If that is supposed to be some attempt to point out absurdity by using absurdity then you only succeeded in the 'using absurdity' part of the equation.
You see, we are merely talking about punishing Stabler for his THIRD or FOURTH violation of the DUI laws. We are merely talking about enacting just punishment for someone who has THREE or FOUR times ALREADY violated the law - not punishing him before he does so (unliess it is the FIFTH violation). We are merely talking about giving him his just punishment BEFORE he repeats his behavior - most likely because he has never suffered any real consequences for violations one or two or three, and causes physical harm to another human being.
I am not aware of anyone calling for Stabler to be convicted and sentenced for anything he might do - only that which he had done, and done, and done, and done.
So, before you go off on some rant - and least make sure the point of your rant is real and not something you imagine.
Why would you punish anyone who fires a weapon at another person where no harm was committed? Afterall, the presence of physical harm was the crux of your argument and call for lax punishment.
And still, by incarcerating someone who fires a weapon at another to no consequence might be taking away an 'otherwise law abiding citizen' and physical and fiscal provider for a family. And that is bad, bad, bad I thought.
And of course we just KNOW taking away a right to carry a firearm will prevent a criminal (aka 'an otherwise law abiding citizen') from EVER possessing such a weapon ever again. And we just KNOW taking away the drivers license of someone will result in them NEVER getting behind the wheel of an automobile EVER again - sober or drunk.
And would not taking away one's ability to drive result in great harm in their ability to seek and maintain gainful employment - thus causing fiscal harm to their families?
If we were talking about a FIRST time offender you might have some point. But we are talking about a HABITUAL offender.
You political center, at least by your assertions here, is nowhere near Goldwater or Reagan.
You mean someone who is more an 'otherwise law abiding citizen?'
