Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 10:13:17 -0500
----------
> From: NightRain <nightrain@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
> This guy was normally what I would call an oddball, a freak and maybe
> someone with (in game) psychopathic tendencies. I think the problem
> was made worse by the fact that he was stoned when he played this out,
> which I believe (never having been stoned myself) tends to loosen
> inhibitions.

Call me really weird, but part of what I liked about Tir Tairngire is the
lack of a "I was drunk and didn't know what I was doing" defense, based on
the idea "Well, you planned to get wasted." I think that made a hell of a
lot of sense.
Message no. 2
From: XaOs <xaos@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 12:42:22 -0500
> Call me really weird, but part of what I liked about Tir Tairngire is the
> lack of a "I was drunk and didn't know what I was doing" defense, based on
> the idea "Well, you planned to get wasted." I think that made a hell of a
> lot of sense.

That's pretty much the way things are in the real world. (In the United
States anyway...no offense intended to the rest of the real world). This may
vary from state to state (for all I know), but I think it's pretty much the
standard.

-XaOs-
xaos@*****.net
Message no. 3
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 12:52:59 -0500
From: XaOs <xaos@*****.NET>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 12:43 PM


>> Call me really weird, but part of what I liked about Tir Tairngire
>> is the lack of a "I was drunk and didn't know what I was doing"
>> defense, based on the idea "Well, you planned to get wasted." I
>> think that made a hell of a lot of sense.
>
>That's pretty much the way things are in the real world. (In the United
>States anyway...no offense intended to the rest of the real world). This
>may vary from state to state (for all I know), but I think it's pretty
>much the standard.

Except in the Tir they actually enforce it.

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 4
From: XaOs <xaos@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:11:09 -0500
> Except in the Tir they actually enforce it.

It's been enforced in every instance that I can think of. <shrug> Almost
sounds like you have a personal example here. Any prosecutor of any lack of
ineptitude could shred the 'I was drunk' "defense".

-XaOs-
xaos@*****.net
Message no. 5
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:25:55 -0500
From: XaOs <xaos@*****.NET>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 1:18 PM


>> Except in the Tir they actually enforce it.
>
>It's been enforced in every instance that I can think of. <shrug> Almost
>sounds like you have a personal example here.

Girlfriend, fourteen years ago, killed by a drunk driver. Got 10 years for
manslaughter; the murder charge was reduced due to his intoxication. He's
out now (he was out in three years, actually.)

Don't tell me the system works. I'll call you a liar to your face.

Patrick (who drops this thread now before it gets ugly)
Message no. 6
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 14:32:34 -0500
----------
> From: XaOs <xaos@*****.NET>
>
> > Except in the Tir they actually enforce it.
>
> It's been enforced in every instance that I can think of. <shrug>
Almost
> sounds like you have a personal example here. Any prosecutor of any
lack of
> ineptitude could shred the 'I was drunk' "defense".

Let me clear that up. In Tir, every act committed "under the
influence" is considered pre-meditated on the grounds that you
planned to get wasted. In other words, if I get rip-roaring drunk
tomorrow (my 21st birthday) and then go out driving (pretend I have a
car) and hit someone, in the Tir I would be up for 1st degree murder,
because I planned to get wasted. In the US, I would be up for
manslaughter.

Maybe that's a bit clearer.

***************
Rev. Mark Hall, Bard to the Lady Mari
aka Pope Nexx Many-Scars
*
The place to improve the world is in one's own heart and head and
hands, and then work outward from there. Other people talk about how
to expand the destiny of mankind. I just want to talk about how to
fix a motorcycle. I think that what I have to say has more lasting
value.
-Robert Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
Message no. 7
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:40:23 +1000
Nexx writes:
> Let me clear that up. In Tir, every act committed "under the
> influence" is considered pre-meditated on the grounds that you
> planned to get wasted. In other words, if I get rip-roaring drunk
> tomorrow (my 21st birthday) and then go out driving (pretend I have a
> car) and hit someone, in the Tir I would be up for 1st degree murder,
> because I planned to get wasted. In the US, I would be up for
> manslaughter.

I vaguely recall from the old NAGNA that Quebec had this provision as well,
as it comes from French law (the Napoleonic system of justice is _very_
different to the Westminster system...). Which means that Lady Di's driver
actually did intend to kill her (legally, anyway).

IMHO, voluntary incapacity shouldn't count as a Defense, anyway.
(Involuntary incapacity, OTH...)

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 8
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:38:10 EDT
In a message dated 9/13/1998 2:36:11 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
nexx@********.NET writes:

> In other words, if I get rip-roaring drunk
> tomorrow (my 21st birthday)

Is it really??? Wow, your's must've been the other b'day I was trying to
remember. :) Hope it is/was a good one :)

and then go out driving (pretend I have a
> car) and hit someone, in the Tir I would be up for 1st degree murder,
> because I planned to get wasted. In the US, I would be up for
> manslaughter.
>
> Maybe that's a bit clearer.

All the more clearer with regards to exactly how stupid the US Legal System
is, yes...

-K
Message no. 9
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:49:34 -0400
At 01:25 PM 9/13/98 -0500, you wrote:

>>It's been enforced in every instance that I can think of. <shrug> Almost
>>sounds like you have a personal example here.
>
>Girlfriend, fourteen years ago, killed by a drunk driver. Got 10 years for
>manslaughter; the murder charge was reduced due to his intoxication. He's
>out now (he was out in three years, actually.)
>
>Don't tell me the system works. I'll call you a liar to your face.

