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 their to be a crime, or wrongdoing, there must be an actual criminal act, or wrongdoing.
But a society that embraced the tar baby of pre-emptive 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.
I like the statements that are made that someone will be arrested for stopping to have a drink. It is impossible to have an average sized drink and be arrested for DUI. From statistics that I have seen you may be able to get by with 3 quick drinks and not be over the limit. If it is 3 drinks in well over an hour period it is not possible be be tested over the limit. If you start slamming them down and then drive, you could and should be arrested.
Naw dude! I am 245lbs and I did the calculations before. Came up with 1.5 drinks would put me right at the limit.
I figured as much. You failed math. It may be true that you might be close to the limit if you had 1 1/2 drinks per hour all night but it is impossible with only drinking 1 1/2 drinks total.
Oh spreadable, scrumptious, crispy-fried Clover!
What’s relevant is that individuals start out with different skill levels (as well as visual acuity, sense of spatial relationships and reflexes). A high-ability driver with a few drinks in his system is likely still a more competent driver than a low-skilled driver with below average vision/reflexes and so on – even though he’s completely sober.
This is one of the key factors that current DWI law takes no notice of.
In addition, people process alcohol differently. Some people give evidence of impairment with very little alcohol in their system; others, no evidence of impairment with a larger quantity of alcohol in their systems.
The larger point is: Current DWI laws criminalize people not for their driving but simply because they have a substance in their system at some arbitrary percentage confected by politicians.
Why not wait until someone actually does something tangible before subjecting him to police action? If he’s weaving, or causes an accident – then fine, he deserves to be punished.
But punishing people who haven’t done anything – except be found to have an arbitrary percentage of alcohol in their system, even though their actual driving may be perfectly fine – is something only a Clover could favor.
It is exactly the same (in principle) as giving a guy a ticket for ignoring a “no right on red’ sign, even when it’s clear there were no other cars around and the driver executed the turn safely.
To you, what matters isn’t that the person did something – it’s that he “broke the law.”
“The law” is your fetish, your totem. The thing you gaze at lovingly, like a mongoloid drooling over an ice cream cone.
beautiful answer. I got a DWI for not using my turn signal. My state owned blood was in violation. And my ignition interlock would beep drunk if I ate pizza and tried to blow, I had to have water to drink at all times!! just so I could “pass” my test.
You know what. I just looked at a BAC calculator online. As much as I hate to say this, you’re right.
Well, not really.
All the BAC bees is a measure of … BAC. The relevant question bees: Is the driver significantly impaired? The evidence – not the Cloverite propaganda – is that it’s BAC levels of .10 or higher that correlate with accidents. The current .08 standard was imposed after a relentless (but fact-free) propaganda campaign by MADD. This multi-million-dollar organization with high-paid executives continues to push for even lower BAC thresholds, even outright prohibition.
It is, well, “mad.” As in batshit crazy.
But we live in a world full of Clovers….
I live in a “0 tolerance” state, Arizona. I crashed my motorcycle off of a cliff and tumbled down 120 ft where I became conscious sitting on the side of a mountain. The local Gestapo, DPS, found coke on me and decided that I had to be a DUI. I wasn’t driving under the influence of anything other than adrenaline. The coke served the purpose of staying awake on long rides like the Indians used to use it in Peru. I carried it because I fell asleep one time 30 years ago and crashed on a bike because of extreme long distance riding. I went off of the cliff because I was leaned way over in a corner and hit some dirt with my rear tire. In Arizona it is all about making money; robbing the citizens. The police are rarely of any value other than trying to make sure that they have massive incomes and retirement programs at the public’s expense.
