Quote:
Originally Posted by LizAEBN
Noo... Commiting a crime isn't limited to the intention to commit, and indictments and judgments are passed all the time for guilty parties who "didn't intend" to commit whatever particular crime is up for review.
Drunk drivers don't set out to kill kids or grandparents or someone's mom. But it happens nonetheless, and manslaughter is the result.
I don't think we can use "well, I didn't *mean* to shoot an underage girl!" as a defense.
|
Not the same thing. Drunk drivers took an affirmative action and committed a crime BEFORE they killed whoever sounds the most sympathetic to the press.
They got publicly drunk, breaking the law, then got behind the wheel, and operated a motor vehicle while drunk, again breaking the law. Both things, likely to have a bad result, long before they "commit the crime" in question.
And, if you'll note, I said if you DO shoot an underage whatever, you should fry. I don't have a problem with either of those laws. I have a problem with applying them FIRST, then checking the facts.
If you want to try to draw some kind of bizarre parallel, then the parallel would be:
"Pardon me ma'm, but before I can sell you that can of beer, you have to prove to me that you aren't going to go out with your car and kill little adorable sally and her nanna with your drunk driving. We KNOW that you intend to go out and be a drunk driver EVERY time you pick up a can of beer. And if you want to drink this beer today, you'll have to retain that statement of proof for the next 25 years. And if you can't prove that, I'm going to put you in jail, and take all your property. Even if you only wanted to sit in your living room and drink that beer."
THAT would be a comparable description. Sound ridiculous? Of course it does. As does the entire 2257 argument.