[expat_panama]

"...DUI cases. Or for that matter, any other victimless crime."

The rest of us say that DUI presents an unacceptable risk threat.  If DUI is 'victimless', then firing a gun into a crowd is also victimless if the bullet happens to miss everyone.

[Knightmixer]

Firing a gun into a crowd is attempted murder with a deadly weapon. In that case, the entire crowd would be the victim. The perp should be tried criminally as well as civilly by each member of the crowd.

Look, the gist of this argument boils down to where the line should be drawn on drunk drivers. Nobody thinks that a clearly drunk lush should be behind the wheel of a car. But should we expand our net to include those folks who have only had a glass of wine with dinner?

I would suggest that every cop carry a camera and record when a driver displays signs of dangerous driving. When a driver, any driver, is found swerving or driving dangerously, they should be pulled over by an officer. If found incapable of driving safely, the driver should then be taken into custody. Let a judge/jury examine the tape if the driver feels he was falsely detained.

[Erik Latranyi]

The rest of us say that DUI presents an unacceptable risk threat. If DUI is 'victimless', then firing a gun into a crowd is also victimless if the bullet happens to miss everyone.

And so, following your logic, posession of a gun would carry the risk threat and the same penalty as shooting it into a crowd.

Do you get it now?

[elkfersupper]

If DUI is 'victimless', then firing a gun into a crowd is also victimless if the bullet happens to miss everyone.

And your point is..........what?