Quote from: myrkul on August 21, 2012, 08:41:46 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 21, 2012, 04:48:36 PM

There are many children playing in a public park designed for children. A shooter sets up targets at one side of the park, then proceeds to the opposite side of the park and begins shooting his high powered rifle through the park at the targets. Up until the moment where he accidentally shoots a child, in your personal opinion, is this shooter committing a crime?

No. He's doing a very stupid thing, and assuming his trajectories cross the potential paths of the children, a very risky thing no matter his level of skill, but not committing a crime.

Interesting point of view. I'm not sure that your viewpoint is one shared with a significant majority of the population, but at least it is consistent.

Quote from: myrkul on August 21, 2012, 08:41:46 PM

Of course, this is where your comparison breaks down: the level of risk does not correlate to the skill and practice of the shooter. He could easily hit a kid because the kid moved into the path of the bullet. The level of risk assumed by the speeder is affected by the skill and practice of the driver.

Actually the comparison does not break down here at all. In both cases an actor is tacking an action that sends an object at a higher than normal speed through an area populated with innocent and unaware citizens. In either case, one of these unaware citizens could at anytime move unexpectedly into the path of the object being propelled by the actor. In either case, the laws of physics can prevent the actor from diverting the propelled object from intersecting the path of the unaware citizen. In both cases the intersection of paths can result in the loss of life.

In other words, as the high speed driver passes another inattentive slower speed driver, the slower driver can change lanes suddenly and unexpectedly cutting off the high speed driver, and leaving the high speed driver without enough time or traction to avoid the collision.

Quote from: myrkul on August 21, 2012, 08:41:46 PM

Of course, to avoid being confused for a criminal, he should make it very clear that this pubic park is about to become a shooting range.

So, given your response, it seems that to avoid being confused for a criminal, the high speed driver should make it very clear that the public road is about to become a high speed race track? Why is it that the shooter 's right to shoot supersedes the children's right to play?

Quote from: myrkul on August 21, 2012, 08:41:46 PM

I am not saying that either person should be able to avoid the consequences of his actions. But to punish someone before there are consequences is like charging you with murder because you might kill someone.

So if I understand this correctly, the law should never be able to prevent risky actions that have a significant chance of injuring others. It should always be acceptable for an individual to decide by themselves how much risk everyone else can be exposed to? I should be legally allowed to increase your risk of death as high as I want, and should be punished until/unless I actually injure or kill you?