You asked all crime. Then 90%. Then some specific subsets. All questions of yours have been answered by me, while very few of mine to you have been answered by you. You didn't like my answers, but have yet to answer why it is you don't like them.
I think I said like 90% as in I was just throwing a number out there. Let's go with 70%, is 70% of crime stupid?
You're asking a question with no accepted solution. When you have a question with no accepted solution, you have to test the question with a series of test cases, and then compare specific questions to the test cases to come up with a solution. I have defined two tests that I used to show that all rape and all DUI are both stupid. I then used the test to show that not all motor vehicle theft is stupid. So grossly, I can, using my tests, solve that all rape is stupid, all DUI is stupid, but not all motor vehicle theft is stupid. I cannot, however, quantify how much motor vehicle theft is stupid, and how much isn't stupid. I wish my mind worked in such a way that I could just offhandedly pick some number out of my ass like you have, but it does not. It goes through these steps to determine some rational formula... every time. But, I'm game, to understand, how the non rational formula mind works, so, for sake of argument, let's say, sure. 70% of crime is stupid. So what?
Yep, this was a total waste of time. I apologize to the rest of the board who read through this shit.
But, but, let's say a guy is bleeding to death in the middle of a bar in Wyoming. Hes gonna die if the one other guy at the bar doesn't take him to the hospital. And that guy gets a dui. So no, dui isn't always stupid, in this day of stupid analogies. It was a necessity to save a life. So now, we are just down to rape.
We have ambulance services, which include air evacuations. You can have a helo there on the ground much faster than the DUI. If the DUI is close enough to the hospital that they'd beat the air, then they're close enough to have an ambulance one way it there, that can then provide life stabilizing support. So you've yet to prove the necessity of the DUI.
The bartender can drive. The bar owner can drive. The waitress can drive. There has to be SOMEONE sober within shouting, yelling, running distance because that is the world we live in. If you try to justify the existence down to just two people left on earth, which you would have to do to make it justifiable, then why don't you two just decide that DUI isn't a crime anymore, and there ya go? Some how you've concluded that there is a scenario you can envision that justifies a DUI. But there isn't one. Because there are always sober people around.
Bartender and waitress are drunk too. Absent owner. Closest place to the bar is the hospital which is 15 miles away.
While the bartender and the waitress being drunk is a "realistic" (I'm sure in your mind) possibility, as would be an absent owner... the location you cannot fake. If such a place exists, a bar, where the nearest location is the hospital, and it is 15 miles away, you can, and now must, demonstrate its existence. You've reached the end of your fake it ability. I claim that such a place does not exist, and conclude your argument thus invalid. So, show me on Google maps this place.
Ok, remove that the hospital is the nearest place. Let's just go with the rest and there is no one within shouting distance.
There will be someone within running distance, and a couple minutes run isn't going to be the cost of this person's life. If it is, they were going to die anyway, so there is no justification for the DUI for "almost." It doesn't bother you at all that you keep having to make these convoluted, unrealistic scenarios? No ambulance. No phones. Everyone is drunk. Nobody lives near by. You just keep creating unrealistic after unrealistic scenarios. Why? Is it that hard to accept?
