I turned to Google to see what their laws were and the first thing I saw was:

I would doubt we’d see it happen. Seizures/epilepsy makes sense as losing control of your vehicle at any given moment is an obvious danger. Driving through Dallas, there are moments where a sneeze could cause some serious damage.

I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know if it’s ever been attempted... but after what we saw of the kid who didn’t get in trouble because he was never held accountable for his actions, I think anything is possible.

I know with the seizure stuff, for some (most?) states you must prove that you’re seizure free for X amount of months (usually 3, 6, or 12). Of course, only a few states require doctors to report it, so you could have a history of them and still hold a valid license.

I doubt she did either. Like most everyone who gets behind the wheel under the influence of something, she want to hurt anyone, but she didn’t care if she hurt anyone.

Pretty likely. Even if you’re having a drink before going to a game, you’re not getting wasted.

I understand that, the main point is that in regards to people who either drive drunk or drive with a history of seizures, those who accidentally kill someone while behind the wheel are in a different group than those people who get behind the wheel with the sole purpose of killing people.

My exact thoughts. It’s 10:30 in the morning and she’s driving around under the influence. At this point anything new is likely to come from official sources, but I did stumble across the girl getting led away in cuffs.

That was one of the theories floating around immediately after it happened. Basically nobody wanted to think that it was intentional.

Really sad. She’s only charged with a DUI for now but once names are released to the public there should be vehicular manslaughter/homicide charges.

It just makes me shake my head how people are so happy when things like this happen without the use of a gun. The first comments on some of the breaking tweets were about how Obama needs to ban automatic vehicles and how we need strict background checks on vehicle purchases.

Glad to hear. You’ve made your intentions here clear.

Press conference just stated a 25 year old drunk girl. Radio was on full blast at the time of the accident. They gave the name, missed the first but last was Chambers.

But in the mindset, they are far from the same. The courts show this time and time again. Nobody gets in their car, under the influence, with the intention of killing people. There are a variety of outcomes in that scenario; they don’t have an accident, they have a single-car accident, or they have a multi-car…

They are both in the same category in terms of intent. Nobody drives drunk with the intent to kill people. Sorry if you can’t see the difference between someone with the desire to kill others and someone who accidentally killed people by making a dumb decision.

And I didn’t say it wasn’t. I said those two things - while still not good - would still be better than someone waking up today and getting in their car with the intent to cause pain and suffering for others.

Drunk driving is dangerous and can often lead to harming/killing others, but it’s not the same as planning on going out and harming/killing people.

Heard the person may have been drunk or having medical issues (ie, seizure). That’s still not good, but I hope that’s the case and not someone intentionally trying to harm/kill others.

We’re good at being either really exciting or really boring. We barely beat one of the worst teams in college football last Saturday. We still had 576 yards, but I have no clue how that happened. This Saturday we play Oklahoma and the QB that transferred from Tech last year. It’s a pretty hyped up game but I doubt…

I guess I could see that being worthwhile. I don’t really use YouTube in a way that I could pre-load videos for later, but I imagine it would be nice for those people who watch the popular streamers, vlogs, etc.