It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Motorist could be charged for puddle splashing

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


You assume the driver was driving recklessly. In most cases the only real crime is failing a breathalyzer or field sobriety test.

Neither of which are true indicators of a person ability to drive a vehicle from point "A" to point "B". The only thing a test proves is whether a person has consumed a particular substance or whether a person is clumsy.

I could understand enhanced punishment for committing a crime while DWI/DUI, that would make sense because a crime has actually been committed.

If there is no victim, then there is no crime.... that's the way I see it.




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by slimpickens93
You assume the driver was driving recklessly.


There was no assumption. I watched the same video as you. They deliberately went out of their way to drive fast through a puddle with children very close to the car. And even filmed it for us to see.

Now, if you don't feel that is driving recklessly, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because I do feel that was driving recklessly.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by slimpickens93
You assume the driver was driving recklessly.


There was no assumption. I watched the same video as you. They deliberately went out of their way to drive fast through a puddle with children very close to the car. And even filmed it for us to see.

Now, if you don't feel that is driving recklessly, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because I do feel that was driving recklessly.


I didn't watch any video. I was commenting about the DWI/DUI and other laws being punishment for a crime which hasn't happened. While DWI is technically a crime, because it is against the law, DWI in itself harms nobody, there are other factors necessary in order for DWI to progress to a literal offense.

But for the record, "reckless driving" is not a literal crime by itself either. Because there are no victims until such point as somebody is hurt or property is damaged.

Driving skill and ability is not equal among all people.
What appears "reckless" to one, may be elementary to another.
Reckless driving and similar law is based largely on "what if's?".
You cannot prove or disprove the intentions of the actor in many cases.
Enforcers of law are not immune to personal agenda at the expense of others.

At any rate, my post was in reply to the question, "Since when do we punish people for crime that they might commit?" It wasn't really referring to the car splashing video at all.

As there were people (children) who were splashed with water (offended) by the driver intentionally (apparently) then it is possible that there was in fact a crime committed. A reasonable person would assume the driver to be guilty of an offense due to the evidence (video). However, I am not sure exactly what crime has been committed. Being an asshole is not a crime. Of course there may have been several laws violated (speeding, reckless driving, changing lane without signal, DWI, etc..), but we cannot discern all of that information from a video.

That is why we have a Judicial system to conclude these things, although it fails quite often to find Justice.

All law is not just. Much law is unjust.

Maybe the children regularly threw rocks and shouted curses at the driver. Not that it excuses the driver's actions in the eyes of law, but they may have deserved to get splashed, if not more.

If there had been no children or any other persons standing nearby when that driver drove through the puddle and splashed water, would you still be accusing said driver of reckless driving? Would you still have the driver prosecuted and possibly incarcerated (at taxpayers expense)? If so, why?
The only victim at that point would be the taxpayer, because you would prosecute somebody for what might happen.



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join