I have a story to share,at first it doesn't seem related to the title of the thread but i think it will end up being related..

---
OMG!.first a cop brings home my Granddaughter from the bus stop..he says she is not allowed to walk a half a block from the bus stop to home..says the law says she has to be 12 to be able to walk home by herself, WTF where did that law come from??
second on the way to the park a cop pulls me over, said she needed a car seat, the law says 5 years and under 60 pounds she needs a car seat..she is over 60 pounds..i am gonna gripe at the judge on this one..(btw when i was headed to the park i seen the first cop talking to the second cop..)
--
(copied from my FB page)
(i have since complied and she is 48 pounds.)

i think the second cop is guilty of harassment since he followed me to the park and waited till i got there and parked to turn on his lights, it seems to me that he was just looking for a reason to pull me over..

anyway, where does it end?
when is it gonna be that the law circumvents our parental duties to teach our kids responsibility?

spanking is frowned upon nowadays, so we are not allowed to discipline our kids, now we are not allowed to let our kids walk home from the bus stop?
(btw my daughter did check the registry and there are no Child molesters registered in our area)

Remember the stories our parents gave us about them walking to school in the snow 5 miles, (with no shoes..)

our society is stupid..making laws that take away the responsibility of us as parents to teach our children responsibility..

<edit>
a quote that sums up my attitude..

Originally Posted by Kittamaru
Exactly my point. The problem isn't the law in itself at this point, it's that society has become so inundated with these petty laws that we RELY on them to make our notional judgement... we are all but INCAPABLE of thinking for ourselves XD

If you can't act responsibly (and obviously you can't if you think a 5 year old can walk home by themselves, under 12 they shouldnt be just WITH an adult but actually holding there hand, seen to many kids run in front of cars and almost killed) then the state has a responsibility to enforce that. Its not YOU who has to pay for your stupidity if your in an accident and they arent in a child seat (unless they become balistic and hit you in the back of the head)

If you can't act responsibly (and obviously you can't if you think a 5 year old can walk home by themselves,
shouldn't this be dependent on the child? some are more responsible than others..some will dart across the street irregardless of safety others will look both ways before crossing (not that crossing the street is an issue since the bus makes all traffic stop till the kids cross the street..)
is it right to teach them that always submitting to fear is a reasonable course of action,
I tend to teach my kids responsibility,(my daughter is proof of this) this means they HAVE to have the (reasonable) opportunity to make mistakes so they can learn,
the distance between the bus stop and home is the reasonable factor in my complaint..i would never let her walk home from the school (even though it is close to home)
and no matter what the reasonability of a 5 yr old walking home alone, i do not think applies to the reasonability of a 12 yr old walking home alone


under 12 they shouldnt be just WITH an adult but actually holding there hand,
this sounds like you do not have any experience with 12 yr olds..


seen to many kids run in front of cars and almost killed) then the state has a responsibility to enforce that.
this is what i am talking about parental responsibility vs the states..
slowly but surely the law is taking responsibility away from its citizens and putting it in the hands of the police.
the focus should be teaching the parents how to teach responsibility, punishment only teaches fear..
there is also the argument of reasonability..laws are made to apply to ALL ppl irregardless of motivation or responsibilities..IOW..i often get tickets for no-insurance, this is not because i do not want insurance, this is because i cannot afford insurance, priorities go to the rent and utilities before insurance, so am i being irresponsibly because i want to provide a home to my daughter and granddaughter and not become homeless?(vehicle is required to maintain income,)

there should be a certain amount of discretion when it comes to someone who inadvertently(maybe there is a better word) breaks the law.


Its not YOU who has to pay for your stupidity if your in an accident and they arent in a child seat (unless they become balistic and hit you in the back of the head)
you really think , that if she were to be stolen/killed, i would not suffer the consequences??
i would be devastated...
i am arguing there HAS to be reasonability in the law, not blind obedience.

Sounds like your police have too much time on their hands. I've been in towns like that, it sucks (Hannover, NH).

NMSquirrel

I would tend to agree with you, but if you were a cop seeing what they see happens to people. Maybe you would feel different about a law made to protect children. Sure you might not need it, but your only one person and laws are there to protect those that need it. In one years time if that law saves just one kid, then it was worth the small irritation it might have caused you personally.

In any event you seem to be taking it personally. Those cops are just doing their jobs. If you really think it's not a good law, maybe you should become politically active in your community and try and do something about it. I know that sounds like more work and irritation than just being a law abiding citizen. Also, I do sympathize with your auto insurance problem.

I do have a solution to it, that would make uninsured motorist a thing of the past. This idea is only for the liability part of the insurance. A state run insurance pool that is paid for at the gas pump by the gallon used. That's more fair as people that drive more would pay according to how much they actually drive, and those of us that average 10 gallons a month would be able to afford insurance each time we fill up at the pump. Instead of what some insurance company thinks we should pay. I really hate subsidizing the guy that uses 50 to 100 gallons a month.

If you can't act responsibly (and obviously you can't if you think a 5 year old can walk home by themselves, under 12 they shouldnt be just WITH an adult but actually holding there hand, seen to many kids run in front of cars and almost killed) then the state has a responsibility to enforce that.You're full of bull, as usual. My generation learned to be responsible and walk safely. When I made a new friend and wanted to visit, my mother walked me to his house twice to be sure that I knew the way, and from then I was on my own. Today's kids are never allowed to use their brains to figure out how the universe works. They grow up to be stupid adults who need labels on their coffee saying, "Warning: Hot!" Or that "cruise control" means they can take a nap and the car will drive itself. (That's an urban legend but I'm sure some day it will happen.)

