Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-01-2004, 08:05 AM   #1 (permalink)
Free Mars!
 
feelgood's Avatar
 
Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time
New Punishment for Drunk Drivers?

Clicky Linky

Quote:
LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- Saying that depriving Los Angeles residents of their cars may be a worse punishment than jail, city leaders Wednesday proposed seizing and selling the vehicles of those arrested for drunk driving.

Officials in Los Angeles -- which is crisscrossed by freeways and difficult to navigate with public transportation -- think the sprawling metropolis would be the first major U.S. city to confiscate and auction off the cars of drunk drivers, although authorities elsewhere impound vehicles.

"Driving while drunk or under the influence of drugs continues to be a problem in the City of Los Angeles," police chief William Bratton said. "We can arrest and jail a driver under the influence. But unless we can take away their keys and their cars, they can and will be a deadly menace on city streets."

But legal scholars said the proposed law, which would allow the Los Angeles Police Department to keep the money and use it for drunk driving programs, raises issues over due process and property rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

"What's so troubling to me is that they are doing this as a civil proceeding so that you lose all of the protections that are present in a criminal prosecution, such as due process and reasonable doubt," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a University of Southern California constitutional law professor.

"I have no problem if they want to take away cars as a criminal penalty but they are taking them away before (the drivers) are convicted," he said. "I've lost my car when I haven't been deemed guilty of anything (in court)."

A spokesman for Greig Smith, a Los Angeles city councilman who proposed the law, said enforcement details still needed to be decided by council members. But he said officials were confident that it would pass constitutional muster.

"This is the toughest legislation that's ever been proposed in the country," spokesman Mitch Englander said. "It gives much stronger teeth to helping the LAPD crack down on drunk driving."

Englander said that under the proposed law, the vehicle's owner would have his or her car confiscated even if someone else was arrested for driving it while drunk -- a provision that he said would prompt parents to "think twice" before letting their teenagers borrow the family car.

He said the proposed legislation -- which must be voted into law by the city council and signed by Mayor James Hahn -- may call for the car to be impounded at the time of arrest but not sold unless the accused drunk driver is convicted.

Englander said there were 2,218 drinking-related collisions in the city of Los Angeles and 9,812 such arrests in 2003.
Well, this idea would be good for repeated offenders but as for others...
__________________
Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war
feelgood is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 08:22 AM   #2 (permalink)
Invisible
 
yournamehere's Avatar
 
Location: tentative, at best
I'll be the first to admit that drunk driving is a serious problem.
Now that I've said that, I must say this proposed law is bullshit.

So I take out a loan for a $30,000 vehicle, toss back two drinks, get pulled over, blow a .08, and forfeit my car? And still owe $30K? Without a trial? I don't think so.

I <i>maybe</i> could be convinced it would be fair to force <b>convicted</b> repeat DUI offenders to sell their cars - but confiscating them and auctioning them off before trial? Is this the LAPD or the Gestapo?
__________________
If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors:
"If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too."
It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.
yournamehere is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 08:23 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
I thought NYC was already doing that.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 08:52 AM   #4 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: Urf
Maybe I'm naive, but one of the main goals of the justice system should be to treat everyone equally. While the justice system is somewhat biased against the lower classes (but not as much as they want you to believe), this law would be unfair to the middle and upper classes. After all, losing a new $50,000 Chevy Corvette would be a much stiffer punishment than losing a 15 year old Toyota Corolla that costs $2,000, and both things could happen theoretically with this proposal. Instead of just switching victims, justice system bias should be eradicated completely.

And allowing cars to be taken away before a trial is ridiculous too, a gross violation of the "due process" requirement.

