594
595

Has a Crime Been Committed? (i.imgur.com)

mutantturkeySomalian Warlord / Capitalist Pig [Message Redacted] が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]whater39 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (67子コメント)

Drunk driving (or better yet intoxicated driving if your high on drugs). Only society is hurt if you make it home safely. Yet.... I still think people should be punished for it. As it's wreckless activity that can hurt/kill others.

I'm against the war on drugs. Get high as much as you want, just don't hurt others.

[–]illuminutcase 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (33子コメント)

I'm with you, but I've gotten into quite a few conversations in this subreddit saying drunk driving shouldn't be punished because it's a victimless crime, and should only be punished if an accident has happened. None of the arguments have convinced me that it's acceptable to be reactive rather than proactive. I would like drunk drivers removed from the road before they kill someone, not after.

[–]whater39 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Ya I've had that arguement before. Then I said "If I fire a gun at someone and it misses, is that a victimless crime? No harm, no foul"

[–]Jack_Sawyer 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A more apt analogy would be firing a gun in the air in the midst of a populated area.

[–]One_Winged_RookI Don't Vote 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think a good libertarian check point is "can you do it without putting an arbitrary line on it?". In the case of drunk driving, you can't. You can say that limit is 0.000...1%, but as it stands they say 0.08%.

You say

If I fire a gun at someone and it misses

but that's not the case with drunk driving. A more appropriate analogy is if I purposefully shoot near there, but not at them. There's the chance that my skill isn't as good as I think it is, and I'll hit the person. But then it starts bringing in the arbitrary. How close can a shoot in someone's direction before its a crime? The only way a non-arbitrarian can say is... was someone hurt?

This comes even greater into play when we consider, don't people get killed by people driving while sober? Don't people get killed by stray bullet at gun-ranges (although, this happens much less than people think).

Do we want people drunk driving? No. Is there a non-arbitrary way to define drunk driving for the safety of the people... absolutely not.

What happens more often, people's lives are ruined by drunk drivers killing someone, or people's lives are ruined by drunk driving charges (ie. losing driver's license/job/relationships).

[–]V4refugee 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I was thinking that we could just enforce traffic laws instead of DUIs but traffic laws don't fall under life, liberty or property. What's the libertarian perspective on traffic laws? Should reckless driving be legal until someone gets hurt? Privatized roads where the people who own the road get to decide the rules?

[–]One_Winged_RookI Don't Vote -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Should reckless driving be legal until someone gets hurt? Privatized roads where the people who own the road get to decide the rules?

Both. Privatized roads for sure where the owners set the rules, but I could see the argument for government maintained roads as well, while remaining in the realm of libertarianism.

The long and short of it though, is yes. "Reckless driving" should be legal until someone is hurt or until someone's property is damaged. It would be remiss to grant a law enforcement officer the right to decide based off of personal convictions when someone is driving recklessly. Things like rolling stops couldn't be prosecuted on their own, but can be used to determine fault.

Cheers!

[–]falcon4287 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is there a non-arbitrary way to define drunk driving for the safety of the people... absolutely not.

There is, it's called a sobriety test. We test the aptitude of the driver's motor skills which, whether sober or not, should determine if the person is fit to drive at that moment. I agree that the blood alcohol level is a poor test, especially one as flawed at reading as the breathalyzer. But remember, a sobriety test is always an option for the person, and refusing a breathalyzer is not admittance of guilt so long as you cooperate and take a test to walk a line or whatever.

Remember, there also has to be probable cause to pull someone over. So swerving when driving or other similar actions would have to have been seen first. I also track that checkpoints are unlawful.

[–]SheCutOffHerToe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Firing a gun at someone is clearly harmful. Need a demonstration?

[–]Curiositygun 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

i'm still on the fence with this issue but your analogy is flawed

it is mostly common wisdom that pointing a gun at a person implies intent to kill (worded as such because you & probably a big minority are an exception)

no person(under the influnece or not) drives a car with the intent to harm a person

i'm mostly on the fence about this because it expands the powers of the police to where they can pull you over if they believe you to be driving under the influence & possibly throw some other charge that requires my vehicle to be parked regardless if i'm actually drunk or not

edit: i'm not try to antagonize i'm try to honestly argue my point you call me ignorant or call me names. i'll be out of here, i don't really feel like spending my time on that kind of stuff

[–]lurgi 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (15子コメント)

By that same argument, firing a gun randomly into a crowd shouldn't be a crime. It's only a crime if the bullet hits someone.

