Legally “Drunk” vs. Actually Impaired

[phill4paul]

Drunk is 1.74 martinis. Assuming 2.4 FL Oz standard.

Or 2.47 bottles of dos equis (12 oz)

Or 14.55 cans of PBR

I had less than 14.55 cans of PBR. But, I shot-gunned them all in a 2 hr. period. If I'd been stopped 24 hrs. later there wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

What if the “drunk” driver doesn’t crash into you – or at all?

Does he deserve punishment because he might have? Why is his punishment for this might have

So driving 100 mph in a school zone when the toddlers are getting out of school is OK as long as none of the kiddos is hit?

As far as legally drunk is concerned:

 

[Danke]

So driving 100 mph in a school zone when the toddlers are getting out of school is OK as long as none of the kiddos is hit?

As far as legally drunk is concerned:

That is reckless driving. Getting in trouble after having a few drinks is a precrime if you are not driving around recklessly.

 

[phill4paul]

So driving 100 mph in a school zone when the toddlers are getting out of school is OK as long as none of the kiddos is hit?

Where did you get that bullshit from?

 

[Anti Federalist]

So driving 100 mph in a school zone when the toddlers are getting out of school is OK as long as none of the kiddos is hit?

As already noted, reckless driving and that is actionable.

Not at all what we are talking about here.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

As already noted, reckless driving and that is actionable.

Not at all what we are talking about here.

The point of the OP was the distinction between actually causing harm and doing something that hypothetically could cause harm but doesn't, and that while the former should be punishable, the latter shouldn't:

A moral standard would not be arbitrary and selectively punitive. It would demand accountability arising from any species of inept/reckless driving that resulted in harm caused to another person or someone else’s property – and never mind why.

Who cares why?

What matters – what ought to matter – is that it did.

Or did not.

Hypotheticals – feelings – ought not to enter into it.

So under the theory of the OP, reckless driving that doesn't cause harm shouldn't be punished.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The point of the OP was the distinction between actually causing harm and doing something that hypothetically could cause harm but doesn't, and that while the former should be punishable, the latter shouldn't:

So under the theory of the OP, reckless driving that doesn't cause harm shouldn't be punished.

And taken to the other extreme, everything you do causes harm.

This is how the Green Marxists will justify genocide.

VW employees went to jail and the company was criminally fined billions of dollars, for an emissions "scam" that resulted in an increase of the pollutant in question, nitrogen oxides, from the required 98.7 percent removal to 98.4 - never mind that the lower figure was offset by the fact that the engines in question produced more power and thus overall emitted less pollutants than the government smog restricted ones, or the fact that nobody could produce anybody that had been harmed in any real way.

The default should always be: first show me the victim.

But that is not how the law is today.

I doubt anybody would have an issue with force being used to stop someone who was intoxicated and randomly shooting at people.

 

[devil21]

So driving 100 mph in a school zone when the toddlers are getting out of school is OK as long as none of the kiddos is hit?

As far as legally drunk is concerned:

That would be a violation of common law, where a clear and present danger is apparent to everyone and requires no "presumptions of law" to make it actionable in front of a jury of peers or a judge. My rule of thumb is that if something requires a presumption of law (whether by statute or by operation of law, such as how our current Roman legal commercial courts operate), absent an actual victim, in order to be enforceable, then what is being enforced is not a common law crime but is rather a commercial contract violation of some voluntarily accepted contract term.

Relevant: 12 Presumptions of Roman courts in effect right now
https://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/british-law/canon-3228-the-twelve-presumptions-of-court/

 

[pcosmar]

New rule: if you're drunk, put your flashers on, stay in the right lane, drive 10mph under the speed limit, until you get home.

If you're stopped while following this rule, cop gives you ride home. No charges. Pick up your car in the morning.

Watch drunk driving casualties plummet to the single digits.

always were single digit.. rare.

 

[pcosmar]

reckless driving that doesn't cause harm shouldn't be punished.

Wreckless should not be considered Reckless.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

In related news:

4 hours ago

Minnesota court rules rape charge doesn't apply if the victim got willingly drunk

Oriana Gonzalez

Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul Thissen said the initial third-degree criminal sexual conduct ruling did not count in this case. Photo: Marlin Levison/Star Tribune via Getty Images

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a man who had sex with a woman while she was passed out on his couch cannot be found guilty of rape because the victim got herself drunk beforehand.
The big picture: Minnesota is one of the many states that says that for a victim to be too mentally incapacitated to give consent, they must have become intoxicated against their will, such as if a person secretly drugged someone's drink, The Washington Post reports.
Context: Francios Momolu Khalil in 2017 picked up a woman from a Minneapolis bar and took her back to his home. The woman "blacked out" on Khalil's couch and woke up to find him allegedly sexually assaulting her, per The Post.

• A jury in 2019 convicted Khalil of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. His lawyers appealed the decision saying that the charge was not applicable because that statute applies when the victim took drugs or alcohol without their consent, while the woman in this case had taken five vodka shots herself prior to meeting Khalil.
• If a person is convicted of the third-degree charge, they could face up to 15 years in prison, pay a fine of no more than $30,000, or both.

The state Supreme Court overturned the conviction and gave Khalil a new trial, arguing that the prosecution's explanation of the charge "unreasonably strains and stretches the plain text of the statute," state Justice Paul Thissen wrote, per the Duluth News Tribune.

• The court said that Khalil could be charged with fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, a gross misdemeanor. If convicted, he would face up to one year in prison, a fine of no more than $3,000 or both.

Worth noting: The Minnesota House of Representatives is currently considering a bill that would change the language of the third-degree criminal sexual conduct statute, the Duluth News Tribune reports.

• It would make it a crime to have sex with someone who is too incapacitated to give consent, regardless of how they got to that state.

axios.com/minnesota-court-rape-victim-intoxicated

 

[Dr.3D]

In related news:



axios.com/minnesota-court-rape-victim-intoxicated

So a drunk driving charge shouldn't apply if the victim got willingly drunk.