3 ms·

Attractive nuisance is a tort, not a crime. No one gets arrested for it, they get sued if someone gets injured. Speeding is arguably not victimless. Someone po

by jadell 7y ago

Attractive nuisance is a tort, not a crime. No one gets arrested for it, they get sued if someone gets injured. Speeding is arguably not victimless. Someone pointed out the "shooting into a crowd without hitting anyone" analogy, which is apt. You're engaging in immediately threatening and dangerous behavior. Public intoxication is also not victimless; that's the "disorderly" part of "drunk and disorderly" (whether it gets enforced correctly/equally is a different discussion.) This is actually a great example of my point: you can get as drunk as you want, and no one will care until you start disturbing the peace, being belligerent, damaging property, urinating in public spaces, etc. If you're drunk and sitting in a bar quietly, it's not a problem. We don't arrest you because you might drive drunk later, we wait until you actually drive drunk. We treat other drugs completely differently.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
"Shooting into a crowd" is an intentionally reductionist comparison meant to remove nuance so the reader reaches a specific conclusion. The fact of the matter is that we (we = society) do not condone any level of shooting into a crowd whereas we find certain situation specific levels of drunkenness and speeding perfectly fine. Speeding, public intoxication, etc. in the typical cases don't have victims because we as a society have decided that we are not victimized by small increase in risk of a negative outcome. However, there is some situation dependent hard to pin down threshold where we decide society is victimized and basically everyone agrees the crime is worth prosecuting.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  It was meant to make clear the 'increased risk to the public' issue, which was apparently received loud and clear. I think you made all the rest up. "We as a society" I read as very subjective. I for instance don't regard risky public behavior as victimless. Am I not part of your society?

by jadell 7y ago

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

"Shooting into a crowd" is an intentionally reductionist comparison meant to remove nuance so the reader reaches a specific conclusion. The fact of the matter is that we (we = society) do not condone any level of shooting into a crowd whereas we find certain situation specific levels of drunkenness and speeding perfectly fine. Speeding, public intoxication, etc. in the typical cases don't have victims because we as a society have decided that we are not victimized by small increase in risk of a negative outcome. However, there is some situation dependent hard to pin down threshold where we decide society is victimized and basically everyone agrees the crime is worth prosecuting.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
It was meant to make clear the 'increased risk to the public' issue, which was apparently received loud and clear. I think you made all the rest up. "We as a society" I read as very subjective. I for instance don't regard risky public behavior as victimless. Am I not part of your society?