Apparently, if you believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure you are a statist.

[–]illuminutcase 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (12子コメント)

That was the exact argument I used. They concurred, if the bullet doesn't hit anyone, what damage has been done, and why should it be a crime.

[–]thejokersrs 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Firing a gun into a crowd could be viewed as an act of intimidation. I would argue that this is against the NAP.

[–]lurgi 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

You can argue that pretty much anything is against the NAP because the NAP is vague enough that it could apply to just about anything.

One thing I've wondered is why attacking my business by going into competition with it isn't a violation of the NAP? The business is my property, right? By competing with it, you are trying to reduce the value of my property, right? So why isn't that an act of aggression against my property? Obviously this will make capitalism impossible, but that's not a good argument. If we are prepared to follow the NAP into moral drunk driving and ethical child prostitution, then we shouldn't get our fedoras in a twist because it also tells us that capitalism is bad.

[–]thejokersrs 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

By competing with it,

Competition is not aggression. No sane person would argue as such.

NAP should be taken as a rule of thumb, not a constitutional law.

[–]lurgi -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Libertarians will argue that my stepping on your land is an act of aggression, as is the collecting of taxes. These are sane positions?

[–]thejokersrs 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Libertarians will argue that my stepping on your land is an act of aggression

Hyperbole is stupid argumentation.

as is the collecting of taxes

So I'm free to not pay them?

[–]lurgi -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hyperbole is stupid argumentation.

Except some have made that exact claim, so I'm not exaggerating.

So I'm free to not pay them?

Just as much as you are free to violate any other law.

[–]illuminutcase 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Only if they were trying to intimidate. What if they were just drunk and stupid? Either way, I just don't see it as a valid argument to hold. There's nothing wrong with being a little proactive when it comes to preventing crime. The benefit to allowing someone to drive drunk or shoot a gun into a crowd doesn't even come remotely close to the negative impacts of permitting that behavior. Some things should be stopped before it kills someone, these are two of them.

[–]thejokersrs 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Only if they were trying to intimidate. What if they were just drunk and stupid?

The fact that others find the act intimidating is enough to justify some sort of punishment. I would say that if someone observed a drunk driver swerving all over the road, this would be intimidating to other drivers and also deserving of punishment.

Some things should be stopped before it kills someone

I understand what you are saying here. But you have a fundamental disagreement with the general view of Ancap. I personally, am not articulate enough to argue towards all the nuance you have just implied, so Im just going to say that I understand your statement. You might be happier on a liberal subreddit.

[–]V4refugee 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Are you really free if you are afraid of being shot in a public place? Using that logic it seems to me that we are already free to do anything as long as we don't get caught and punished for it.

[–]SheCutOffHerToe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who measures what "a little proactive" is and how do they measure it? What are the specific limits and how do you know? Who will be given the power to decide this and how much power will they be given over those who do not harm anyone, but almost do?

It's very easy to agree with the established view, play the common sense card and say "don't be crazy; be a little proactive". It's a lot less easy to directly address the enormous pre-crime issues invited by that policy.

This entire "better safe than sorry; liberty isn't that important" angle is the exact approach of the statist left&right to justify all of their pet policies from gun control to domestic surveillance. That doesn't mean you're the same as them and it doesn't even mean you're wrong. What it means is you need to draw some very bright lines that you haven't drawn yet.

[–][削除されました]  (0子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]Fjordo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Drunk driving isn't random and the crime in firing a bullet into a crowd depends on intent. You analogy sucks.

    [–]marpstar 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Increase the punishment. Would as many people get on the road drunk if they knew that there were a minimum 10 year prison sentence for any "crime" committed while operating a vehicle while intoxicated?

    • Swerve and hit a retaining wall not drunk: get a fine.
    • Swerve and hit a retaining wall while drunk: 10 years.

    I'm only being partially serious, but it's the best solution I can think of if you were to follow strictly follow OPs flowchart.

    [–]wise_man_wise_guy 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Or, drunk driving is "with intent" such that if you kill someone while drinking manslaughter is off the table. It becomes 2nd degree murder at a minimum. Injury becomes attempted murder, etc...

    There are ways to make it harsh and still fit the victimless crime.

    [–]Pearberrliberal-tarian -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Considering that people who Drunk drive are quite often "Sick" with addiction, depression or any number of other maladies...

    No, this would not succeed in eliminating drunk driving. It may prevent some party-goers from their Jack in the Box runs but it won't prevent alcoholics from driving.