But to be treated like a stupid puppy at age twelve??? Are you serious??? I sure pity your children! How embarrassing, they'll be the laughingstock of the neighborhood. That's the seventh grade! I had been riding my bicycle one mile to school and one mile back every day for three years when I was in the seventh grade! My friends and I walked back and forth to visit each other at home!

You're outta your bloody mind!
Its not YOU who has to pay for your stupidity if your in an accident and they arent in a child seat (unless they become balistic and hit you in the back of the head)I understand the issue about child seats, but I can't help feeling sorry for the children. The last thing children want is to be strapped into something so they can't move.

At some point we have to make the difficult choice between letting children take risks versus protecting them from everything so they don't understand that the world is full of risks and that they need to learn how to deal with them.

Putting the poor kids in the rear seat, facing backwards, is even worse! The reason for that law is that every year a couple of dozen kids were killed by air bags deploying. But since the law went into effect, something like three times as many die from being left in the back seat on a hot day because the parent didn't remember they were there. Sure that sounds stupid, but it's always because some dire emergency comes up that interrupts the mom's or dad's morning routine. She gets so flustered that she becomes stupid.

Yes, no matter how responsible you are, no matter how much you love your child, it truly is possible to become so rattled that you forget he's in the back seat. Especially when he's been utterly invisible and inaudible for the last half hour.

BTW, seat belts work on children. They don't restrain him as much as an infant car seat, but they'll certainly keep him from "going ballistic." When lap belts came out around 1960 they made a tremendous difference in the survival rate in road accidents, for both adults and children. Shoulder belts didn't come out until many years later, and only in Volvos at first.

My friend was in a head-on collision in the rain in a car with only lap belts, with his son in the "death seat." He had to be taken to the hospital but he was out in the morning with no permanent injuries.

Um think You are confused there, child seats for the older age groups are just boster seats, there is no strapping them down so they can't move, the seat belt is the normal belt it's just that they are lifted up so they are the same height as an adult so it works

And I think you missed the UNTIL they are 12. Basically that means primary school aged kids shouldn't be walking by themselves. I admit I may have got that age wrong, I took it from memory from the walk to school campaign and considering it doesnt effect me at the moment I don't pay much attention to them. However it's definitely WELL above 5 years old.

You know what's amusing, the only people who complain about these sorts of laws are the idiots who get caught by them, the rest of people who act responsibly probably don't even know they are there. If you do the right thing the goverment won't HAVE to force you but if you don't they will

Oh and BTW I attended a crash with rotational force which involved 1 adult driver and 2 children, one in a harness seat and one in a booster. The child in the booster recived the full impact to his door, just behind the drivers door. We had to take mum to hospital strapped down with a c-color on because of back and neck pain post crash. The kids we cut the belt and lifted the whole seats out with them strapped in and examined them road side and they didn't have ANY pain at all and could just go. Moral of the story is that adult seats and belts should really be redesigned to the way a car seat is because they WORK

You know what's amusing, the only people who complain about these sorts of laws are the idiots who get caught by them, the rest of people who act responsibly probably don't even know they are there. If you do the right thing the government won't HAVE to force you but if you don't they will

You bring up a good point, however when these type of laws are passed, they don't do any good if people aren't made aware of them. I believe most people want to be good law abiding citizens and will comply with laws if they know about them in advance. But when you unexpectedly get badgered by the police, it might not be well received. How does the community make it's citizens aware of new laws to protect children are put into effect?

Quite easerly, the changes to the laws regarding child seats made here was very well handled. The change was that ALL children must be in a proper seat no exceptions, that means that grandma and grampa need a baby seat in THIER car too and if dad is going to pick up kid on way home from work at short notice he needs one in his car as well just in case. Now there was a huge media campaign around this and a long lead time where the cops would pull you over yea, but then they would just inform you about the law changes and let you go without booking you.

If people are struggling with the laws the TAC will run another media campaign and the police commissioner will start making high profile statements about it on radio and tv, police media will be on Facebook and twitter

update..
I just went to see the judge on this,I did plead guilty for the car seat as i did not have one..but i had the opportunity to explain to the judge that i thought the second cops actions were questionable,

I explained that i appreciated the first officers discretion by just informing me of the law about 12 year olds not being able to walk home by themselves, He said he did not know of any such law(shouldn't the judge know more about the law than a cop?)..he also said if that cop would have given me any sort of ticket to that effect he would have dismissed it..

now as far as the second cop he said i should go to the chief of police and log a complaint since i believe he followed me until he found something to write me up for..
truth is it is his word against mine...but maybe if i explain this to the COP (uf..Chief Of Police..ironic) he will care enough to look into it and correct the situation..

thirdly the line 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' is BULL..how many laws are put into effect that we have no idea that they are in effect...you would have to be a laywer to keep up with all the new laws that get put into effect,
AND it is my belief that it is getting to the point that NO ONE can live their life without breaking some law..so don't play the 'im better than you, cause i don't break the law' card, its only a matter of scrutiny that you haven't been caught (or are ignorant of the law that you could have broke)

for the record i do not hold the first officer to blame (although it is beginning to look like he is..) i do appreciate him looking after my granddaughter, but its still no excuse to send the second officer after me..(again don't know that he did this or the other officer took it upon himself to follow me)

i only suspect that he said something to the second officer that encouraged him to follow me and find something wrong..(since i seen them talking to one another) what that was i pry will never know..(maybe the chief of police would find out..)

AND for those that think that blindly following the law is a good thing, welcome to sharia law..which is what will happen if you don't challenge laws and just accept without questioning them..

as citizens we do have the power to repeal laws if enough of us get together and agree on it..(or is that just a belief of mine and not a fact?)

