3 ms·

3 years seems extreme. Drunk drivers mostly don't get jail time.

xyst 1y ago
I would normally agree but digging into the details of this incident: > Note that this allegedly vengeful former employee also risked public health and safety. By editing the menus to suggest that certain items were safe for people with peanut allergies when they weren’t, he risked people having life-threatening anaphylactic incidents. There is no allegation that anyone was actually harmed or injured, however, as Disney detected the alterations before menus could be sent out to restaurants https://databreaches.net/2024/10/30/fbi-investigated-disney-world-cyberattack-after-restaurant-menus-were-changed/ https://databreaches.net/2024/10/30/fbi-investigated-disney-...
- londons_explore 1y ago
  A drunk driver far more directly puts people at risk than a menu with incorrect allergen information. Fewer than 1% of allergy incidents result in death, which can't be said for drunk driver crashes.
  - rightbyte 1y ago
    What's up with all these strange analogies. This would be programming a machine to print "non-alcoholic" on alcoholic beer in such an analogy about drunk drivers.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
Intent. Drunk drivers are being stupid and dangerous. This person was intentionally dangerous.
- queenkjuul 1y ago
  Drunk driving is also intentional
  - DangitBobby 1y ago
    No. The intent of drunk driving is to get around. There is no malicious intent, just extreme negligence.
    - brigandish 1y ago
      Negligence, and recklessness, which is where I would place drunk driving, are both mens rea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence
      - DangitBobby 1y ago
        We are discussing intent.
        brigandish 1y ago
        Mens rea is criminal intent, actus reus is criminal action. Without mens rea there is no crime (there being the exception of strict liability crimes, which do not apply here and would not involve intent at all anyway). From [1]: > It is generally agreed that the essential ingredients of any crime are (1) a voluntary act or omission (actus reus), accompanied by (2) a certain state of mind (mens rea). [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/criminal-law/The-elements-of-crime https://www.britannica.com/topic/criminal-law/The-elements-o...
        Doxin 1y ago
        "Mens rea" is generally a lower bar than what "intent" means in common usage. Mens rea is refers to the intent to take a specific action. Intent in common usage refers to the intent to cause a specific outcome. For drunk driving there definitely is mens rea. A drunk driver did intend to get in their car to drive. Whether or not they intended to create grave risk to life is up for debate.
techright75 1y ago
cant tell if you are a troll or a Luigi the murderer supporter.

xyst 1y ago

I would normally agree but digging into the details of this incident: > Note that this allegedly vengeful former employee also risked public health and safety. By editing the menus to suggest that certain items were safe for people with peanut allergies when they weren’t, he risked people having life-threatening anaphylactic incidents. There is no allegation that anyone was actually harmed or injured, however, as Disney detected the alterations before menus could be sent out to restaurants https://databreaches.net/2024/10/30/fbi-investigated-disney-world-cyberattack-after-restaurant-menus-were-changed/ https://databreaches.net/2024/10/30/fbi-investigated-disney-...

londons_explore 1y ago
A drunk driver far more directly puts people at risk than a menu with incorrect allergen information. Fewer than 1% of allergy incidents result in death, which can't be said for drunk driver crashes.
- rightbyte 1y ago
  What's up with all these strange analogies. This would be programming a machine to print "non-alcoholic" on alcoholic beer in such an analogy about drunk drivers.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

Intent. Drunk drivers are being stupid and dangerous. This person was intentionally dangerous.

queenkjuul 1y ago
Drunk driving is also intentional
- DangitBobby 1y ago
  No. The intent of drunk driving is to get around. There is no malicious intent, just extreme negligence.
  - brigandish 1y ago
    Negligence, and recklessness, which is where I would place drunk driving, are both mens rea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence
    - DangitBobby 1y ago
      We are discussing intent.
      - brigandish 1y ago
        Mens rea is criminal intent, actus reus is criminal action. Without mens rea there is no crime (there being the exception of strict liability crimes, which do not apply here and would not involve intent at all anyway). From [1]: > It is generally agreed that the essential ingredients of any crime are (1) a voluntary act or omission (actus reus), accompanied by (2) a certain state of mind (mens rea). [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/criminal-law/The-elements-of-crime https://www.britannica.com/topic/criminal-law/The-elements-o...
        Doxin 1y ago
        "Mens rea" is generally a lower bar than what "intent" means in common usage. Mens rea is refers to the intent to take a specific action. Intent in common usage refers to the intent to cause a specific outcome. For drunk driving there definitely is mens rea. A drunk driver did intend to get in their car to drive. Whether or not they intended to create grave risk to life is up for debate.

techright75 1y ago

cant tell if you are a troll or a Luigi the murderer supporter.