Dang, you should have just carried some Pepsi and that wouldn’t have happened! j/k So you where conscious, or unconscious when they found you?
clover,
That is not true in Arizona. Our .08 DUI level means nothing because I talked to another driver that I know who has a clean record and received a DUI for .06. Part of the graft includes having an interlock device on your car for a year which would appear to make sense expept it is also mandatory on DUI’s like mine that don’t involve alcohol. Arizona also has a huge list of prescription drugs that are considered DUI’s. The problem is that I can drive a car or motorcycle even if I took medications better than 90% of the people because of 40 years of practicing accident avoidance and precision. We should be able to go to court on a closed test track to prove our innocence or guilt. Simulate the same conditions and I can prove the difference between being impaired or DUI. The problem is that the laws have nothing to do with “safety” it is all about job security for the few at the expense of the citizens. It is the Sheriff of Nottingham syndrome.
Clover’s not a very bright guy. You’ll notice this as you read his posts. He also worships the law – whatever “the law” happens to be – because it’s “the law.” If it’s “the law,” why then it must good, righteous and merit our absolute obedience. There’s no such thing as a bad law, because they’d never impose such a thing on us. All laws are good laws – because they’re the law!
His type reminds me of the boot-lickers I read about in a book about Soviet Russia under Stalin. If Comrade Stalin says so, then it must be so! All hail Comrade Stalin!
Dr Jett, it has been proved with testing that people are impaired with an BAC of .05. Any alcohol content above that just gives you an increasing amount of impairment. DUI enforcemet is about safety. Since there has been more crackdown on DUI drivers the death and accident rate has dropped for that group but it is still too high. More than a third of all accidents are caused by people that have been drinking and you say it is not about safety?
Your friend must have been in an accident. Later the police smelled alcohol on his breath and took a blood test a significant time after the accident. Let your friend come on here and give us the facts.
No, my marinated, well-seasoned Clover.
It has been proved that some people are impaired with a BAC level of .05 (or less) Such people are probably “impaired” in terms of their skill behind the wheel even when completely sober.
The truth of it is as follows:
* Impairment is variable, according to many factors – not exclusive to alcohol consumption. For example, an old person with poor vision and reflexes is more “impaired” than a 25 year old with 20/20 vision and excellent reflexes – even if the 25 year old has had a couple of drinks.
* Actual accidents (as opposed to running afoul of a “sobriety checkpoint”) correlate with BAC levels of .10 or more. That is why the previous (pre-MADD, pre-political) legal standard for DWI was set at .10 or more. The current .08 (and lower) threshold is a political standard, based on propaganda. Like under-posted limits, it is designed to increase the pool of “violators” (read: people who can be milked for money). It has as much to do with “safety” as the old 55 MPH maximum highway speed limit.
But all Clovers can see is “the law.” If it’s “the law,” why it must be correct.
And obeyed.
Eric it has also been proven that not only poor vision or reflexes are affected by a low BAC but also judgment is one of the first things that changes. Since some people have poor judgment even without drinking, increasing that poor judgment is a true hazard. You know, the people that say it is safe to pass in a no passing zone on hills and blind curves.
Crunchy, chewy, always hard to digest Clover! Judgment – like ability – varies. Not everyone who drinks a little becomes a wild and crazy guy; in fact some people become more cautious and careful after having had a drink or two. But as usual – per Cloverism – you assume everyone’s an idiot, or dangerous and should be treated as such – even if a given individual hasn’t actually done anything dangerous, or suggestive of impairment.
You see, Clover – Cloverism breeds more Clovers. Which in turn causes Cloverism to spread. In short order, we have a Cloverite Society of assholes ruling incompetents – all for their own good, of course.
I’d rather just spray the Clovers with Agent Orange and drive on…
Ok Eric, you come up with a fool proof method of determining who can drive better with 3 or 4 drinks and we will give them a special license and allow them to have a BAC of .01 or slightly higher. Your method of allowing all people to have a high BAC because a few do better is not an acceptable risk to our society because statistics and testing and thousands of deaths prove your idea is wrong.
How about the punishment fitting the crime.
If you drive without causing any harm, then no foul.
If you are weaving on the road or demonstrating other erratic behavior, then you are cited for appropriate offense.
