Pedestrian critical in San Juan accident. (Involving Montero Sport)

**CVT** · July 10th, 2012 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by yebo

you call this an ACCIDENT? the driver was DRUNK! this drunken driver ran over a pedestrian who was rightly walking on the pedestrian lane. this poor pedestrian will lose his legs. he will no longer be able to work. he will never be able to attain his full potential. he will never be able to play basketball with the baby that his wife will deliver in a few months. what is the difference between a drunk driver and a low life with a gun who shoots an innocent pedestrian on the street? the only difference is that one uses a gun and the other uses a 2 ton suv. they are the same, they both deserve to be called criminals. they both deserve to pay and suffer.

btw, i am not being emotional about this (can you see my face, am i hysterical?) i am being perfectly rational. i still do walk on sidewalks as i, too, am a pedestrian when i am not in my car. as my whole family when they are not in the car. i am perfectly rational to ask that the penalties for a DRUNK DRIVER injuring and killing people with their cars be raised to the level of that of common low life criminals. what is wrong with that?

common GH, you are a fair man. if ever there is a time we should take sides it is this time. and i think we should take the side of the victim not the criminal.

I am with you on this one, bro.yebo.

No fence sitting on this issue.

We are all drivers. We should ALL be RESPONSIBLE DRIVERS.

Else, you should be RESPONSIBLE enough at least as a person to surrender your driver's license. You should not be on the road, driving a tonner of a potential killer.

16.2K:bat:

**frequenzy** · July 10th, 2012 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by yebo

you call this an ACCIDENT? the driver was DRUNK! this drunken driver ran over a pedestrian who was rightly walking on the pedestrian lane. this poor pedestrian will lose his legs. he will no longer be able to work. he will never be able to attain his full potential. he will never be able to play basketball with the baby that his wife will deliver in a few months. what is the difference between a drunk driver and a low life with a gun who shoots an innocent pedestrian on the street? the only difference is that one uses a gun and the other uses a 2 ton suv. they are the same, they both deserve to be called criminals. they both deserve to pay and suffer.

btw, i am not being emotional about this (can you see my face, am i hysterical?) i am being perfectly rational. i still do walk on sidewalks as i, too, am a pedestrian when i am not in my car. as my whole family when they are not in the car. i am perfectly rational to ask that the penalties for a DRUNK DRIVER injuring and killing people with their cars be raised to the level of that of common low life criminals. what is wrong with that?

common GH, you are a fair man. if ever there is a time we should take sides it is this time. and i think we should take the side of the victim not the criminal.

+1
sa tingin ko din dapat mataas ang penalty ng drunk driving minsan na take for granted natin ito

share ko lang what happened sa family friend namin. her dad was a puj driver and unfortunately nahulog yung pasahero na nakasabit sa likod and namatay. sabi nung mga pasahero hindi naman daw mabilis yun jeep at nakabitiw lang talaga yung nakasabit dahil pagod ata sa trabaho. since ayaw nung friend makulong yung dad niya nakipagkasundo sila dun sa pamilya ng biktima. they shouldered all the expenses and meron din sustento. since hindi sila mayaman na baon na rin sila sa utang ngayon. nakikita ko rin talaga yung hirap na pinagdadaan dahil sa aksidente na yun

**glenn manikis** · July 10th, 2012 02:15 PM

suggestion ko.. penalty for drunk driving mag handa ng 5 case na beer ipainom sa drunk tapos ang matitirang bote ipupukpok sa ulo ng drunk... he.he.. ganyan kasi ginawa sakin ng tatay ko dati eh...

**XTO** · July 10th, 2012 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by cast_no_shadow

If you are coming from greenhills/ortigas ave nasa right side siya, bago ka dumating ng cardinal santos..

Napaisip nga ako bakit pati gulong niya nakalas.

Familiar din ako sa kalye na yan. Maganda yari, makinis and may mga humps pa. Hmmm galing ng Ortigas and nagmamadali (sigurado) umuwi yung iresponsableng walang modong driver na yan

. What if kamag-anak n'ya nagwo-walking dyan at nasuro ng sasakyan, magagalit kaya din siya sa forum???