Last edited by User Name; 04-01-2004 at 08:54 AM..
User Name is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 09:02 AM   #5 (permalink)
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
 
Bill O'Rights's Avatar
 
Location: In the dust of the archives
Quote:
Originally posted by User Name
While the justice system is somewhat biased against the lower classes (but not as much as they want you to believe), this law would be unfair to the middle and upper classes. After all, losing a new $50,000 Chevy Corvette would be a much stiffer punishment than losing a 15 year old Toyota Corolla that costs $2,000, and both things could happen theoretically with this proposal.
Which is why this is going to be struck down in very short order.

This is really not anything new, though. The government has been confiscating, and selling, the property of drug offenders for years. They're just branching out now. At this rate, soon you will have no legal right to posses anything that you own.
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.
Bill O'Rights is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 11:45 AM   #6 (permalink)
Knight of the Old Republic
 
Lasereth's Avatar
 
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Quote:
Originally posted by Bill O'Rights
At this rate, soon you will have no legal right to posses anything that you own.
Ahh come on, it's not that bad. You drink and drive: you fucked up. Drinking and driving is idiotic. An incredibly harsh punishment needs to be enacted for it. This isn't just taking away your car for the hell of it...this is punishment for breaking the law and putting others in danger. It's not like they're walking in and stealing people's stuff!

Quote:
Originally posted by feelgood
Well, this idea would be good for repeated offenders but as for others...
So it's alright to drink and drive the first time, but you can't do it a second? It's stupid and wrong everytime if ya ask me. Repeat offenders have nothing to do with it. If you do it once, you know what you're doing and the risks involved.

Quote:
Originally posted by yournamehere
So I take out a loan for a $30,000 vehicle, toss back two drinks, get pulled over, blow a .08, and forfeit my car? And still owe $30K? Without a trial? I don't think so.
If you drink, get pulled over, then blow a .08, I think you don't deserve to have a car. Drinking and driving is simply stupid! There are alternatives. Taxis...friends...designated drivers. Just don't drink and drive. Don't put other people in danger because you wanna get wasted and can't find a ride home. Once is enough to kill someone.

Now, I do agree with you guys about the ganking the car before trial -- that's bullshit. They should take your car if you're found guilty, but not before. That's some serious justice violations if they take it pre-trial.

-Lasereth
__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert
Lasereth is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 11:56 AM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
I agree that drinking and driving is stupid, yet i seem to remember recent studies comparing dui-ing and talking on a cell phone whilst driving as very similar in terms of lowering reaction time and inhibiting safe driving. That being the case, could you confiscate someone's car for talking on the cell phone whilst driving if that is indeed illegal to do in l.a.? Would that be justice?

Also, this would have little effect on those wealthy enough to afford to buy a new car on a whim. It's just like the fellow in europe with the $22,000 or $220,000 speeding ticket. Punishing people in their pocketbooks is meaningless if not applied proportionally.
filtherton is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 12:00 PM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by User Name
Maybe I'm naive, but one of the main goals of the justice system should be to treat everyone equally. While the justice system is somewhat biased against the lower classes (but not as much as they want you to believe), this law would be unfair to the middle and upper classes. After all, losing a new $50,000 Chevy Corvette would be a much stiffer punishment than losing a 15 year old Toyota Corolla that costs $2,000, and both things could happen theoretically with this proposal. Instead of just switching victims, justice system bias should be eradicated completely.

And allowing cars to be taken away before a trial is ridiculous too, a gross violation of the "due process" requirement.
The person driving the 15 year old Corolla isn't driving it because he loves it, he can't afford a new car. The guy who's driving the 50k car CAN afford a new car. How is it more unfair to the rich guy? In a $ sense it is, but in reality buying a new car won't be a problem for this guy.

I could see them forcing the person to sell the car and prevent them from registering a new one, but this is a bullshit way for a bankrupt govt to bring in more revenue. Even if all the proceeds go to DD awareness, any money they collect from that is money that they don't have to spend on current DD awareness.
kutulu is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 12:31 PM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Yep just as I remembered. NYC has been doing this for years.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/22/drunken.drivers/


Quote:
New York City to start seizing cars of drunken drivers


Driving under the influence in New York City could mean losing your vehicle

From Reporter Deborah Feyerick

NEW YORK (CNN) -- People who drink and drive may want to think twice before getting behind the wheel in New York City -- or they may not have any wheels to get behind.