    And since our legal system should be about rehabilitation not "justice" whatever that is, punishing an alcoholic massively just seems wrong when treating the alcoholism should be the priority.

    [–]SheCutOffHerToe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Unlike the current policies, which totally eliminate drunk driving. Just like "rehabilitation" would.

    Crime elimination is a false goal and thus not a valid criticism.

    [–]Pearberrliberal-tarian 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Crime elimination is not a false goal but crime reduction is.

    [–]SheCutOffHerToe -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I don't think that's what you meant to say.

    [–]7SEALS[🍰] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The only problem, its essentially impossible to tell if someone is driving drunk. Yea there are the ones who are blackout drunk driving down the road the wrong way and swerving all over the place. Those people are an immediate danger and need to be arrested. If someone is driving intoxicated but is not driving in a dangerous way, then there is no reason to arrest them. The current solution is the wrong one. We are pulling people over in checkpoints with no probable cause, and arresting them for driving drunk even if they were doing so safely. There shouldn't be a number that determines you if you are safe to drive. I think a breathalyzer score can't be higher than .08 in my area. To some, that is not even buzzed. A lot of factors can also over inflate that number, such as recently taking a drink.

    I hate to admit it but I have driven drunk a lot of times. I mean I am in the triple digits for the number of times I have driven drunk. I never had an accident, never speeding, driving reckless, or (knock on wood) gotten caught. There was never a time where I felt I was incapable of driving my car home. Now I do live in a pretty remote area, not a big city by all means. I have since quit driving drunk because I have a job where I drive a company truck and can't risk losing my license or I can't work anymore.

    I think the answer is we need to privatize roads. Private owners could build their own roads and set their own rules. One of those rules could be driving drunk is allowed and if you don't like it then you can pay to drive on a road where drunk driving is not allowed.

    [–]SheCutOffHerToe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The legal consensus is on your side, but you still have to do the work to show why I should get power to harm you simply because you risked doing harm in the abstract (but didn't).

    What gives me that power? What limits are there on that power? Can I kill you? Why or why not? When is that power activated exactly? Does everyone obtain that power over you when you drive drunk? Or just the ones on the road with you at that time? What if there road was empty?

    These are all issues introduced by your philosophy. Normally you don't think twice about justifying them because, again, the established view is very clearly on your side. They don't answer any of house questions; they just assign the state that power and call it a day. And that invites all manner of terrible problems inherent to institutions of power that we see in our culture today.

    So once again, I disagree with you. But I'm open to your view. I hate drunk drivers. If they harm someone, I want them punished to much greater degrees than you do, I'd bet. But I'm not convinced I gain any power to harm you simply by you risking harm to me. Why is drunk driving worthy of opening the door to pre-crime?

    [–]Curiositygun 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    just like people get upset about privacy who says a cop is going to stop with a DUI if they can't pin that on you they'll definitely be in a position to find something else they can charge you with

    disclaimer: i'm not try to antagonize i'm try to honestly argue my point you call me ignorant or call me names. i'll be out of here, i don't really feel like spending my time on that kind of stuff

    [–]shiftyeyedgoatlibertarian party 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    I hope people are not downvoting for your opinion, but I totally disagree with you; potential, perceived harm is the exact opposite of eradicating victimless crimes. Any driver who is able to maintain his vehicle in a way that creates no immediate danger to the infrastructure or personal property of those on the roads should be able to continue his path unabated. If he wishes to drive while partaking in activities that have the potential to increase chances of harm, that is a personal risk he takes. Arbitrary numerical cut-offs for intoxication are appeals to the lowest common denominator in proscribing personal liberty.

    [–]DialMMM 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Any driver who is able to maintain his vehicle in a way that creates no immediate danger

    Being drunk and driving creates immediate danger. If you don't crash while driving drunk, the danger was still there.

    If he wishes to drive while partaking in activities that have the potential to increase chances of harm, that is a personal risk he takes.

    He isn't allowed to take that risk with my life, as it impinges on my liberty.

    Arbitrary numerical cut-offs for intoxication are appeals to the lowest common denominator in proscribing personal liberty.

    They aren't arbitrary, though.

    [–]whater39 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    I have to agree with the "Arbitrary numerical cut-offs".

    It's just some nu,ber that was randomly choosen. Some people are drunk or buzzed (I personally feel buzzed is intoxicated) or completely sobber at that number level. And it varies a lot depending on the state/country. But ulitmately they had to choose some number, which might not be based on sceince.