**XTO** · July 10th, 2012 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by frequenzy

+1
sa tingin ko din dapat mataas ang penalty ng drunk driving minsan na take for granted natin ito

sana nga trabahuhin nila ito. naitataas nga nila sin taxes, no helmet, open pipe etc eh why not on this tagal and dami na natodas ng dahil sa sobrang toma? if ever ma involve sa accident automatic i-test ang driver/s involved then pag napatunayan "loaded" with too much alcohol or substance kasuhan na.

ano kaya punto ng ibang mga tsinoy dito???? take note tsinoy ha? and not intsik or **** *****

**ghosthunter** · July 10th, 2012 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by blueray333

He should have not been driving under influence. The car should not have been there at that place and time if he wasn't drinking and driving.

It's not a free ticket. Are you willing to give up your two feet, face and teeth for a lifetime financial support? I think not.

Like I said, attitudes like that gives reason for many to choose to "make sure" the accident victim is dead on the spot.

True, it is wrong for the driver of the montero to be drunk and still be driving. BUT requiring a person to a lifetime of financial support is akin to financial "slavery". Where is the justice in that? Like I said, an accident is an accident.

**cast_no_shadow** · July 10th, 2012 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by ghosthunter

Like I said, attitudes like that gives reason for many to choose to "make sure" the accident victim is dead on the spot.

True, it is wrong for the driver of the montero to be drunk and still be driving. BUT requiring a person to a lifetime of financial support is akin to financial "slavery". Where is the justice in that? Like I said, an accident is an accident.

So whats your stand, lets say a drunk driver disabled for life an able, bread winner being?
How can you put limits to the financial support that you are mandated to give? knowing that he is disabled for life?

**nelany** · July 10th, 2012 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by XTO

sana nga trabahuhin nila ito. naitataas nga nila sin taxes, no helmet, open pipe etc eh why not on this tagal and dami na natodas ng dahil sa sobrang toma? if ever ma involve sa accident automatic i-test ang driver/s involved then pag napatunayan "loaded" with too much alcohol or substance kasuhan na.

ano kaya punto ng ibang mga tsinoy dito???? take note tsinoy ha? and not intsik or **** *****

Tsinoy? Eh di dadaanin sa bayad para ma areglo. That driver should be dealt with accordingly. Kung sa ibang lugar yan nangyari ba bye ba rin yung driver.

**ghosthunter** · July 10th, 2012 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by yebo

you call this an ACCIDENT? the driver was DRUNK! this drunken driver ran over a pedestrian who was rightly walking on the pedestrian lane. this poor pedestrian will lose his legs. he will no longer be able to work. he will never be able to attain his full potential. he will never be able to play basketball with the baby that his wife will deliver in a few months. what is the difference between a drunk driver and a low life with a gun who shoots an innocent pedestrian on the street? the only difference is that one uses a gun and the other uses a 2 ton suv. they are the same, they both deserve to be called criminals. they both deserve to pay and suffer.

btw, i am not being emotional about this (can you see my face, am i hysterical?) i am being perfectly rational. i still do walk on sidewalks as i, too, am a pedestrian when i am not in my car. as my whole family when they are not in the car. i am perfectly rational to ask that the penalties for a DRUNK DRIVER injuring and killing people with their cars be raised to the level of that of common low life criminals. what is wrong with that?

common GH, you are a fair man. if ever there is a time we should take sides it is this time. and i think we should take the side of the victim not the criminal.

If you want to be fair, then ban all alcoholic drinks as nothing comes good from them. Drunk people kill each other for the most pointless reasons. Alcohol has known to be the cause of many illnesses.

And along the way, just throw the drunk driver in jail for a while and cancel his driver's license. Just let the guy pay for reparations to the victim. Calling for a "lifetime" of financial support will not help the victim to get back into living his life. All you are doing is making a human leech.

It is obvious many people here are acting too much from their emotions about the issue.

**ghosthunter** · July 10th, 2012 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by cast_no_shadow

So whats your stand, lets say a drunk driver disabled for life an able, bread winner being?
How can you put limits to the financial support that you are mandated to give? knowing that he is disabled for life?

So, are you saying a disabled person is less of a human? Cannot he get over his disability and get on with his life?

People's attitude is like if someone lost a limb, it is like he is less of a human being.