There is constructive civil disobedience, and then there is non-constructive civil disobedience.

The difference is, in short:

Constructive civil disobedience is when one airs one's criticism of the country's official institutions while one has not yet trespassed the law.

Non-constructive civil disobedience is when one airs one's criticism of the country's official institutions when one has already trespassed the law.

There is constructive civil disobedience, and then there is non-constructive civil disobedience.

The difference is, in short:

Constructive civil disobedience is when one airs one's criticism of the country's official institutions while one has not yet trespassed the law.

Non-constructive civil disobedience is when one airs one's criticism of the country's official institutions when one has already trespassed the law.

so..(just to argue a bit..not to make any real point on this one..)

if the person who is constructively disobedient ,has not yet trespassed the law, accidentally trespasses the law that would make him non-constructive...

this sounds of political definitions..IOW what he has said during his constructive period should not be dismissed when he crosses into the non-constructive just because he did..

IOW, it should not make him wrong just because his circumstances change.

I am not arguing against your point about me making it more than it is because i got the ticket..because i know this to be true. if i didn't get the ticket it wouldn't be a problem, it just helps to bitch about it for awhile..

I have a story to share,at first it doesn't seem related to the title of the thread but i think it will end up being related..
...


If you live in the U.S. then you should unremoresfully sue the police all the way to the supreme court if necessary. Here is why, you live in country of personal freedom... not personal safety. Laws that define strict methods of personal safety come at the cost of your personal freedom (which is a constitutional violation).

If you live in another country then I cannot advise you.

If you live in the U.S. then you should unremoresfully sue the police all the way to the supreme court if necessary. Here is why, you live in country of personal freedom... not personal safety. Laws that define strict methods of personal safety come at the cost of your personal freedom (which is a constitutional violation).

If you live in another country then I cannot advise you.
While I agree that it's not the government's job to protect me from myself, these laws are designed to protect a minor child from my carelessness.

If you live in the U.S. then you should unremoresfully sue the police all the way to the supreme court if necessary. Here is why, you live in country of personal freedom... not personal safety. Laws that define strict methods of personal safety come at the cost of your personal freedom (which is a constitutional violation).

If you live in another country then I cannot advise you.

Living in the USA is not living in a country of Personal Freedom.
It's not so easy to get after the police for bad behavior- they have the habit of retaliating against you.

I've called internal affairs to report officer behavior before with good results- But that is not always the case. I got pretty lucky that I had an officer that cared.

Most police officers care about their jobs and people and can be quite reasonable. Not all of them can and those ones, even if they are the few, can give the rest a bad name. But it's what happens After, if you challenge it- that becomes a problem. It's a lot easier and a lot less paperwork to punish the plaintiff than to investigate the police.

Perhaps the USA has more "freedom" than some countries, less than others... But no, the concepts of a Free country ended here a long time ago...

Now, freedom has been over ridden by nosy people that declare, "They ought to make a law about that" at the turn of anything they dislike.

I'm a long time believer that personal accountability should over-ride the laws 'taking care of us.'

The trouble you run into is those people that claim that one persons freedoms infringes on their own.
So, the law makes it required to wear a seat belt. That seems like personal choice to me...
But they justify the law by saying that if you get an in accident and are killed or injured, that effects other people, their insurance can go up...yadda yadda yadda... there is NO freedom that won't affect another person, simply put. And as long as people keep justifying stamping out more and more laws by claiming it affects them, the lawmakers will gladly keep adding new sources of revenue to the books.

While I agree that it's not the government's job to protect me from myself, these laws are designed to protect a minor child from my carelessness.

That's not the law's obligatory job. It's a parent's optional job.

If you live in the U.S. then you should unremoresfully sue the police all the way to the supreme court if necessary. Here is why, you live in country of personal freedom... not personal safety. Laws that define strict methods of personal safety come at the cost of your personal freedom (which is a constitutional violation).

If you live in another country then I cannot advise you.


that requires having money to hire a lawer.
and yes retaliation is a factor..(see what the second cop did..if that doesn't qualify then what does?)

Living in the USA is not living in a country of Personal Freedom.

As far as the constitution and Bill of Rights are concerned, it is. It's current state however is a police country.



It's not so easy to get after the police for bad behavior- they have the habit of retaliating against you.

I've called internal affairs to report officer behavior before with good results- But that is not always the case. I got pretty lucky that I had an officer that cared.

Most police officers care about their jobs and people and can be quite reasonable. Not all of them can and those ones, even if they are the few, can give the rest a bad name. But it's what happens After, if you challenge it- that becomes a problem. It's a lot easier and a lot less paperwork to punish the plaintiff than to investigate the police.

Perhaps the USA has more "freedom" than some countries, less than others... But no, the concepts of a Free country ended here a long time ago...

Now, freedom has been over ridden by nosy people that declare, "They ought to make a law about that" at the turn of anything they dislike.

I'm a long time believer that personal accountability should over-ride the laws 'taking care of us.'

The trouble you run into is those people that claim that one persons freedoms infringes on their own.
So, the law makes it required to wear a seat belt. That seems like personal choice to me...
But they justify the law by saying that if you get an in accident and are killed or injured, that effects other people, their insurance can go up...yadda yadda yadda... there is NO freedom that won't affect another person, simply put. And as long as people keep justifying stamping out more and more laws by claiming it affects them, the lawmakers will gladly keep adding new sources of revenue to the books.

