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.
Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by mnemeth1
Okay. So, to re-phrase my previous scenario, in order to meet your ever-changing requirements. If a LEO (or anyone for that matter) sees a person pointing a pistol at the back of your head, they should be prohibited from taking action until after they have pulled the trigger and extinguished your life. After all, that would be "pre-crime" and you could not possibly "feel" threatened by an action you are unaware is occurring. Correct?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by mnemeth1
Okay. So, to re-phrase my previous scenario, in order to meet your ever-changing requirements. If a LEO (or anyone for that matter) sees a person pointing a pistol at the back of your head, they should be prohibited from taking action until after they have pulled the trigger and extinguished your life. After all, that would be "pre-crime" and you could not possibly "feel" threatened by an action you are unaware is occurring. Correct?
What if the gun was a toy gun and they were shooting a movie?
The officer is only allowed to take action if he perceives a threat to another person's life.
If the officer knows the person having the gun pointed at their head is in no danger, he can not do anything.
Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by mnemeth1
You are using “threaten” and “assault” interchangeably. I do not think that this is correct.
I feel threatened by you but you have not yet assaulted me. I will take action against your threats to prevent myself from being assaulted by you. If that means also taking steps from preventing you from assaulting other people, like calling the cops because I perceive you to be a threat to other people then that’s what I’ll do.
edit on 17-12-2010 by worlds_away because: spelling... typing fast and I’m tired
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...
Summary: Motion parallax, the ability to recover depth from retinal motion, is a crucial part of the visual information needed for driving. Recent work indicates that the perception of depth from motion parallax relies on the slow eye movement system. It is well known that that alcohol intoxication reduces the gain of this slow eye movement system, the basis for the "horizontal gaze nystagmus" field sobriety test. The current study shows that alcohol intoxication also impairs the perception of depth from motion parallax due to its influence on the slow eye movement system. Observer thresholds in both active and passive motion parallax tasks are significantly increased by acute alcohol intoxication. Perhaps such a failure of motion parallax plays a role when intoxicated drivers must make quick judgements with what could be inaccurate or missing perceptual information about the location of obstacles around them.
alcalc.oxfordjournals.org...
ALCOHOL IMPAIRS SPEED OF INFORMATION PROCESSING AND SIMPLE AND CHOICE REACTION TIME AND DIFFERENTIALLY IMPAIRS HIGHER-ORDER COGNITIVE ABILITIES
Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by mnemeth1
How do you know DUI laws do not stop a large people from drinking and driving?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
What if the gun was a toy gun and they were shooting a movie?
The officer is only allowed to take action if he perceives a threat to another person's life.
If the officer knows the person having the gun pointed at their head is in no danger, he can not do anything.
Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
They did have drive through liquor stores in New Orleans years ago. You could get drinks to go!
No time to stop and go inside, places to go, people to run over.... THUMP!
Originally posted by WTFover
Originally posted by mnemeth1
What if the gun was a toy gun and they were shooting a movie?
Huh?
The officer is only allowed to take action if he perceives a threat to another person's life.
(This is really like arguing with one of my kids) Okay, so now the victim doesn't have to feel threatened?
Regardless, with that statement and this one...
If the officer knows the person having the gun pointed at their head is in no danger, he can not do anything.
You have just admitted an Officer must take action against an intoxicated driver, if he "feels" that intoxicated driver is a "threat" to someone else. Which is the purpose of the DWI laws, in the first place. And, you've already acknowledged a vehicle can become a deadly weapon, just as easily as a gun.
At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.
Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.
Originally posted by redgy
most intoxicated drivers are caught by doing something wrong in the first place, so even though no one has been hurt beforehand, they have infringed on some other traffic rule to warrent them being pulled over. it is an accident waiting to happen, whether its liked or not, they need to be kept off the roads and not allowed to drive while under influence of alcohol or drugs. not given free will to do as they please.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by For(Home)Country
Besides feeling threatened, the threat must present imminent physical harm.
"Feeling threatened" by drunks is not enough.
One must be physically threatened with imminent harm.
edit on 17-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by WTFover
So, what you are saying is... If a LEO (or anyone for that matter) sees another person pointing a pistol at your face, they should be prohibited from taking any action until after that person has pulled the trigger and extinguished your life. After all, preventing them from pulling the trigger would be "pre-crime", wouldn't it?
Originally posted by kalisdad
I see exactly where the OP is coming from
Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
Originally posted by kalisdad
I see exactly where the OP is coming from
...you see where he's coming from because you have something to gain by legalizing drunk driving... no logic there... just selfishness...