Thought Crimes come to Connecticut

May 12, 4:45 PMDallas Libertarian ExaminerGarry Reed

Previous Next

4 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Dallas Libertarian Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Connecticut: not driving while drunk can get you arrested for driving while
drunk. (photo by author)

While most people weren’t looking, perhaps busily pursuing bourgeois interests like actually working for a living and raising their families and loving their spouses and going to libertarian Meetups to discuss the prospects of implementing a live-and-let-live society, the powercrats of Connecticut were busily introducing the Orwellian legal category of “Thought Crime” to the Nutmeg State. 

As one might expect, they had to perform contortions and distortions and science fictiony type shape-shifting of legal phrases, the latter already being artificially concocted constructs cooked up like a primordial stew in a legalistic meth lab. 

The precedent, reported by the Hartford Courant, involved the arrest of a drunk driver who was drunk but wasn’t driving. 

The facts are:

A man, “legally drunk” (referring to an arbitrary one-size-fits-all government number) steps out of a bar, starts his car from afar with a keyless remote, then slides in behind the wheel and sits there.

Doesn’t do anything. Doesn’t go anywhere. Doesn’t put the car in gear. Doesn’t drive out of the parking lot onto a public street.

Gottcha! Guilty of drunk driving.

The legal perversion is:

"In starting the engine of his vehicle remotely then getting behind the steering wheel, the defendant clearly undertook the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the motive power of a vehicle," - Chief Justice Chase Rogers of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

So being arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol does not require a person to actually operate a vehicle.

It doesn’t require any proof that the person was actually going to operate the vehicle, as opposed to turning the vehicle off and calling a cab.

All it requires is a cop who claims to know what a person is thinking, such as “I’m going to start this car and drive home drunk” as opposed to “I don’t want a DUI so I’m going to turn the vehicle off and call a cab,” and then arresting him for thinking the thoughts the cop thought he thought.

Future Thought Crime applications:

“Your honor, the defendant was standing on the sidewalk in the middle of the block and staring directly across the street for several seconds. She was clearly undertaking the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the illegal act of jaywalking.”

“I observed the perp was standing on the corner of a busy intersection in the city at night and watching cars as they went by. In my professional opinion, and based on my experience with such suspicious activities, this mope was clearly undertaking the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the felonious act of carjacking.”

“Hold it, fella, what’s that bulge in your pocket. Gun, huh? You got a concealed carry permit for that? Oh you do, huh? Okay buddy, get down on your knees and lock your fingers behind your head. I’m disarming you and taking you in. Whaddaya mean it’s legal? You don’t know the law, Pal. By taking a firearms instruction course and obtaining a concealed handgun license and purchasing a firearm and carrying a loaded weapon on your person you clearly undertook the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the criminally irresponsible activity of discharging a firearm in public.”

“Hey, you, reading this article. Do you know that the loyal patriotic operatives at Homeland Security think this hack writer was thinking disrespectful thoughts about our oppressive government when he wrote this article, and that they think you are thinking similar thoughts while reading this article, and that you have therefore clearly undertaken the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion a covert investigation by us into your background and …”