Quote from: Coreadrin_47 on August 21, 2012, 03:57:08 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 21, 2012, 03:56:17 PM

Quote from: Coreadrin_47 on August 21, 2012, 03:53:43 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 21, 2012, 03:40:57 PM

Quote from: Coreadrin_47 on August 21, 2012, 03:32:04 PM

All crimes require a victim to be an actual crime. Find me one, in this instance.

Please refer to my previous post regarding a shooter shooting through a park full of children, but not hitting any of them. You would not consider this a crime?

This is the same, how?

You state that there must be a victim to be an actual crime. I'm asking your opinion. If a shooter is shooting through a park full of children, but not hitting any of them either:

A) There is no victim, therefore you do not consider this a crime.

or

B) This is a crime, and you can identify a victim in this action.

Is the park public property or private property?

What part of "refer to my previous post" confuses you?

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 21, 2012, 01:24:35 PM

2) So if I have this straight, someone can fire their rifle into a public park full of children repeatedly, and as long as they don't actually hit any child they should be allowed to continue? Sure there is a risk that they could hit a child, but risk is not harm.

I assumed that when I stated "into a public park" that it would be clear that I meant that the park is public property?