Unconstututional laws are unconstitutional. For example:

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-terror-law-violates-1st-amendment-233222966.html

Increasing numbers of people are realizing this and challenging constitutional violation. There are more of them than all the police officers in the country. As far as petty people are concerned, if people fight for their own constitution then petty people will be naturally marginalized by the process. Don't just roll over and play dead, have the courage to change something that is out of wack.

that requires having money to hire a lawer.
and yes retaliation is a factor..(see what the second cop did..if that doesn't qualify then what does?)

Quite often it does require cash to hire a lawyer. On rare occasions you can find a lawyer who will work for free (even better if it's a friend of yours). Retaliation is a very real concern; however, I am willing to bet that raising awareness in your area will gain you allies. A big group of allies will outnumber the cops and I can assure you the last thing they want to start is a local civil war. That would gain instant media attention and the national guard would come in and arrest/kill the retaliating cops.

Quite often it does require cash to hire a lawyer. On rare occasions you can find a lawyer who will work for free (even better if it's a friend of yours). Retaliation is a very real concern; however, I am willing to bet that raising awareness in your area will gain you allies. A big group of allies will outnumber the cops and I can assure you the last thing they want to start is a local civil war. That would gain instant media attention and the national guard would come in and arrest/kill the retaliating cops.

well thats just not my lot in life..
whenever i have tried to correct the system, i have been pounded down,so all i can do is bitch..maybe someone else will hear my bitch and have the luck/resources/will to change the system..

well thats just not my lot in life..
whenever i have tried to correct the system, i have been pounded down,so all i can do is bitch..maybe someone else will hear my bitch and have the luck/resources/will to change the system..

You would be surprised at the number of people who agree with you... and each person who does shares something in common. They have been divided and conquered. If you ever decide to try again, seek out those people and you will have the power of numbers.

You would be surprised at the number of people who agree with you... and each person who does shares something in common. They have been divided and conquered. If you ever decide to try again, seek out those people and you will have the power of numbers.

ppl love to argue with me..if i say tomatoe they say tomato..and vice versa..

if i say its right, they say its wrong..
so it doesn't do much good for me to push the issue too far..

as far as this issue, i will just inform the chief of police,and let him deal with it, this course has the least amount of risk to me, and the easiest chance of correcting the problem.

As far as the constitution and Bill of Rights are concerned, it is. It's current state however is a police country.
Agreed.


Increasing numbers of people are realizing this and challenging constitutional violation. There are more of them than all the police officers in the country. As far as petty people are concerned, if people fight for their own constitution then petty people will be naturally marginalized by the process. Don't just roll over and play dead, have the courage to change something that is out of wack.

<Chuckle> have no fear there, crunchy, if one thing is readily apparent- I am a fighter.

What you post here is more of an encouragement that I'm not alone in it... Because I often feel like I live in a society that has gotten complacent with taking oppression and even, abuse.


And look at the media trial over the Treyvon Martin case.
The shooters medical report demonstrates he was attacked and did have his head pounded into the pavement. An eyewitness reported seeing Martin reach for his gun, at which point the shooter grabbed it first and fired.

But due to the very publicity that you are proposing: The public is out for blood. They don't want justice, they want revenge and they will justify it however they can.

Public support is not usually based on a fair and keen intellect. It's based on selfish wants and politics. And being politically correct means protecting children! From evil parents that dare try to give them independence instead of spoon feeding them until they are 18.

Agreed.



<Chuckle> have no fear there, crunchy, if one thing is readily apparent- I am a fighter.

What you post here is more of an encouragement that I'm not alone in it... Because I often feel like I live in a society that has gotten complacent with taking oppression and even, abuse.


And look at the media trial over the Treyvon Martin case.
The shooters medical report demonstrates he was attacked and did have his head pounded into the pavement. An eyewitness reported seeing Martin reach for his gun, at which point the shooter grabbed it first and fired.

But due to the very publicity that you are proposing: The public is out for blood. They don't want justice, they want revenge and they will justify it however they can.

Public support is not usually based on a fair and keen intellect. It's based on selfish wants and politics. And being politically correct means protecting children! From evil parents that dare try to give them independence instead of spoon feeding them until they are 18.

The following was posted about an hour ago.

Trayvon Martin killed by single gunshot fired from 'intermediate range,' autopsy shows (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/16/11736208-trayvon-martin-killed-by-single-gunshot-fired-from-intermediate-range-autopsy-shows?lite&ocid=todmsnbc11)

The following was posted about an hour ago.

Trayvon Martin killed by single gunshot fired from 'intermediate range,' autopsy shows (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/16/11736208-trayvon-martin-killed-by-single-gunshot-fired-from-intermediate-range-autopsy-shows?lite&ocid=todmsnbc11)

This is all off topic- we are being naughty posters.

Anyway...

<RANT>
So claims that he shot Martin in the back were erroneous after all.
Claims that he stood over Martin repeatedly firing- yes, I heard that one too...
Hmmm...

And while the shooter had swelling and blackened eyes, plural, his head slammed into pavement cutting his scalp open, probably a broken nose...

Martins only injury (Aside from a fatal gunshot wound...) was an abrasion on a Fist.

And I get a real kick out of this one:

But after questions about possible racial motivation for the slaying – Martin was black; Zimmerman is a white man of Hispanic heritage

Seriously?! Come On!

Now don't get me wrong. My heart really goes out to Treyvons family. He was just a kid and maybe he was doing something dumb that night... Maybe he wasn't and all he wanted was some snacks. Whichever, it wasn't worth dying for and now, the family must not only suffer the loss of a son (I'm a father...) but have their deceased son dragged through the media.

My heritage is Lakota (Sioux). My people have a saying, "It is impolite to speak of the dead."
And here we are, rude.