The police department has issued a sober warning that anyone caught driving under the influence will have their car taken away on the spot. If found guilty, the driver loses the car forever.

The policy, set to begin in February, applies not only to personal cars but also to rental cars and leased cars. Only cars that belong to another individual will be returned.

New York's Police Commissioner Howard Safir is basing the policy on a city forfeiture law that lets police seize any weapon used in a crime.

By seizing cars, police hope to cut down on the city's drunken driving fatalities, which last year totaled 31. More than 6,000 people were arrested with too much alcohol in their bloodstreams.

While some say the policy is too extreme, Maureen Riccardella of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, whose family was hit by a drunken driver and who still suffers from the injuries, supports Safir's initiative.

"Drinking drivers are using their vehicles as weapons, and in no other situation would the police take the weapon from a violent felon and then hand it back to him," she says.

Across the country, 23 states have laws permitting police to confiscate or impound cars of drunken drivers, though they usually apply only to repeat offenders. Only New York is using a city law of criminal forfeiture to achieve the same end.

The police department currently confiscates cars of people who buy and sell drugs and those who pick up prostitutes.

At least one attorney says taking away the cars of drunken drivers is redundant because they already lose their driver's licenses.

"Now the commissioner, on his own, is announcing a new punishment, and that would be an additional punishment to what the law provides for," says attorney Gerald Lefcourt.

Late Friday, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said he fully supported Safir's new policy.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 01:01 PM   #10 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
NYC even did it for people buying drugs....
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 01:04 PM   #11 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: Urf
Quote:
Originally posted by Cynthetiq
NYC even did it for people buying drugs....
Let's just hope they don't do it for software piracy. A hell of a lot of people would be carless then.
User Name is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 01:12 PM   #12 (permalink)
Fly em straight!
 
water_boy1999's Avatar
 
Location: Above and Beyond
It doesn't matter if you are lower or upper class. If you drink and drive, you have NO class. I agree that it should be taken away AFTER due process however. People are so worried about their rights being taken away.....well, what about the people who died from a one time offender. They have NO rights. What about the people who were killed because of multiple offenders? I don't see anyone mentioning the fact thet they are the true losers with this new proposed legislation.
__________________
Doh!!!!


-Homer Simpson
water_boy1999 is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 02:00 PM   #13 (permalink)
Invisible
 
yournamehere's Avatar
 
Location: tentative, at best
Quote:
Originally posted by Cynthetiq
NYC even did it for people buying drugs....
Yeah - but who owns cars in NYC?
__________________
If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors:
"If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too."
It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.
yournamehere is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 03:15 PM   #14 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Poeple who drink and drive shouldn't be able to drive. How I look at. This just helps the process of getting these people off the road.
Aletheia is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 03:16 PM   #15 (permalink)
The Northern Ward
 
Location: Columbus, Ohio
I bet Hammurabi would put them to death.
__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy
Phaenx is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 03:47 PM   #16 (permalink)
Insane
 
Fuck you if you drive drunk even once. Sell the car, take away the privelage to drive permanently.
meepa is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 04:02 PM   #17 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Xiomar's Avatar
 
Location: Bay Area, California
Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
I agree that drinking and driving is stupid, yet i seem to remember recent studies comparing dui-ing and talking on a cell phone whilst driving as very similar in terms of lowering reaction time and inhibiting safe driving. That being the case, could you confiscate someone's car for talking on the cell phone whilst driving if that is indeed illegal to do in l.a.? Would that be justice?
Umm... sorry. But how can you compare the two. Sure, talking on you cell phone is stupid... and it causes accidents, but how many people have died from cell phone related accidents in comparison to how many people drunk drivers kill?

