Drunk Driving and 'Pre-Crime'?
by Eric Peters
EricPetersAutos.com
Pre-crime used to be a sci-fi literature concept. But it's already our
everyday reality. The fallout from the shooting in Tucson is going to
make that very clear, very soon.
But first, consider "drunk" driving.
There was a time, long ago, when a driver had to actually cause an
accident -- or at least, do something tangible that gave evidence of
actually impaired driving, such as weaving over the double yellow or
limping along at suspiciously slow speed. This was the probable cause
needed by a cop to pull the suspect over.
Fair enough.
Then in the '90s we got (courtesy of Clintigula) the criminalization of
drinking -- irrespective of our actual driving. The mere presence of
trace amounts of alcohol in one's blood became sufficient to arrest a
person for "drunk" driving -- even though all the person did was run
afoul of a notoriously unreliable Breathalyzer machine.
It did not matter that people process alcohol differently; that some
people are much better drivers even with a little booze in their systems
than others are completely sober. And more besides.
Result?
Most people now equate having "x" amount of alcohol in your system -- in
ever-declining percentages -- with "drunk driving." It is an epic
victory of demagoguery and propaganda.
And it is also by definition an example of pre-crime. You haven't done
anything -- but you're in trouble because of what you might do.
Many readers will clamp shut their brains right about now and accuse me
of defending mayhem and irresponsibility -- which is proof they've
bought into the pre-crime argument at the deepest level possible.
The merest potential connection; the flimsiest hint of possibility, no
matter how tenuous or stretched. It's now all you need to be regarded as
having actually done something.
And to be treated accordingly.
Having implanted itself deeply in the American mindset, we shall soon
see an expansion of the principle.
Already, less than a week after the fruitcake in Tucson did his thing,
we have lawmakers equating criticism of the government or its
representatives with acts of violence against the government and its
representatives. It does not matter that the fruitcake did his deed
because he's a fruitcake, or that we have laws on the books to prosecute
actions such as murder.
Soon, what will matter is what you think -- and more, what others (those
in power) think your thoughts might lead to.
To give voice to a sentiment such as "the government is corrupt and
something needs to done," will amount to evidence of advocating violence
-- perhaps even of committing violence -- much as a motorist who has
consumed an arbitrary amount of alcohol is ipso facto a drunk driver.
Consider: You are liable to arrest for "drunk driving" in America today
even if you aren't driving at all. You merely have to be in your car --
even if you're in the passenger seat and the car is parked. People who
have had one too many and decided to sleep it off in their car have been
arrested for DWI just the same as if they had been straddling the double
yellow at 65 MPH with a gin and tonic in one hand and their left leg
hanging out the window.
The courts have said that drinking "x" amount of alcohol not only
defines "impairment" -- it also amounts to intent to drive drunk,
whether you're driving or not. And that intent -- imputed, perceived,
ginned-up out of nothingness -- is what matters.
Is it really a great leap to imagine that political speech -- hatriolic
speech, as it is being styled -- will soon be treated the same way? That
to say or even to think something -- anything -- that smacks of
criticism of government and its flunkies will shortly be regarded as
tantamount to shooting people?
Gun laws -- and the TSA -- already operate on this principle.
You have no record of criminal misconduct or mental illness. You're a
taxpayer, a responsible citizen. Yet in several states (and of course,
Washington, D.C.) you're assumed to have criminal intent, and thus,
denied the right to own a firearm. If you possess one anyway -- even if
you have done nothing with it to harm or even threaten to harm another
person -- then you're subject to being cuffed and stuffed just the same
as if you had actually used it to threaten or harm others.
Pre-crime again.
The TSA subjects people at random -- and en masse -- to rough and
humiliating searches, including invasive physical pat downs, just like
cops do to felony suspects. Not because of anything they've actually
done or even hinted they may do but only because the TSA apes impute
"terrorist intent" to anyone who desires to travel by commercial airplane.
Ipso facto.
Just like having a drink before you drive makes you a "drunk" driver --
no matter how good your actual driving happens to be.
We've upended perhaps the most basic concept of Western jurisprudence --
that for there to be a crime, or wrongdoing, there must be an actual
criminal act, or wrongdoing.
But a society that embraced the tar baby of preemptive wars should not
be surprised to wake up one day to find it is now also snuggling the
concept of pre-crime -- with all its consequences. God bless America.
Land of the Free.
Throw it in the Woods?
January 15, 2011
http://epautos.com/
--
*This is my life. I make the rules.*
*"It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly
falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly
be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so
willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that
this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement."
- Étienne de la Boétie*
*Far too many good people rely on stupid ideas offered by amateurs who
send out emails or hold weekend seminars! Jurisdictionary
<http://www.jurisdictionary.com?refercode=CG0004> was created by a
lawyer with a quarter-century of experience winning lawsuits by
controlling judges and lawyers!*
*I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal
Government*
*Read the US Constitution
<http://amgona.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=7#Amends>*
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