Maybe more evidence will come to light. But I think this was a case of stupidity, all the way around. Tragically, someone died and tragically, someone else must live with the taking of a life (I can assure you, it is a haunt you can never ever let go of).
Possibly, Martin thought he was being followed (Was Zimmerman wearing a jacket that said in bold letters, SECURITY on it?) and, fearful for his safety, tried to get one up on his possible attacker.
And Zimmerman, suspicious of perceived errant behavior in an area he was supposed to protect, suddenly found himself jumped from behind and defended himself from his attacker.
It's a shame their tussling with each other didn't knock some sense into both of them.
But I suspect that had Martin not jumped the man and banged his head into the pavement, he would never have gotten shot.

I, for one, am tired of every incident getting warped by politics, racial b.s. (O.J. Simpson Murder trial, anyone?) Racism should not be tolerated. But playing the race card at every single opportunity is equally intolerable. Unless they have evidence that Zimmerman only profiled black people and had a standing history of racism (Which seems the opposite so far-- from reports), then, innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt- they need to drop the politics and grow up, already.

A man is being criminalized, while real criminals await trial or, silently and unreported in the media, get away with their crimes. He is not being criminalized because he set out to kill. But because he wanted to make right. To do the right thing. He was trying to be a good person.
And you know what they say about the road to hell- It is paved with good intentions. He had good intentions, maybe got over-zealous about his duties. And it tragically blew up in his face.

And on the back of his head.
<END RANT>

Agreed.

<Chuckle> have no fear there, crunchy, if one thing is readily apparent- I am a fighter.

What you post here is more of an encouragement that I'm not alone in it... Because I often feel like I live in a society that has gotten complacent with taking oppression and even, abuse.

:3



And look at the media trial over the Treyvon Martin case.
The shooters medical report demonstrates he was attacked and did have his head pounded into the pavement. An eyewitness reported seeing Martin reach for his gun, at which point the shooter grabbed it first and fired.

But due to the very publicity that you are proposing: The public is out for blood. They don't want justice, they want revenge and they will justify it however they can.

Public support is not usually based on a fair and keen intellect. It's based on selfish wants and politics. And being politically correct means protecting children! From evil parents that dare try to give them independence instead of spoon feeding them until they are 18.

Yes, large groups of anonymous people tend to be stupid and self-polarize themselves. There does have to be a guiding source/meme to actually have a positive outcome.

Neverfly

An unarmed man was shot to death. At the very least a jury should sort it out based on the facts of the case, and I can abide by their verdict whatever that might be.

Neverfly

An unarmed man was shot to death. At the very least a jury should sort it out based on the facts of the case, and I can abide by their verdict whatever that might be.

No...

An unarmed KID was shot to death. A kid that won't get to finish up being a kid and move into manhood.
A kid that left behind bereaved family members, who will spend a very long time agonizing over his loss, constantly facing reminders that he won't be coming home. Uncertain of whether to pack up his things or leave his room as a shrine.

And crying everytime it wakes them up at night.

An unarmed KID was shot to death when there, at least for NOW, is plausible grounds to believe he was not 'up to no good.'

An unarmed kid was shot to death, when he ran up behind a grown man and attacked him. He managed to take down a security (Neighborhood watch) man who was older, more experienced, and bigger. He managed to slam his head into the ground, more than once, while facing that man, not doing it with the man pinned facedown.
He managed to blacken both his eyes and fracture his nose. And he managed to only abrade his fist in the process.

An unarmed kid was shot to death when he surprised and assaulted an armed man.

I grieve for the family.

But let's not lose focus- if we condone criminalizing people that set out to make right, to be good- What are we?
If we condone revenge- pure, primitive and simple- for the sake of a scapegoat, what are we?

Treyvon Martin made a very bad choice. He snuck up behind an armed man and attacked him.

He had managed to get out of a watchmans view. He was free and clear. He could have run on home.

But he didn't. He decided to take it upon himself to attack an armed watchman. And he got himself shot.

I cannot abide on whatever decision is reached. My mind may change later if more evidence is revealed showing that the shooter was a racist, evil, murderous killer.
But as it is, if Zimmerman is criminalized- it will be a blow to racial rights. It will be a racial crime of it's own. Not the shooting... the verdict would be a racial crime.

NBC had aired an edited version of Zimmerman's call from the night of Feb. 26. It was trimmed to suggest that Zimmerman volunteered that Martin was black. But the deleted portion had the dispatcher asking Zimmerman if the person was "black, white or Hispanic." Zimmerman responded, "he looks black."

Neverfly

The point is I don't know what the truth is, and I just can't take everything I read as the truth. So I want to see a trial with a jury hearing all the facts and then a decision made. Regardless of what you might think, this case is made for a jury trial and I believe most of the people across the country think so to. Otherwise it wasn't going to happen.

Neverfly

The point is I don't know what the truth is, and I just can't take everything I read as the truth. So I want to see a trial with a jury hearing all the facts and then a decision made. Regardless of what you might think, this case is made for a jury trial and I believe most of the people across the country think so to. Otherwise it wasn't going to happen.

Regardless of what you may think, the media is involved and the trial by media has already begun.

As you say, you cannot simply accept what people say.

However, we are looking at medical reports, not listening to spirited talks, eh?

We are looking at police reports and facts, not just heresay.

So how much are we reading? How much is true? I've gleaned very little from the news which wasn't about racial profiling and the shooter having to go into extreme hiding because of death threats.

The "facts" are constantly being mired in politics and the media trial is in process, not that I like it. And you are right... one must be pretty discriminating about what they're being told about this racially profiling murderer.

