From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Drivers here are better than average!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:53:49 GMT

In article <tarrall.724306955@qso> tarrall@Colorado.EDU (Captain Neon) writes:
>>>  OK, how's this then:  I absolutely guarantee I can miss you with a
>>>decent rifle.  So: what if I set a target across the highway from me and
>>>start shooting at it with, say, a nice Lee-Enfield bolt-action .30 caliber,
>>>across all the lanes of traffic?  I wouldn't hit anyone.  I can say that 
>>>without a shadow of a doubt.

>>You are, however, very wrong. You could easily hit someone. As a result

>You could easily hit someone with your car, too.

However, this is considered an acceptable risk (i.e. not reckless) providing
the driver is in control of his car, licensed to drive, etc... So a given
driver could easily not put others at additional, unacceptable risk. I'm
not aware of any similar concept of acceptable risks for rifle range 
safety: It is widely agreed that firing while anyone is down range
(i.e. between you any the target, or just beyond the target) endangers
their lives and is unacceptable.

>>I think this should be illegal (as it is) by the above mentioned logic.
>>If, instead, you put your target against a hillside (e.g. a good backstop)
>>and were not firing towards anyone, this really would be safe and is
>>(again, as I think it should be) legal (at least on private property outside 
>>of city limits and on federal BLM lands.)           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>You're not driving your car on private property, you're driving it on
>public property.

Please note my other clause: This is also legal on federal lands, providing
safety measures are followed. (Nor are these lands exactly empty: They are
also quite popular with hikers...) Your analogy to firing a rifle
brakes down, because it _is_ legal to fire a rifle, provided you do so
in a safe manner.

>  I claim I can keep all my shots from hitting the passing cars, and I'm
>willing to place my target on a hillside so all bullets will be stopped
>after they've crossed the highway.  I want to do this on public land: the
>right-of-way property associated with the highway.  I can, without any doubt,
>keep all my shots within a 10-foot diameter circle at a range of 50 feet
>with the above-mentioned rifle.  So, as long as I never shoot when a car
>is within 5 feet side-to-side of the intended path of the bullet, I've
>never endangered anyone.

Your ability to judge this timing (i.e. so that no cars are within five
feet of the line of fire) is not perfect, and depends on cars keeping
a constant speed. (What is some driver saw you had suddenly hit the brakes?)
Further, I don't think you can keep every shot within the bounds you 
set (at least not with 100% confidince.) I've never seen someone at
a rifle range walk down range, while someone ten feet to the side was
still firing, because "I know he's a good shot and won't miss be
that much." It's recognized that this accidents occasionally happen
and that this is _extremely_ unsafe.
  
>  What I want to do here is illegal.

Specifically, it is reckless endangerment. If you did it, the 
state would have to prove to a jury, beyond any reasonable doubt,
that your actions really did put people's lives at risk. All in all,
I think that would be a very easy job for the prosecuter. I am 
simply asserting that a similar standard should be applied to 
drunk drivers (e.g. proof in court that their actions endangered
others.)

>  Driving a car with a BAC > 0.05% is illegal too.  If I protested
>a drunk driving charge, saying that I wasn't endangering anyone, the
>prosecutor might ask me if there was anyone else on the road.  [Were
>there any cars between you and your target?]  He might ask me if I've
>ever been in an accident [Do you ever miss your target?]  As it happens,
>I haven't ever been in an accident.  However, I certainly can't claim
>that I never *will* be in an accident; if I did an expert witness would
>make me look pretty darn uninformed.

And then your lawyer (presuming you weren't wasting your money...)
would point out that these things apply equally to perfectly sober
drivers: Every driver on the road puts every other driver at a 
greater risk. This is considered perfectly acceptable and legal
and does not constitute reckless driving. To show that your actions
were reckless, the prosecuter would need to show they put others
at _greater_ risk, than is considered acceptable from other drivers.
I think whatever violation originally got the attention of the
arresting officer would be strong evidence along these lines, but
(on its own) a BAC over 0.05% would not.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: boulder.general