D-U-Huh?
---
To review: My defense of strict DUI laws that many of my fellow libertarians consider oppressive has always been based a simple premise: There is no right to recklessly hurl multi-ton slabs of metal down public roads at potential lethal speeds. Our profanity-laced infighting mature, reasoned debate usually centers on our divergent definitions of "recklessly." Fair enough.
But what about when no public roads are involved?
---
And what about when no multi-ton slabs of metal are involved?
Which is not to say that she should not be charged with any crime. Reckless endangerment, of which DUI laws are merely a subset, surely ought to be applicable (not to mention animal endangerment). But not DUI -- it's facially preposterous.
Harsh DUI laws are one thing; nonsensical applications of those DUI laws are something else entirely.
But what about when no public roads are involved?
It's not drunken driving in New Jersey if it involves a Zamboni.Sounds about right. Of course, the rink owners may have a civil action if Peragallo damaged the machine or the premises, and one could conceive criminal violations of one form or another. But DUI as near-universally understood simply could not apply to this fact pattern. Score one for activist judges.
A judge ruled the four-ton ice rink-grooming machines aren't motor vehicles because they aren't usable on highways and can't carry passengers.
Zamboni operator John Peragallo had been charged with drunken driving in 2005 after a fellow employee at the Mennen Sports Arena in Morristown told police the machine was speeding and nearly crashed into the boards.
---
And what about when no multi-ton slabs of metal are involved?
A woman who went for a horseback ride through town at midnight and allegedly used the horse to ram a police car was charged with driving under the influence and drug offenses, police said Tuesday.Oh really? I'd need to see the text of the statute but I'd be hard-pressed to imagine such a statute that does not use the word "vehicle." A horse is not a vehicle. Words have meaning.
"Cars were passing by having to avoid it, and almost hitting the horse," said Police Chief Brad Gregg.
He said DUI charges can apply even when the vehicle has four legs instead of wheels.
Which is not to say that she should not be charged with any crime. Reckless endangerment, of which DUI laws are merely a subset, surely ought to be applicable (not to mention animal endangerment). But not DUI -- it's facially preposterous.
Harsh DUI laws are one thing; nonsensical applications of those DUI laws are something else entirely.
Posted by Kip on
4 April 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