OMG!.first a cop brings home my Granddaughter from the bus stop..he says she is not allowed to walk a half a block from the bus stop to home..says the law says she has to be 12 to be able to walk home by herself, WTF where did that law come from??
Most likely when you asked the judge this question, the answer that there is no such law probably means there is no law specifically addressing this.

I would guess the cop had in mind something like child endangerment, but there are probably any number of less obvious laws that could be used.

Cops are the law, because that's how we built the system. Judges can overrule them, but they can't make them think.

Keep in mind the cops attend training and briefings that encourage them to take a bite out of crime by prevention, and by community interaction, and so forth. That stuff may be great in theory, but if the cop's a knucklehead, all theory breaks down in practice.

Who knows? Maybe the cop was involved in recovering the body of a missing child and was crusading for a serious cause without even realizing it.

Most likely when you asked the judge this question, the answer that there is no such law probably means there is no law specifically addressing this.

I would guess the cop had in mind something like child endangerment, but there are probably any number of less obvious laws that could be used.

Cops are the law, because that's how we built the system. Judges can overrule them, but they can't make them think.

Keep in mind the cops attend training and briefings that encourage them to take a bite out of crime by prevention, and by community interaction, and so forth. That stuff may be great in theory, but if the cop's a knucklehead, all theory breaks down in practice.

Who knows? Maybe the cop was involved in recovering the body of a missing child and was crusading for a serious cause without even realizing it.

yea..what i don't know:
what motivated the cop to bring her home?
assumption is that it was not a mean/devious/Ill intentioned thing,i am sure his heart was in the right place and his motives were good..

what did the first cop say to the second cop?
this is where it starts to smell funny..I dunno if the first cop was complaining to the second cop, or if he was instructing the second cop to 'watch me',
or what was said..

Where exactly did the second cop notice that we didn't have the car seat?
i could argue that the angle wasn't right to see anything till we parked...but that is just an assumption as i do not know what he saw..

If i did not see the first cop talking to the second cop, i do not think i would suspect any (i still don't know the exact word to put here..) indiscretion?collusion?prejudice? can't seem to find the right word..

yea..what i don't know:
what motivated the cop to bring her home?
assumption is that it was not a mean/devious/Ill intentioned thing,i am sure his heart was in the right place and his motives were good..

what did the first cop say to the second cop?
this is where it starts to smell funny..I dunno if the first cop was complaining to the second cop, or if he was instructing the second cop to 'watch me',
or what was said..

Where exactly did the second cop notice that we didn't have the car seat?
i could argue that the angle wasn't right to see anything till we parked...but that is just an assumption as i do not know what he saw..

If i did not see the first cop talking to the second cop, i do not think i would suspect any (i still don't know the exact word to put here..) indiscretion?collusion?prejudice? can't seem to find the right word..

I think this goes to your original point about invasion of privacy and fundamental freedom vs. the rule of law as a matter of discretion.

If there's not a lot of crime in your area, the cops may be spending too much time at the donut shop comparing notes. Having your hackles up like this might just be a sign of a healthy community.

Update;

Just finished talking with the Chief of Police..
told him everything including it was not my intention to belittle my responsibility in the matter or to get the officers in trouble..


although i was left with the impression(don't think it was irrational) that he was more concerned with the issue from a legalistic point of view, than anything..
he did look it up in the law book and said that the child endangerment laws would qualify the firsts officers stance of it being illegal for a 5 year old to walk home by herself..(he did not touch the 12 year old issue, i think because it wasn't applicable to my situation)

he did say he would look into it including watching the video from the camera and asking the officers what was said during the conversation..
he did not say anything about whether he would or wouldn't support my idea of having the officers help with my tuition fee ($30) for the traffic school if he did find any impropriety, (which i did say that it was only a request and not an expectation)

he also said that it was his job to scrutinize his officers and if any improprieties were discovered that is was his responsibility to fire the officers guilty of such..(which i did/do not want to happen)..(which brings up the issue of punishment vs correction and the political pressures involved with his responsibilities and the reasonabilities of such)

what do i expect now?
I expect that nothing will happen except i will get a couple more tickets in the near future..

I hope at the least that, that he will call me back and just say that he talked to the officers and that the issue has been corrected..
at the most i would hope that they will help with the traffic school fee..

will update when new info become available..

Update;

Just finished talking with the Chief of Police..
told him everything including it was not my intention to belittle my responsibility in the matter or to get the officers in trouble..


although i was left with the impression(don't think it was irrational) that he was more concerned with the issue from a legalistic point of view, than anything..
he did look it up in the law book and said that the child endangerment laws would qualify the firsts officers stance of it being illegal for a 5 year old to walk home by herself..(he did not touch the 12 year old issue, i think because it wasn't applicable to my situation)

he did say he would look into it including watching the video from the camera and asking the officers what was said during the conversation..
he did not say anything about whether he would or wouldn't support my idea of having the officers help with my tuition fee ($30) for the traffic school if he did find any impropriety, (which i did say that it was only a request and not an expectation)

he also said that it was his job to scrutinize his officers and if any improprieties were discovered that is was his responsibility to fire the officers guilty of such..(which i did/do not want to happen)..(which brings up the issue of punishment vs correction and the political pressures involved with his responsibilities and the reasonabilities of such)

what do i expect now?
I expect that nothing will happen except i will get a couple more tickets in the near future..