Bottom line. People are coming up murdered. Thats right, murdered. If I walk down the street and start firing a gun... sure, I might hit someone.. I might not. It's the same gamble.
And they never see it coming. They never have a chance. Because some asshole was "okay to drive".
Xiomar is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 05:29 PM   #18 (permalink)
MXL
Tilted
 
Location: Maryland
Quote:
Originally posted by User Name
While the justice system is somewhat biased against the lower classes (but not as much as they want you to believe), this law would be unfair to the middle and upper classes. After all, losing a new $50,000 Chevy Corvette would be a much stiffer punishment than losing a 15 year old Toyota Corolla that costs $2,000, and both things could happen theoretically with this proposal.

Actual this is kind of the way Europe does it. That $2000 dollar car represents about the same percentage of the owners income as the $50K Vette does to its owner. Fines in Europe are often based on a percentage of your income. Last year there was a headline where some guy got an astronomical speeding ticket. I can't remember the amount but it was huge. Effectively you are taking the same amount of earning potental from each person regardless of their income.
MXL is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 05:36 PM   #19 (permalink)
Enter Title Here
 
Location: Tennessee
it's a great idea, only flawed in the fact that it needs to be sold only after they are convicted.
Bamrak is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 05:56 PM   #20 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Toronto
For convicted drunk drivers in Ontario, the government installs a breathalyzer into your car. The car won't start unless you breathe less than the limit. I think that's a damn good idea... frankly, it should be implemented in all cars. Why not?
__________________
wra
Fenton-J-Cool is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 06:06 PM   #21 (permalink)
hovering in the distance
 
Location: the land of milk and honey
wow, i am sure there will be alot of nice Mercedes in the impound.


Quote:
Originally posted by Fenton-J-Cool
For convicted drunk drivers in Ontario, the government installs a breathalyzer into your car. The car won't start unless you breathe less than the limit. I think that's a damn good idea... frankly, it should be implemented in all cars. Why not?
they have that her in the states, too. My old boss had one, before he died of alcohol related illness.
Quote:
quote:
Originally posted by User Name
While the justice system is somewhat biased against the lower classes (but not as much as they want you to believe), this law would be unfair to the middle and upper classes. After all, losing a new $50,000 Chevy Corvette would be a much stiffer punishment than losing a 15 year old Toyota Corolla that costs $2,000, and both things could happen theoretically with this proposal.
maybe it would make up for all the poor people who couldn't afford a good attorney, like people who could afford a $50k car.
__________________
no signature required
moonstrucksoul is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 08:16 PM   #22 (permalink)
Go faster!
 
DEI37's Avatar
 
Location: Wisconsin
What I'm trying to figure out is you guys talking about being "convicted." If you blew a .10, there isn't a jury or a lawyer on this planet that will get you off. None. If you blew a .10, you just had your hearing. And it was a fair trial on top of that. You fucked up by drinking and driving. Then you got stupid and got caught. Guess what? Now, you can forfeit your privilege (not right) to drive, and be a visitor of the Iron Bar Inn for a while.

In all reality, they ARE taking the car after being convicted. I see no problem with this as it stands.
__________________
Generally speaking, if you were to get what you really deserve, you might be unpleasantly surprised.
DEI37 is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 08:27 PM   #23 (permalink)
Insane
 
yeah i totally agree with DEI37.. drunk driving is just goo much a danger to the society for the law to tolerate it.
orphen is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 08:39 PM   #24 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Lubbock, TX
The bad thing i see about this is the fact that the car is impounded and sold EVEN IF IT WASNT THE DRIVERS CAR. How many times do people loan out their cars to friends or family? Now it has to be that you wouldnt loan out your car for the small chance it would get impounded and sold.
__________________
Caffeine - the molecule of life.
Kllr Wolf is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 08:40 PM   #25 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Xiomar's Avatar
 
Location: Bay Area, California
Quote:
Originally posted by Kllr Wolf
The bad thing i see about this is the fact that the car is impounded and sold EVEN IF IT WASNT THE DRIVERS CAR. How many times do people loan out their cars to friends or family? Now it has to be that you wouldnt loan out your car for the small chance it would get impounded and sold.
Sounds like a plan.
Xiomar is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 08:51 PM   #26 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally posted by Xiomar
Umm... sorry. But how can you compare the two. Sure, talking on you cell phone is stupid... and it causes accidents, but how many people have died from cell phone related accidents in comparison to how many people drunk drivers kill?

