🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <tarrall.724189741@qso> tarrall@Colorado.EDU (Captain Neon) writes:
>Frank Crary said:
>>You seem to ignore the possibility that someone could drive after
>>light drinking, without endangering others. I'm simply saying that
>>before such a person is punished (more severely than simply 
>>revoking his license, in my opinion) there should be evidence 
>>provided that he was actually a public threat.

>So, you would support revoking people's licenses for driving after
>"light" drinking, or did I misinterpret your parenthetical remark there?

That isn't exactly what I mean: I think much more severe penelties should
be imposed for driving recklessly, and none at all if the driver is
not reckless.

>As for proving that the individual was a public threat, join the real
>world, Frank.  Drunk driving trials would be a pain in the ass if we didn't
>have specific laws available with clear penalties... for about a month.
>Then, there would be enough court cases to again set the precedent that
>a certain BAC is enough evidence for a reckless endangerment conviction.

I disagree: The jury has to feel, beyond any reasonable doubt, that
the driver was endangering others. No matter what the precident, everyone
agrees that the effects of drinking differ from person to person: Additional
evidence (like the arresting officer testifying about swerving from lane
to lane) would be required. As for this being a pain, that's the nature of
our legal system: The government must go through a great deal of time
and effort before punishing someone. That assures that the innocent are
rarely punished unjustly (something, in theory, more important that 
convicting every guilty person.)

>Oh... now that I've deleted the bit about knife-throwing in restaurants,
>I just realized something.  You're willing to accept that this is
>reckless endangerment... but want the "right" to drive after a few
>drinks if you as an individual believe that you're safe.  (And, if
>prosecuted, they'd have to prove that you as an individual were unsafe,
>yes?)

No, not if you _believe_ you are safe; if you really are driving safely.
If someone thinks he can drive safely, but is in fact endangering others
I think he should be punished (Although this would be, in my opinion,
reckless endangerment/manslaugther not attempted murder/murder in the
second degree.)

>  OK, how's this then:  I absolutely guarantee I can miss you with a
>decent rifle.  So: what if I set a target across the highway from me and
>start shooting at it with, say, a nice Lee-Enfield bolt-action .30 caliber,
>across all the lanes of traffic?  I wouldn't hit anyone.  I can say that 
>without a shadow of a doubt.

You are, however, very wrong. You could easily hit someone. As a result
I think this should be illegal (as it is) by the above mentioned logic.
If, instead, you put your target against a hillside (e.g. a good backstop)
and were not firing towards anyone, this really would be safe and is
(again, as I think it should be) legal (at least on private property outside 
of city limits and on federal BLM lands.)

>Say I'm doing this without any intent to 
>either endanger *or* frighten anyone... this is just what's convenient for 
>me.  Now, when they haul my butt off to court, as they most assuredly will, 
>how should they proceed?  Do they need to prove that I was endangering 
>people?  How should they do this?

That would be fairly easy: The prosecuter would ask you if there were
any cars between you and your target; if you had ever missed your target
(if you claimed no, an expert witness or two would make you look like
a liar. The jury knows everyone would occasionally miss) and if you
could control where your missed shots went (by definition impossible: If
they were going where you intended, they wouldn't have been misses.)
From this, it would be clear (beyond any reasonable doubt) that there
were people who could have been hit by your missed shots. That is, you
were endangering them. 

In the case of DWAIs, I'm just saying there should be some, similar 
proof in court that the offense was actually reckless endangerment.
Not only should that be fairly easy in most cases, but it would
open the door to much more severe punishments (since the drunk
driver would have then been convicted of a felony.)

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder