Pointing a gun and attempting to pull the trigger (unsuccessfully) would presumably constitute assault, since it would traumatize the targeted person. There would be an opportunity for civil litigation for damages there, too, on a pain-and-suffering basis.

I think it should certainly be a less serious crime than succeeding in pulling the trigger, and I would guess that you would agree.

> Yet in all these examples, there is no crime (unless you count the relatively minor “drunk and disorderly”) until the damage actually occurs.

Well, what is the damage done when you speed?

Of course speeding by itself harms no one. But it is banned to protect us from the increased danger associated with this conduct.

> Personally I would like to see the repeal of all drunk-driving laws, because I don’t believe in punishing people for things that they haven’t actually done.

Well, that is certainly a radical position. I suppose it’s consistent at least.

And if I point a gun at you and pull the trigger, but the gun jams, that isn’t a crime either? I am just wondering how far you go with this no harm, no foul principle.

There’s all kinds of stuff that people are statistically more likely to do after having a few drinks–such as punching someone, stealing something, or merely bumping into a bystander and knocking him into the path of an oncoming truck. Yet in all these examples, there is no crime (unless you count the relatively minor “drunk and disorderly”) until the damage actually occurs. Why should sitting in a motor vehicle change everything so radically? Just because of activist groups such as MADD?

Personally I would like to see the repeal of all drunk-driving laws, because I don’t believe in punishing people for things that they haven’t actually done. That’s a slippery slope which leads to absurd and unjust cases such as the one cited. Four years in jail for sitting in a car in a parking lot? Well, what if he had been sitting _beside_ the car, with the keys in his hand, and the door of the car open? What if he had been sitting in his home adjacent to the garage, _thinking about_ getting into the car?

As soon as you assume that people cannot be trusted, there’s no end to it.

I mean that is the statutory language. So what do you call “control?”

A few years ago the State of Pennsylvania had a proposed law that would allow a person to be arrested up to three hours after they were driving for DUI. The law was rejected, when it was pointed out that someone could have been totally sober while driving, parked their car and then become intoxicated. Under this law I could have been sober when I parked my car in my driveway after work. I could have then crossed the street to the bar where I play in a dart league, had several drinks, gone home and still been arrested for DUI if an officer had seen me parking my car three hours ago.

With the way our rights are being trampled on in the name of DUI, I really don’t care how the Courts rule in a certain case. I am more concerned about the ways that they could rule.

Several of you have commented on the past record of the guy in Minnesota, I really don’t care what his past record was. I’m more concerned about this particular incident. I my opinion, if he wasn’t behind the wheel, with the vehicle in operation, it isn’t DUI. The offense is called DRIVING Under the Influence, not Sitting or Sleeping Under the Influence.

“And even if the car wouldn’t start, doesn’t that make him like the guy who pulls the trigger on the gun believing the gun is loaded and intending to kill his target, only to be surprised it is empty?”

Based on this logic Fleck should/could have been charged with Attempted DUI, which I believe most arguing that this was a judicial overreach here might agree with, rather than as has happened Fleck has been charged with murder and he didn’t even get the gun out of the holster.

> Even if it were, the two statements are not contradictory.

Really? Have you read the entire statement in context? Have you read the transcript? They can indeed be in contradiction and the justices judged it to be as such. Since they read the transcript and we haven’t I am going to defer to them, rather than your biased assumptions.

> Which is it that you want to believe? The guy said that he hadn’t driven.

In my experience people don’t lie about things that can be easily checked. The cop could have got in and turned the key himself at any moment. There isn’t much point in lying about that. by comparison, the guy figured that there was a chance they didn’t know he drove. And indeed, the truth might have been he got in the car with the intention to drive and was so drunk he passed out. So he might have technically told the truth in a Bill Clinton sort of way.

> You have no proof of this.

I have a verdict.

> And I am supposed to believe this

Because you should not impugn the jury without powerful evidence, not just snarky half-informed doubt. If only one of the 12 jurors agreed with you, then we would be talking about a mistrial and not a conviction. What does that tell you?

> Again, please answer the question of where in my post

I have. I have asserted that you want him acquitted. Letting him drive again is the inevitable result of that decision. Are you denying any part of that?

> Guy drinks 10 – 12 beers in his house, goes out to his car to get something, can’t make it back in the house and sits in his non-working, non drivable car.

Right. coincidentally runs out of “gas” right there. Mmm-kay. By the way, if that was the case, why didn’t he just say that? The legal standard is not any doubt, its beyond a reasonable doubt. If he had such a simple and reasonable explanation how come he never offered it?

I mean you are so dedicated to this drunk’s innocence, that you are imagining excuses utterly unsupported by any evidence.

> “Likely” doesn’t matter.

Nice dodge. Answer the question. And actually likely does matter. The legal standard is not “any” doubt, but “reasonable” doubt.

> Because the car didn’t run. There is no way around that fact.

How do you know it didn’t run that day? Do you seriously understand so little about cars that you don’t understand that even just sitting there, cars break?

Indeed a moment ago you asked how it was that I believe him about his vehicle being operative, but don’t believe him whether he drove. But let’s turn that around. How is it that you believe him when he says he didn’t drive, but you don’t believe him when he says his car was in working condition? I have an explanation for why you should credit one statement more than the other, but what is your version?