If you cause property damage, then points to license and restitution for damages.
If you injure another, then you can face more severe penalties, including possible jail time.
If you cause death, then there are more severe penalties, including jail time.
========================================
There should be probable cause for stopping someone. If there is no reason for stopping a car, then the car should not be stopped.
If there is a reason to stop a car, then what ever comes to light from the stop is fair game in my opinion.
========================================
Repeat offenses can be considered for deciding appropriate punishment.
“There should be probable cause for stopping someone. If there is no reason for stopping a car, then the car should not be stopped.” That’s it! It’s not like this though. Just on my way to work (at least once a month) I am subjected to a random stop at a road block. During this stop (for no reason) the cops are free to scrutinize me and my car. Shit ain’t right!
Nothing is fool-proof, oh not-so-tasty Clover. A reasonable policy is the realistic course. Why not base the concept of crime on the concept of harm? In other words, no harm, no problem? If a person has a couple of drinks and doesn’t weave/drive erratically and appears to be in control, then why bother him? Instead, you Cloverites want arbitrary standards that define anyone and everyone as a “drunk driver” even when they seem to be driving just fine. The legal threshold defining “drunk driving” continues to be lowered for political – Cloverish – reasons. Many people with BAC levels of .08 or certainly .06 (“under the influence” in several states) show no meaningful impairment; in other words, they’re driving just fine and would have made it home without incident had they not run afoul of a Breathalzyer (known to be unreliable and inaccurate) at a roadside checkpoint. In the past, when the legal threshold was .10, cops looked for drivers who gave signs of impairment such as driving excessively slowly, or crossing the double yellow. Then those specific drivers were pulled over and checked out. Other drivers were left the hell alone.
If someone causes an accident, or gives real reason to believe he’s likely to – erratic driving, etc. – then by all means, get him off the road, punish him. But what you and your fellow Covers want is pre-crime. You think someone may (based on your own arbitrary standards, generally applied) be likely to do “x,” so he should be treated as though he had in fact done “x.”
That, Tovarich Clover, is not the American way. Or didn’t used to be the American way.
I like your guys thinking. Let it be the death penalty to the person or family the drunk hits before anything is done. Let other people kill other people or steal from them and then think about doing something. Why have locks on doors or buildings? We will wait until they enter and steal everything and then go look for them. You are right, why have insurance? We should just wait until your house burns up and then figure out which cardboard box to live in .
Clover, this is one of the reasons we have different degrees of misdemeanor and felonies. Let me mention some terms you obviously are not familiar with. Like premeditated, intent, and aggravated just to name a few. There is no black and white to everything. Also, there is such a thing as mitigating circumstances. You obviously have very little knowledge of law and think a catch all law is the answer. Just by you having an opinion and a few other people out there agree does not make it a good idea. I’m amazed by your admiration for lowest common denominator laws!
Excellent analogy Eric, of what already has been accepted by the sheeple here in this country as normal: the new “drunk” driving laws, gun control legislation run a muck, as well as the TSA thuggery and internet domain seizures by the gub’mint – with little fanfare or protest…Yes Igor, turn up the heat, little by little,and a little more. Most certainly one day, there will clearly appear “The new Berlin Wall” surrounding us as are the pre-crime thought police with their ubiquitous inescapable high tech surveillance and East German style snitches everywhere. It’s all about the “control”, by the self deemed elite, as it always was. It is “Pre-crime” indeed.
One only need look to the UK today for a glimpse of the unbelievable amount of liberties and rights taken away from the people in exchange for the nearly unbearable burden chains of high taxes, regulations and special rights granted not to rightful citizens but to special interest groups such as creeping Sharia laws & Islamic proponents. England as a near total police state today is a mirror glimpse into our very near future, thanks in no small ways, to corrupt politicians, greediest of bankers, the stupid, selfish, & socialist but democratic, ad nauseum rank & file, et al.
Let us resist. With zeal.
