What is the constitutional/libertarian view of reckless endangerment?

[RCA]

Most people would consider drunk driving or firing a gun above a crowd reckless endangerment and illegal. However, with issues like this, the problem is where to draw the line. Is talking on a cellphone or eating while driving reckless endangerment? Maybe the line should be drawn according to common sense, but even that isn't something clearly defined either.

[forsmant]

I think it is just a way to stiffen the penalty for real crimes. In the case of the drunk driver the accident is the crime or the involuntary manslaughter. The DUI is just piling on charges. It is another attempt by legislators to rid the world of stupidity.

[TastyWheat]

You can see the responses on this thread: The Right to Drink and Drive? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=146078)

[shuffleproshaq]

No one should ever go to jail for a victimless crime.

[slothman]

I'd rather remove the right of the driver to drink and prevent a death of their victim than sue them after the person was killed.

[Knightskye]

Most people would consider drunk driving or firing a gun above a crowd reckless endangerment and illegal. However, with issues like this, the problem is where to draw the line. Is talking on a cellphone or eating while driving reckless endangerment? Maybe the line should be drawn according to common sense, but even that isn't something clearly defined either.

The libertarian answer would be to leave it up to the states, as the Constitution says to (or doesn't say to, really).

But if I were a state legislator, I'd keep it illegal.

It's a little tricky, because you don't know how drunk the driver actually is until they get pulled over and do a breathalyzer, or if they hit someone. They're a threat to the security of other drivers.

So local law enforcement can take care of it. They pull people over when they drive erratically, or perform a traffic violation. And they usually ask something like, "Sir, have you been drinking this evening?" - not that it's happened to me. :D

[penguin]

Most people would consider drunk driving or firing a gun above a crowd reckless endangerment and illegal. However, with issues like this, the problem is where to draw the line. Is talking on a cellphone or eating while driving reckless endangerment? Maybe the line should be drawn according to common sense, but even that isn't something clearly defined either.

You are putting the cart before the horse so to speak. Where is the wrong doing it in the first place? You can have a beer and fire a gun (not endorsing that order) without hurting anyone. You can have a reap what you sow mentality or blame before you do. The later puts the burden on the ones doing the right thing to prove they are right while the former targets only the wrong doer.

[revolutionary8]

penguin, I likey.

[Kludge]

No one should ever go to jail for a victimless crime.

+1 so long as threatening is considered aggression.

[gjvrieze]

...............................

[Jeremy]

There was a truck weaving into my lane once (had alcohol in his hand)... I had to back away... I say he's infringing on my right to travel! And I mean it's like a threat... just because he doesn't mean to threaten my life doesn't mean it's ok.

[gjvrieze]

..................

[Truth Warrior]

Show me the victims.

[jmag]

Tough call like teens driving way too fast down the neighborhood streets where kids live including mine. A crime? Does it take property damage, injury or death to cause action? How about if windows are open in both sides of your house so that people can shoot though it for fun or hunting? :) No victim.

[Truth Warrior]

We're inching scarily ever closer to "thought crimes".<IMHO>

[angelatc]

I'd rather remove the right of the driver to drink and prevent a death of their victim than sue them after the person was killed.

So you're a Republican rather than a Libertarian. No biggie.