Well, that was 14 years ago...many states do have much tougher legislation
on the books regarding that same exact thing now. It is a state by state
thing and it probably isn't as tough as it should be...I do recall
something locally about some drunk kids drag racing that lead to the death
of something like 3 or 4 teens and the driver was sentenced to I think life
in prison (with the possibility of parole I think). I'm fuzzy on the
details though.

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 10
From: Adam Lewis <adamswork@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:51:25 -0700
--Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> wrote:
> Well, that was 14 years ago...many states do have much tougher
legislation
> on the books regarding that same exact thing now.


I agree, remember those kids that got convicted of manslaughter for
stealing a stop sign at an intersection that had a fatal accident.
==
AdamL

"The good die first."
"But most of us are morally ambiguous, which explains our random dying
patterns."



_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 11
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:00:29 EDT
In a message dated 9/14/1998 12:59:10 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
adamswork@*****.COM writes:

> --Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> wrote:
> > Well, that was 14 years ago...many states do have much tougher
> legislation
> > on the books regarding that same exact thing now.
>
>
> I agree, remember those kids that got convicted of manslaughter for
> stealing a stop sign at an intersection that had a fatal accident.
> ==
> AdamL

Yes Adam, I remember that one really well, seeing as it happened here in
Indiana just a few miles south of where I live as well. Might even be the
same place/incident in question.

However, on a more SR topic. Does anyone have a way to design a spell (Area
Effect to me) that could change the lights at an intersection. I keep trying
to make it a Transformation Manipulation, but another player here just likes
the concept of Illusions (sigh, so easy)...

-K
Message no. 12
From: Steve Eley <sfeley@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:22:43 -0400
K in the Shadows wrote:
>
> However, on a more SR topic. Does anyone have a way to design a spell (Area
> Effect to me) that could change the lights at an intersection. I keep trying
> to make it a Transformation Manipulation, but another player here just likes
> the concept of Illusions (sigh, so easy)...

The description of the Autonav attribute (SR3 vehicle rules) implies that
major cities have a traffic-control grid that broadcasts to vehicles.
Since the light-switching circuits would run off the Matrix, and wouldn't
sit on a street corner like they do today, you wouldn't be able to affect
them with a spell. It'd take a decker with a satellite uplink. (Which,
run properly, could be even cooler.)

You *could* use an Illusion spell to fake the light's color itself, of
course, but since all those cars with Autonav 2 or higher would be acting
on the real information, you're really just asking for a multi-car
pileup. >8->


Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfeley@***.net
Message no. 13
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:10:12 -0700
:> In other words, if I get rip-roaring drunk
:> tomorrow (my 21st birthday)
:
:Is it really??? Wow, your's must've been the other b'day I was trying to
:remember. :) Hope it is/was a good one :)
:
:and then go out driving (pretend I have a
:> car) and hit someone, in the Tir I would be up for 1st degree murder,
:> because I planned to get wasted. In the US, I would be up for
:> manslaughter.
:>
:> Maybe that's a bit clearer.
:
:All the more clearer with regards to exactly how stupid the US Legal
System
:is, yes...


IMO, not so. If you slide into a pedestrian and kill them because it
was raining and visibility was poor, well, you planned to drive to fast in
the rain, right? Does that make it murder 1? Is just speeding in the
rain then "conspiracy to commit murder"? In the Tir, drunk driving WOULD
be conspiracy to commit murder (although they may not have such a charge,
given their political structure is BASED on conspiracy). I'm not saying
it should not be, but it would be easy to over-extend, and a cheep charge
to bust those who can not afford defense (and maybe certain fancy driving
safety systems) with.

In that hypothetical legal system, if you are drunk and put your car
on autonav, and THAT results in a death, is it your fault (you planned to
use a autonav while drunk instead of paying as much attention as you
should), or the autonav manufacturer's? [this may be part of the reason
autonav is not being developed as quickly as possible...]

US law has its problems. So do all other legal systems; they are
systems of logic, and as such, can only resolve certain difficulties.

Mongoose
Message no. 14
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:48:56 EDT
In a message dated 9/14/1998 3:23:04 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
sfeley@***.NET writes:

>
> The description of the Autonav attribute (SR3 vehicle rules) implies that
> major cities have a traffic-control grid that broadcasts to vehicles.
> Since the light-switching circuits would run off the Matrix, and wouldn't
> sit on a street corner like they do today, you wouldn't be able to affect
> them with a spell. It'd take a decker with a satellite uplink. (Which,
> run properly, could be even cooler.)
>
> You *could* use an Illusion spell to fake the light's color itself, of
> course, but since all those cars with Autonav 2 or higher would be acting
> on the real information, you're really just asking for a multi-car
> pileup. >8->
>
I was looking at the "Autonav Control Grid" thing myself, and discovered one
little problem. The "Slave Tests" that are involved in changing the lights
themselves still exist. Sure, the timing and control systems are now
elsewhere than a "box on the corner", but within the actual light(s)
themselves (at least that's one of my takes on it). This *Light Switch* IMO
could be triggered with a magical spell, sort of "Use (Switch)" sort of spell.

-K
Message no. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:49:28 +0200
According to K in the Shadows, at 16:00 on 14 Sep 98, the word on the street was...

> However, on a more SR topic. Does anyone have a way to design a spell (Area
> Effect to me) that could change the lights at an intersection. I keep trying
> to make it a Transformation Manipulation, but another player here just likes
> the concept of Illusions (sigh, so easy)...

I've made one of those, Stoplight Control. It's a physical Manipulation
spell, Limited range, Sustained, [(F/2)+2]L Drain, and with a TN equal to
the Object Resistance of the lights.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
On a wave of mutilation...
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Stoned/Drunk Defense (was Re: Dumb things, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!