Thanks, G_Man!
The question is – what do we do?
I try to sound the alarm to the extent that I can; and on a personal, practical level, I have taken steps to get us ready for bad times – again, to the extent that I can.
I don’t have much hope. I see the Tea Party as having been co-opted by the Republicans,who love the SuperState as much as the Democrats, only for different reasons.
If I had to “ballpark” it, I’d guess that maybe 20 percent of the population believes in the goodness of the individualist-oriented, small-scale republic we once had. Part of the reason is educational. Very few people know the history of the country (especially the issues surrounding the War Between the States). And part of it is that so many people either work for, profit from or are in some way dependent on the government for their economic well-being.
I remember reading, years ago, a book by an old-school conservative (may have been Frank Chodorov) who wrote, in effect, that before a country can be free its people must have the freedom mindset.
I’d like to think otherwise, but I think America’s lost that.
People in this country really need to wake up and fast. I believe that these politicians are so busy telling us, “Hey look at Country X they are the bad guys that hate Us” just to keep us from analyzing them and their motives.
I just read an article yesterday about the city council in Houston. They’ve banned law-abiding citizens from feeding the homeless with their own food that they bought because they don’t have a permit. The family that would regularly go out on the weekends to feed the homeless with their own food that they bought was warned that they would be fined and/or arrested if they continued to feed the homeless. Why? Because they want to protect the homeless from food poisoning. So to me, they are saying they rather the homeless die from starvation.
How in the world is this a free country if I can not take my own food that I bought and prepared and give it to who the hell I want to w/o harassment and intimidation from “big brother.” How can out tvs be bombarded with “feed the children” advertisement for children in other countries when governmental agencies in our own countries are willing to let their own citizens starve in the name of protecting them?
Wake Up America Please!!!!!
Well-said.
I’m in the middle of reading a book about Soviet Russia under Stalin, “The Court of the Red Tsar.” The feel of that society; the little anecdotes related about vicious, arbitrary power exerted over a cringing, helpless populace… well, it hit too close to home for me.
We’re not there yet, of course. But we are traveling down that road.
I hope we can make a course correction in time and without violence.
Remember the analogy to ‘boiling frogs’? That is exactly what is being done to us. If the water is boiling first, the frogs would jump out. If you start the process with cold water and bring it to a boil slowly, they don’t know the difference. Hence-boiled frogs!!
Absolutely. But at least some of us frogs are trying to jump out before we’re cooked!
There is no stopping it. The Bible foretold all that is happening now, maybe not in detail, but it is there.
Really? What about Zeus? Or Ra? Or the Hale Bopp Comet God? So many gods! Which god to choose? And why?
I can’t wait for the day the laws are re-written to make “getting out of bed” a crime. After all, legislators can’t think of anything to do with their time (when most of them should be doing time) but create more pre-emptive laws. You drove to work and exceeded the speed limit: This wouldn’t have happened if you didn’t get out of bed today; therefore, it is a crime to get out of bed. Every non-crime will become the basis for the ever-incresing counts of “criminal activity” being created by everybody. After all, the police can’t (yet) create a reason for the mayhem caused by a 10-mph collision except to say that one of the drivers had to be “doing something else” wrong (like listening to the radio above 50 decibels); therefore, a crime must be imputed to justify the police making an incident report, and to determine fault (when that is the reason we have courts) and finding a way to extract a fee for the “crime” of bumping your car into someone else’s in a parking lot.
That’s it in a nutshell! Do you remember “The Outlaw Josey Wales”? There’s a character – a rapacious Union officer – who says, “There ain’t no end to doing right.”
That’s the mentality. It goes all the way back to New England Puritanism through the stomping of the South by the Yankees to the present-day American Universal Arrogance that says, Do it Our Way… or else.
This is going to make me sound ignorant, but I will proceed anyway. How are these people making these laws able to pull it off? It seems most of us don’t agree with them, but they still pass.