Why would a government official follow any principles, you and the others have openly admitted that principles do not matter.

Could killing one person every be the right thing? What if that person could potentially kill many others?

Like Freedom Of Speech; principles don't mean anything if we abandon them as soon as it is unpopular to adhere to them.

Why wouldn't you just ask your neighbor, or get a towel from your own place?

Don't you find it interesting that your first instinct is to steal?

Maybe being committed to

doing the right thing just doesn't have an all-encompassing label yet. When it does, I can call that a principle and say I advocate adhering to that one 100%. Then, yay, I can be as principled as you and not have to do the wrong thing to boot.

Defend Liberty!

You have yet to be able to

You have yet to be able to logically justify this action, while being a supposed PRO-LIBERTY supporter.

You mention the 'wrong' thing and the 'right' thing often. Could one correlate the 'right' thing with preventing 'bad' things from happening? If so, then you should probably ban all vehicles, because they cause nearly 400k deaths every year, and as has been link in the comments section, only 10% are related to Drunk Driving. Would it not be the 'right' thing? Just think of how many potential deaths you would have prevented.

This predicament is kind of like how the gun-grabber are concentrating on banning the 'assault rifles' while they are only used in 2% of gun crimes.

Pro-activism in modern society

"This might have been a case of pre-crime, now that it's perfectly fine to use violence against someone before they make bad choices. How else will we understand that we shouldn't be allowed to learn from our mistakes? Sorry, we can't allow consequences. Not now that we have become sooooooo civilized. Maybe they should lock him in a cage for the next 24 hrs. to make sure he never even thinks of trying to do something like that ever again. Oh, no! Think about the children! And all the progress we're making."

---------- said a Local Government Do-Gooder

</