Bottom line. People are coming up murdered. Thats right, murdered. If I walk down the street and start firing a gun... sure, I might hit someone.. I might not. It's the same gamble.
And they never see it coming. They never have a chance. Because some asshole was "okay to drive".
I only compared them because i remembered studies comparing them. The point is that drunk driving increases the chance that one will get in an accident. So does talking on your cell phone, or fucking with your gps system or watching a dvd. I don't think they collect statistics on these things, but i would wager that driver inattentiveness is just as murderous as drunk driving. This is all very irrelevant to the thread other than to say that we put more of a stigma on drunk driving than we do on equally risky automotive behavior.

Keep in mind that i'm not trying to justify or rationalize drunk driving. I think it is really fucking irresponsible to gamble with people's lives because you didn't want to call a cab, or spend the night somewhere. I think in some cases, taking away someone's car would be a good thing. I also think that taking away someone's car is a poor substitute for incarceration or court ordered treatment. Until a few years ago and maybe even still, dui was nothing more than a misdemeanor in my state. People have been known to get upwards of 15-20 dui's and not spend any time in jail, beyond sobering-up time. Especially in rural areas, you take away someone's car, they can very easily find a new one or borrow someone else's because they need one to get around. I don't think stealing people's cars is the way to go.
filtherton is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 08:55 PM   #27 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Xiomar's Avatar
 
Location: Bay Area, California
filtherton,
My apologies.. I over-reacted a little.. This is just a rather emotional subject for me, as well as probably others. I should remember to try and relax before I post.
Xiomar is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 09:02 PM   #28 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
I can understand. No problem. God forbid that i am ever touched personally by this issue.
filtherton is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 09:03 PM   #29 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Xiomar's Avatar
 
Location: Bay Area, California
Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
I can understand. No problem. God forbid that i am ever touched personally by this issue.
You too huh... Wouldn't it be nice if everyone just decided to stop doing it?
Xiomar is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 09:05 PM   #30 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Yeah, the problem is that most people seem unable to make the choice to stop. It's a disease and this new tactic will do nothing to cure people.
filtherton is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 09:31 PM   #31 (permalink)
Banned
 
Simple. Easy.

The term "repeat offender" shouldn't exist. It's a gross statement to insist that a punishment wait until someone has done this twice.

You can have your first drinks ever in your life, get behind the wheel drunk for the first time, and kill someone IMMEDIATELY 30 seconds down the road.

FUCK THAT.

When I was 17, I had to be told that the guy who killed the girl I loved when his drunk ass plowed into her head-on at 60+ mph NOT ONLY is alive with just a few bruises, but gets to keep driving until he does it again.

What, you're waiting for him to kill someone else before you stop him??

While my tone and sentiment may be one of personal grievance, and therefore somewhat biased, I don't think there's a person here who could disagree with me and then be able to sleep at night.

This law is incredible. As long as it is a criminal punishment (allows for due process, etc.) I think it should be enacted everywhere.

I had no idea NY city was already doing this- but now that I know, i'm so proud.

Last edited by analog; 04-01-2004 at 09:35 PM..
analog is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 09:40 PM   #32 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Xiomar's Avatar
 
Location: Bay Area, California
When I was 24, I lost my sister in almost the same matter. So, I get a little pissed as well as agree... SO many parts of this world is just plain fucked up.
Xiomar is offline  
 

Tags
drivers, drunk, punishment

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:04 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360