    A great example of a random number is speed limits. The pedestrain survival rate being hit by a car traveling at 40KM is like 80%. While the speed limit is 50KM, with a survival rate of like 40%. So the limit (in cities, not highways) should be 40KM, due to safety concerns.

    The problem with intoxicated driving (as I put drugs in that category as well) is it's just not a threat to yourself. It's a threat to others. And microsecond of poor driving can kill someone. At what point does your "wanting" (it's not a Right) to be able to be drive drunk, interfer with another person's right to be safe/secure.

    [–]shiftyeyedgoatlibertarian party 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    At what point does your "wanting" (it's not a Right) to be able to be drive drunk, interfer with another person's right to be safe/secure.

    The second your car makes contact with another person or personal property.

    What you have just described is the same methodical line of reasoning that leads to no-knock warrants, drug-use incarceration, and similar moral imposition into judicious appeal. As a libertarian I reject this moral imposition as a tool to instill fear in those who would readily abandon their personal liberties to feel safe and secure.

    [–]whater39 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    NO-KNOCK WARRANTS: That's a tough thing to get rid of. On one hand you have the police officers safety, and the presevation of evidence. Versus what? A person's ability to grab their gun and fight the cops? In an ideal situation, cops bust in, and everyone puts their hands up, and no one gets shot. But there are tons of situations where it goes wrong.

    DRUG USE: The war on drugs is an odd thing. It's been cherry picked what is legal (pain medications, alcohol, smoking) and what is illegal (weed, mushrooms, coke, etc). It would make more sense to have every intoxicatant either legal or illegal. Not to pick and choose which ones are/aren't.

    MORAL LAWS: Ya it's a tricky thing. It should be more about safety, rather offending others (banning gay marriage). And "real safety", not some BS that the terrorists are coming to get us, so lets do XYZ law. It's best to create laws that have real safety impilcations.

    Here is the final thing. Drunk Driving laws are already on the books in most countries. The car was invented 1885, Model-T is 1908, New York passed a anti drunk driving law 1910. So historically people figured out pretty quick that driving drunk was a bad idea. And this is with cars that were travelling a slower speeds. There isn't really a movement to get rid of them. So I think this issue has already been decided.

    [–]Flintloxminarchist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's also the same reasoning used for preemptive war and gun control. Its absurd.

    [–]DialMMM -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    It's just some nu,ber that was randomly choosen.

    No, it really wasn't.

    [–]whater39 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Then why do various country/states/provinces have such drastic varying amounts?

    Why are some 0.2 while others are 0.8? They choose some random intoxicated #, and went with that.

    [–]DialMMM -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    So, anything that you don't know or understand must have been chosen at random? Brilliant.

    [–]Jason_OT 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    The dangers of "drunk" driving, and the accuracy of using BAC to measure individual impairment, are grossly exaggerated. Look no further than the regular stories of distracted driving, tired driving, etc. being "just as dangerous" as DUI to understand how benign it is at and near the 0.08 limit.

    It's not so much that intoxicated driving should be 100% legal 100% of the time, but more that it's very often safe drivers getting punished for being de facto intoxicated despite showing no signs of endangering anyone.

    Eliminating standard DUI offenses and replacing them with the current aggravated DUI offenses (generally >0.12 BAC, sometimes included other factors like excessive speed, extreme reckless driving, etc.) would be a good start toward punishing those who are actually endangering others, while neutering the muni money maker represented by the overwhelming majority of 0.08 offenders, and still offering a compromise to those who aren't willing to accept the notion of no harm, no foul.

    [–]Armagetiton 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm with you, the 0.08 limit is extremely low and for many people driving slightly buzzed makes them drive more carefully than when they're completely sober. Getting a DUI for having 3 beers is over the top. On the other hand, drinking a dozen beers in 2 hours and going out for a drive puts people at risk.

    It's all a pointless argument anyway at this point in history anyway though, because self driving cars are right around the corner and by the time anyone influential enough could argue the case into legislation the self driving cars will already be here. Having someone argue for it is a pipe dream anyway, arguing to raise the BAC limits is political suicide because of MAAD, comparable to arguing against the feminists.

    [–]HEADPOCKET 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (12子コメント)

    Only society is hurt if you make it home safely.

    Huh?

    [–]whater39 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (11子コメント)

    It's the arguement that drunk driving is a victimless crime. If you look at the image, it shows a field "only society is hurt"

    [–]HEADPOCKET 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (10子コメント)

    If an intoxicated driver drives home safely, how did that hurt society?