I hope at the least that, that he will call me back and just say that he talked to the officers and that the issue has been corrected..
at the most i would hope that they will help with the traffic school fee..

will update when new info become available..
Love the assumption that because you got caught acting irrisponcibly that it's the police at fault, reminds me of the twits who blame speed cameras for there fines. You got caught, you did the wrong thing, insted of blaming the cops LEARN FROM IT

Love the assumption that because you got caught acting irresponsibly that it's the police at fault, reminds me of the twits who blame speed cameras for there fines. You got caught, you did the wrong thing, insted of blaming the cops LEARN FROM IT

um..i think i have communicated that i did take responsibility for my actions.
and i never said the Cop was unjustified in giving me the ticket..

one of my points was the cop that followed me LOOKING for an excuse to give me a ticket..

would you want to live in a society where every move you made was scrutinized with the intention of finding fault in your life?
(are you pro-big brother?)

no matter what situation i am currently in,
and no matter how emotionally attached i am to any given situation in my life..

I titled the thread 'Law vs Freedom'

because there are issues of us losing our freedoms as more and more laws are being put into effect,

I/we are losing our freedom to determine where we spend out money(insurance laws)
I/we are losing our freedom to determine how we raise our kids
(teaching responsibility vs teaching compliance)

I am not an expert in law or the constitution, so my attitude can only go so far.

my Intention for creating this thread was to have others share stories like the Treyvon Martin case or others that show a fine line or a clear idea of the cases that infringe on our fundamental freedoms, of how Freedom and liberty of which our country(USA) was founded on, is slowly being legislated away..

some links that i have found..
Freedom vs democracy (http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/democracy-vs-freedom.html)
A quote from it:

To achieve a free and peaceful world, we must restore freedom and individual liberty, not democracy.

Bob Bernick's Notebook - Personal Freedom vs. Law Enforcement
(http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/17635848/article-Bob-Bernick-s-Notebook---Personal-Freedom-vs--Law-Enforcement?instance=top_story_policy)

“We (in the Legislature) have to weigh law enforcement practices with individual freedoms.

From Sheriff Mack.com about seat belts.
(http://www.sheriffmack.com/index.php/seat-belts)

Why do we have seat belt laws?

Do you think it's because our government wants to keep us safe, think again.

We have seat belt laws simply because people with money wanted us to have seat belt laws. They lobbied for it, they pushed for it, and they eventually got it. And if you look closely, you'll find that many other laws are on the books simply because insurance companies wanted them there.

Are seat belts a good thing? Sure. Statistics have shown us time and time again that properly worn seat belts reduce the chance of injury and save lives. But a law? Why a law? Because it saves the insurance companies money if we get hurt less, and it gives them a reason NOT to pay for injuries if seat belts are not worn.

I am proud to say that in my entire time serving as sheriff I never issued a seat belt citation, and neither did any of my deputies. We talked to the people about wearing seat belts; we encouraged them to be safe, especially where children were concerned. But we could not in clear conscience enforce a law which violated the personal freedoms of the people, and thereby the principles of the constitution!

I'm not saying that we should all refuse to wear seat belts. The issue is not whether or not it's a good idea. The real danger here is that when we allow government to enforce these kinds of laws, we are surrendering our ability to think and act for ourselves.


From the same website about 'A recipe for Tyranny.' (http://www.sheriffmack.com/index.php/a-recipe-for-tyranny)


was absolutely amazed by this Judge as the trial against Halajian proceeded. For many years now I
have heard several “patriots, constitutionalists, freedom lovers, right wing kooks,” whatever they are
called these days, say that they have taken certain traffic citations to court and that the judge warned
them that “the constitution would not apply in his courtroom.” I have to be totally frank here, I did not
always believe such claims.

these are just from my limited search..
(yes neverfly, i did read through most of them..)

no matter what situation i am currently in,
and no matter how emotionally attached i am to any given situation in my life..

I titled the thread 'Law vs Freedom'

because there are issues of us losing our freedoms as more and more laws are being put into effect,

I/we are losing our freedom to determine where we spend out money(insurance laws)
I/we are losing our freedom to determine how we raise our kids
(teaching responsibility vs teaching compliance)

I am not an expert in law or the constitution, so my attitude can only go so far.

my Intention for creating this thread was to have others share stories like the Treyvon Martin case or others that show a fine line or a clear idea of the cases that infringe on our fundamental freedoms, of how Freedom and liberty of which our country(USA) was founded on, is slowly being legislated away..

I think you are missing the point of laws. We live in a society that produces our great standard of living as opposed to living naked in caves or the trees worried about the next meal or predator looking to make us a meal. But why should I have to put up with you being uninsured if you insist on driving a car? If you cause an accident with no insurance and no way to cover your financial responsibility. Where does that leave the injured party and if you are injured, where does that leave the people that care about you? You need to find a way to be insured or continue to be a bad citizen.

Laws concerning kids are for their protection. Laws like that don't get passed without a good reason, whether your aware of those reasons or not. You have access to the Internet and should be able to do some research on specific laws. Take a look first and then if you still feel like complaining you will be doing it from a more knowledgeable position.

Where does my freedom to do as I want interfere with your freedom not to be victimized? Guess we need a law to resolve that problem don't we?

(yes neverfly, i did read through most of them..)

Well presented bit of research.

See? You CAN do it.

I think you are missing the point of laws. We live in a society that produces our great standard of living as opposed to living naked in caves or the trees worried about the next meal or predator looking to make us a meal. But why should I have to put up with you being uninsured if you insist on driving a car?
Because you are justifying control for the sake of safety and security of your OWN.
Yes, our current society offers us to not live in a cave, The problem is that they enforce it, as well. The laws on the books forbid us to live in a cave. Zoning and housing requirements are standard and have been for over 50 years.
I grew up around Mountain Lions. We went most places armed with either a rifle or sidearm and usually had a shotgun in reach for rattlesnakes, as well.
Incidents of "Predators" were low- WE were the "predators."
Only in that "Safe" society you speak of, where people run around unarmed, are "predators" a problem.

