• 7bicycles [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    As other people said, reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, and manslaughter are real charges, but ideally we should be trying to prevent these things from happening beyond simply punishing people who do them.

    Just for the understanding, this is still going off of the notion that seatbelt laws are primarily or at least in a major part on account of so other people don’t get hit by people getting thrown out of cars, right?

    • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      No, seatbelt laws are to save the people in the car mainly, but it’s worth noting that it’s not just a matter of not wearing a seatbelt being less safe for yourself, it’s less safe for others because you being much more likely to die or be seriously injured means you are much more likely to not be able to help other people who have a chance of surviving in an accident.

      That said, I also think it’s perfectly fine for the state to demand that you don’t just recklessly endanger your own life like that because it’s a trivial psychopathological “benefit” for contrarian libertarian types at the expense of literally everyone and everything else to have more people dying and seriously injured at any given time.

      But I was also caught between that and your examples of assault and I can see why you’d find it unclear.