On Mon, 14 May 2007, Andy Sutton wrote: > On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 22:09 +0100, Drsolly wrote: > > I'm really not too bothered if a drunk wrecks his own car. It's his > > recklessness getting me killed that infringes my rights. > > I think you are both arguing the same point from a slightly different > angle: Someone is free to drink themselves to death, but not free to run > over little Debbie. The place where you differ is that Brian seems to > be coming from the "no victim, no crime", and Solly from the "the crime > is the potential victim". I apologize if I have misstated your > positions.
The crime is the endangerment. I say that a crime is committed even if there isn't an accident on this occasion, just as it's a crime if you fire into a crowd, even if you get lucky and miss everyone. > While I would not argue that driving a car while intoxicated is an > incredibly stupid thing to do, I have to side with Brian. Mostly > because there are way too many threats out there to wrap laws around > them, something like the TSA banning toothpaste and knitting needles. I don't feel threatened by someone else brushing their teeth or knitting, even when they're drunk. I do feel threatened by someone drunk in charge of a couple of thousand kilograms of metal moving at 100 kilometers per hour. The point isn't to protect people from their own folly, it's to protect me from someone else's folly. > There are just too many potential crimes available to us. Without a > victim, the crime loses a lot of its meaning. > > "Drunk" could easily be replaced by "Mad" or "on the cell phone" in this > conversation. Not sure what your point is here. Medically insane people don't get driving licences, and driving one-handed while you do whatever (including cell phone) can lose you your licence. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