> Attempted driving?

Just pointed out that we do punish people for possibilities rather than just acts.

> You see this as some sort of victory for justice. I see it as a case that simply doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

Because you want him on the road, apparently and consider it a travesty that he won’t be.

I mean, my God, in many states its illeagal to be drunk in public, as Ron White hilariously points out in his “Tater Salad” story. The worst you can say about this decision is it makes it illegal to get into a driver’s seat when drunk. is that such a bad thing? and the only reason why this jag off faced four years in prison is because he had been busted for DUI many, many times before.

Please read your own definition and you will see that “contrary” is not the only meaning of “but.” Even if it were, the two statements are not contradictory.

Shorter gitar: “How dare you believe the defendant’s own words!”

Which is it that you want to believe? The guy said that he hadn’t driven. You won’t accept that and yet when he allegedly says “the car was operable” (as if people use the word “operable” all the time when having a .18 BAC, you want to hang the guy.

No, I am stating that the jury found this to be the case.
You have no proof of this.

The jury felt, having an intimacy with the evidence that you and I lack, that it had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the man had control of the car.

And I am supposed to believe this because they, like you, may just want the guy off the street and the heck with proving anything?

Well, do think he should have been acquitted or not? And if you do, what precisely do you think happens when a person is acquitted?

Again, please answer the question of where in my post did I ever say that I wanted the guy driving?

so what is your reasonable scenario?

Guy drinks 10 – 12 beers in his house, goes out to his car to get something, can’t make it back in the house and sits in his non-working, non drivable car.

What is the most likely thing?

“Likely” doesn’t matter.

First, how do you know this?

Because the car didn’t run. There is no way around that fact. They, like you, could have wanted the guy off the streets and convicted him.

Lol, so you have never heard of attempted murder?

Attempted driving?

Right. Because I am in the habit of getting drunk and sleeping in cars for no reason at all. Could happen to anyone! /sarcasm

The first rule of sarcasm is to avoid any facts that might show that you are in error.

Good job.

We are done.

You see this as some sort of victory for justice. I see it as a case that simply doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

We are simply going to have to agree to disagree.

> [me] Do I need to explain to you [the word “but”’s] significance?

> [you] Nope. The court never uses the word “contradiction” and the two statements are, in fact, not contradictory.

Ah, I guess, I do need to explain this. Take it away, Mr. Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/but

Look at definition 2 a: “on the contrary : on the other hand”

Thus in that context, “but” indicates a contradiction.

> the proof must be that the car was operable the day in question.

Shorter gitar: “How dare you believe the defendant’s own words!”

> You are assuming that the cop’s question was understood by the person. You are also assuming that the guy made the statement.

No, I am stating that the jury found this to be the case.

> Okay. So one of the elements of “control” cannot be proven.

Don’t use words that you don’t understand. And clearly “element” in the context of the elements of an offense, is one of them.

And it was proven. The jury was asked to rule on the issue and it made its determination. Have some f—ing respect for your fellow citizens. They worked hard for not very much money–indeed often losing money because they are away from higher-paying jobs–and they strove to be fair. The jury felt, having an intimacy with the evidence that you and I lack, that it had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the man had control of the car. Most likely they believed it was operable, because its owner said so.

It may be fun and cool in certain circles to pretend a person standing far away from the courtroom, never having looked a single witness in the eye, and only having partial access to the facts, can judge a case better than a jury, but it is the height of arrogance and snobbery in my book. The issue in this case was the sufficiency of the evidence, and there was more than enough here.

> Please answer the question of where in my post did I ever say that I wanted the guy driving?

Well, do think he should have been acquitted or not? And if you do, what precisely do you think happens when a person is acquitted?

> This planet.

Lol, so you think he just coincidentally happened to be there. How so? What is the scenario? He wasn’t sure if he wanted to sit on his deck chair or his driver side of the car? And took out his keys for good measure, instead of leaving them in his pocket? I mean you keep asserting it was reasonable to doubt he was there innocently, so what is your reasonable scenario?

> I don’t know.

What is the most likely thing?

> Instead of focusing on what did happen, and what was provable, they went with “gee, this could be right.”

First, how do you know this? Were you sitting in that courtroom? Its amazing how judgmental you can be on a subject that truthfully you know little about. See what I mean about the arrogance?

Second, what did happen was he was sitting in the driver’s seat of a car, drunk out of his gord, with the keys nearby. And crazy them they convicted him of DUI, which can be based on mere control of the vehicle, without actually driving it.

> I am more disturbed that there are people willing to say that a person is guilty based on what might have happened rather than proving what did happen.

Lol, so you have never heard of attempted murder? Attempted robbery? We punish people for intentions and “might have” all the time. Try this. Try speeding. Like 45 mph over the limit, right past a cop car. And moon him as you go past for good measure. In fact, try to drive using your butt cheeks. Then when he pulls you over, explain to him that no one actually was hurt and it would be inappropriate to punish you for what might have happened. See how far that gets you.

> There for the grace of God go I…… and you.

Right. Because I am in the habit of getting drunk and sleeping in cars for no reason at all. Could happen to anyone! /sarcasm