    [–]AcornBiter -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Makes it more dangerous.

    [–]HEADPOCKET 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Ok, but you're talking about potential harm. There's no actual harm. No one has standing.

    Having said that, the state actually owns the roads so it can set the rules for its use. Prohibiting impaired driving is a perfectly reasonable rule. The problem is with the fact that the state steals money from people that it doesn't (ostensibly) own and uses eminent domain to expropriate land for the roads, etc.

    [–]whater39 -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    It's wreckless. And a unessary risk to the general public.

    There is no right to be able to drive. You need to follow the rules of the road to drive, there is a rule against it. It's the same logic of speed limits in a school zone, are you going to same you should be able to drive 90 in a school zone as long as you don't hit/kill a kid?

    I realize there is a balance in life between nanny control state & some Mad Max world. There needs to be a blanace between them. In my personal opinion (and the laws of most countries in the world) are on my side on this one with drunk driving.

    [–]manpace 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    It's wreckless.

    LOLOL did you write that on purpose?

    [–]whater39 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    wreckless

    Is drunk driving not wreckless? It lowers your reaction time.

    [–]enyoron 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    reckless = irresponsible, dangerous

    wreck-less = the absence of a wreck

    So you made an unintentional pun.

    [–]whater39 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    D'oh..... Ya I know my spelling grammer is bad... Yet another example. But, as long as you know what I meant, all good.

    [–]HEADPOCKET 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Your bad spelling led to an unintentional pun.

    [–]manpace 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Take it easy guys, if he accidentally fell down a latrine and found a diamond, we would congratulate him not mock.

    EDIT

    [–]HEADPOCKET 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    See my response to /u/AcornBiter.

    [–]aquaknox 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    This is only an argument because the state owns all the roads. If people or corporations owned the roads they could just make policy instead of law and all the ideological issues disappear.

    [–]whater39 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    So if they privatize the roads, they will become more dangerous (from drink drivers)..... "sweet"

    So lets say the roads were privatized. And that coporation/individual wanted to make drunk driving illegal on them. What would be the penalty against the drunk driver? A extra service charge on someone's monthly bill? I'm sure some rich person could just pay it, and no biggie.

    Unlike the government owning the roads (and thus their laws), where they can threaten jail time. Which could be a major deterent to many.

    [–]aquaknox 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    They wouldn't let drunk people onto their roads, and if they did everyone would choose other roads to drive on, owned by someone who didn't.

    [–]whater39 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    "They wouldn't let drunk people on their roads" -With what enforcement? A private corp has the resources to monitor the roads? The government is barely able to do road checks, and they are able to pick specific streets where to set them up (around blind spot corners or where traffic funnels into one street, like on a bridge).

    "would choose other roads to drive on" -Think of the logistics of that. I'm going to drive twenty streets over, to drive on the non-drunk driving one? And lets say they all all went non-drunk driver (like the current setup in the world), is that going to stop the problem (and it is a problem as a lot of people are killed by drunk drivers each year)?

    [–]aquaknox 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    were the roads system built privately they would not be as they are now. they would be much more like current toll roads with restricted access points. point is that private roads are a massive paradigm shift, and one I think is completely unfeasible given how long society has grown around the way they are now, which is why I don't advocate for privatization of roadways, just pointing out how things could have been different.

    [–]robstah 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Okay, so you use the road twenty streets over. A lot of people do. No one uses the "drunk driving" road, as you put it. Well, there you go. You just voted with your money. The guy with said "drunk driving" road now is losing money and is forced to sell, and guess who will just pick that road right up? The road that is being used most often, since this individual wants to provide a good product and can create more flow, and more flow is more money in his pockets.

    Extra services like security/data protection/customer service, and the likes is a great way to bring in people while your competition is struggling to survive by milking you for all that you are worth.

    [–]SheCutOffHerToe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Guess who loves safe roads? Everyone. Guess who pays more for safe roads? Everyone. Guess who has an enormous monetary incentive to provide the safest roads possible? Everyone.

    Guess who is the only exception? The group that is currently the only one permitted to provide and maintain [most] roads.

    [–]SheCutOffHerToe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Society can't be hurt. Only individuals can. It's perfectly valid to be against drunk driving (I am), but don't get mixed up in talking about "harm to society". It's just shitty, reckless behavior. It doesn't harm anyone.

    [–]robstah 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Politics and government are reckless activities that can, and often does, hurt/kill others. Maybe ban them both?