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
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