jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 3:02:37 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:26:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

"Gross deviation" from normal behavior is what makes it criminal (as
opposed to perhaps a traffic offense.) You says it happens all the
time. Thus, based on your own experience, is probably not a gross
deviation. So, not a crime.

This is the gist of your argument and it is complete bull****. You are
claiming that crime is mitigated by the frequency with which it is
committed. Grossly dangerous behavior cannot be normalized; if we allow
that to be, there would ultimately be no point whatsoever to having laws
to govern human behavior.

An example is a local case being prosecuted criminally which is one of
the very examples I gave- being distracted by the cell phone resulting
in the driver striking and killing one person and permanently disabling
another in the car that she hit. Even though distracted driving happens
all the time, it does rise to the level of gross negligence.

What if the call on the cell-phone had been from an ER, telling the
driver his baby son was being resuscitated. What if he had dropped hot
coffee in his lap. What if, what if . . . Drivers have been distracted
every since there were cars. Yes, its worse now with cellphones, and a
legislature certainly could make it criminal to cause an injury while
using a cellphone in a car. A lot of car-related conduct already is
criminal, but making every negligent car accident a crime would be
bizarre -- and would clog up the criminal docket. And why stop with cars.
What about medical malpractice?

Personally, I'm for capital punishment for people who get into the quick
check line with more than nine items. I would like to criminalize
super-bright lights on bikes in bike lanes, and while I'm at it . . .

-- Jay Beattie.


There should be a distinction between taking a call and texting. Or
googling. Or catching the latest Game of Thrones episode.

--
duane