I suppose, assuming that the live rounds did no damage to anything inside(doesn’t seem possible…) and everyone was equally affected and effected by both, then punishment should be the same.
I’m not sure how this is related to DUI.
When a stone sober fellow crosses three lanes of traffic and runs into a car carrying a family, that fellow should be punished. When a guy with a .08 BAC does the same thing, he should be punished the same way. When a stone sober fellow drives home without doing any harm to others, he should be allowed to do so. When a guy does the same with a 1.2 BAC, he should be allowed to do so.
It goes to the legal concept of recklessness, which is knowingly engaging in behavior that puts others at significant risk of harm. Apparently, you feel that, from a legal perspective, recklessness is an illegitimate concept; ie, should not be actionable. All I can say is your view is not congruent with any legal system of which I am aware (although having no formal legal training, I am far from an expert on this subject, so my lack of awareness should not be over-interpreted), and that I would venture most people do not share your view.
I’d say both of the mall shooters could be justly killed for their crime(of course, if neither actually kills anyone, I’d prefer that neither actually receive such punishment following the ending of their acts).
EDIT:
I failed to note that the lack of harm was a mere matter of luck in your hypothetical. Again, how is it related to driving with an arbitrary BAC? The two are not the same. Some people are perfectly capable of driving at a higher-than-legal BAC. No one is capable of wildly and blindly firing shots without endangering others.
The “Gay Wedding Cake Baking”/“Signing Marriage Certificates” kind of stuff.
My feelings?
First. It shouldn’t be a requirement of a small business (however you wish to define that).
Wal-Marts and Targets? No.
This is one case where I think “The marketplace” will eventfully “take care of” a small business with that kind of stance. One argument was that “What if they are the only business in town?”
In the cases that have gotten the most scrutiny; they were not; and the customer(s) had many more options than the business that was harassed.
What about Public Officials not wanting to perform their duties?
Quit if its against your beliefs. “The State” shouldn’t compel you to do anything; but they also do not have an obligation to pay you for a job you wish to not perform.
I’m confused–do you mean killed on-scene, in an active-shooter-type scenario? Or are you suggesting both shooters have committed what you think could be construed a capital crime?
Clearly, there is some level of blood-alcohol at which the ability to drive safely becomes impaired. So while reasonable people can disagree as to what BAC should be considered ‘the limit,’ the concept of a limit itself is sound. In other words, just as no one is capable of wildly and blindly firing shots without endangering others, there is a BAC above which no one is capable of driving without endangering others.
Driving with X.YZ BAC is not equivalent to wildly and blindly firing shots in a mall. Wildly and blindly swerving across lanes of traffic is. Driving with an X.YZ BAC is like shooting a gun with an X.YZ BAC. Its recklessness is entirely dependent upon how well it is done.
Thank you and I want to promise you right here and now in front of all of T Nation that I will do my very best to live up to your expectations in 2017.
I’m quite certain there is some level above which no one can operate a vehicle. I don’t know how that level can be determined other than on an individual basis. “Wildly and blindly” can’t be done in a safe manner by some while remaining reckless when done by others. NO ONE can blindly and wildly fire shots in a safe manner. If we were to devote the resources to allowing everyone to maximize their proficiency at driving drunk, and then determine the highest BAC at which any individual on earth could keep it between the lines…well, I guess we’d then have a just DUI law. I’d rather just punish people for the harm they do, though…
Both are actions. Getting behind the wheel of a car impaired is no less an action. The opprobrium we would attach to one vs another, and the mindset we would impute, is an entirely separate matter.
Alternatively, we could have a just DUI law by 1) publicly declaring what the legal limit is, so that all citizens have the information available to them prior to their drinking and driving; and 2) by not forcing anyone to drive while their BAC is above the limit. So long as these two conditions are met, I’d say a DUI law with an ‘arbitrary’ limit is just.