This does not make you wrong. It makes you a person of a different desire, different living standard opinion. And for me, that is perfectly fine.
What is NOT Fine, however, is when you push and enforce your living standard opinion onto ME.
If you don't want to protect yourself, fine. Don't demand that I cannot.
If you want the law to tell you that you have to, fine.
But don't demand for laws that tell the rest of us that we Have to. It's our right to choose- we fought for it, won it, will fight to keep it.


If you cause an accident with no insurance and no way to cover your financial responsibility. Where does that leave the injured party and if you are injured, where does that leave the people that care about you? You need to find a way to be insured or continue to be a bad citizen.
Nonsense. Full coverage insurance policy is FULL COVERAGE. Incidentally, the entire insurance laws need to be re-worked. As they are now, while insurance may help in alleviating costs after an accident, they pushed for the very laws that enable them to get out of paying out.
So what good does this almighty insurance do if they don't pay out on claims anyway? Good for lawyers, I suppose, who delved into the booming business of ambulance chasing.
Let's examine customer reviews:
Here's mine- Allstate.
http://www.customerservicescoreboard.com/Allstate
Wow, 97 negative and um...6 positive... Ouch.
Feel free to enter your own insurance company in there and see what you get.
Not only are the insurance companies suckling every last dime they can out of average Knucklehead, they are not just getting away with it- They are protected by the law which enforces their ability to milk us mad.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/geico.jpg


Laws concerning kids are for their protection. Laws like that don't get passed without a good reason, whether your aware of those reasons or not.
Nor whether you are aware of the reason, but accepted that they were passed "for good reason" at face value, whether they were- or not.

Where does my freedom to do as I want interfere with your freedom not to be victimized? Guess we need a law to resolve that problem don't we?

The fact is, ANY freedom you have can always be claimed to interfere with others.
Any freedom, any choice, any action. All of it. There is not one freedom for any person living in this country that another person cannot justify interferes with the rest of us.

Because of this, laws are constantly being proposed for the books. And there is little to justify not adding them.
After all, what's personal responsibility and personal accountability when there's money to be made?

Because you are justify control for the sake of safety and security of your OWN.
Yes, our current society offers us to not live in a cave, The problem is that they enforce it, as well. The laws on the books forbid us to live in a cave. Zoning and housing requirements are standard and have been for over 50 years.
I grew up around Mountain Lions. We went most places armed with either a rifle or sidearm and usually had a shotgun in reach for rattlesnakes, as well.
Incidents of "Predators" were low- WE were the "predators."
Only in that "Safe" society you speak of, where people run around unarmed, are "predators" a problem.

How wrong you are. Lot's of people are killed in gun accidents every year, many of them children. There is very little need for the average person to have a gun around. Mostly they don't know how to really use them and anybody else that knows they have a gun may decide to steal it for easy drug money. If you want to live out in the country I have no problem with you having and using a gun. However, people in a city don't have any business having a gun.


This does not make you wrong. It makes you a person of a different desire, different living standard opinion. And for me, that is perfectly fine.
What is NOT Fine, however, is when you push and enforce your living standard opinion onto ME.
If you don't want to protect yourself, fine. Don't demand that I cannot.
If you want the law to tell you that you have to, fine.
But don't demand for laws that tell the rest of us that we Have to. It's our right to choose- we fought for it, won it, will fight to keep it.

Again you are wrong. You are a part of the society that makes laws to live by. If you don't like a law you have the same option as any citizen to change it. Nothing is ever won forever, you have to keep fighting for what you believe in. Influencing others to believe as you do is hard work, and usually feels very thankless for the effort required.



Nonsense. Full coverage insurance policy is FULL COVERAGE. Incidentally, the entire insurance laws need to be re-worked. As they are now, while insurance may help in alleviating costs after an accident, they pushed for the very laws that enable them to get out of paying out.
So what good does this almighty insurance do if they don't pay out on claims anyway? Good for lawyers, I suppose, who delved into the booming business of ambulance chasing.
Let's examine customer reviews:
Here's mine- Allstate.
http://www.customerservicescoreboard.com/Allstate
Wow, 97 negative and um...6 positive... Ouch.
Feel free to enter your own insurance company in there and see what you get.
Not only are the insurance companies suckling every last dime they can out of average Knucklehead, they are not just getting away with it- They are protected by the law which enforces their ability to milk us mad.

I know all about Allstate (somebody has to pay for all that advertizing). I said it before and I'll say it again. The required liability insurance should be paid for at the gas pump or the electric charging station and be based on units of fuel used. Right now I only drive 2000 to 3000 miles per year. Why should my insurance cost as much as someone else driving 20,000 miles a year? Why should my insurance cost more because of uninsured motorist? Paying at the pump solves that problem very nicely.


Nor whether you are aware of the reason, but accepted that they were passed "for good reason" at face value, whether they were- or not.

Sorry I don't have any kids so don't really give it much thought.



The fact is, ANY freedom you have can always be claimed to interfere with others.
Any freedom, any choice, any action. All of it. There is not one freedom for any person living in this country that another person cannot justify interferes with the rest of us.

Because of this, laws are constantly being proposed for the books. And there is little to justify not adding them.
After all, what's personal responsibility and personal accountability when there's money to be made?

I won't disagree with that, because I know that not all laws are good laws. Also, no laws ever get changed without lots of lawbreakers taking their chances.

For instance I'm very opposed to drug lords and dealers making all the money because we have the laws against drugs. I don't disagree that drugs are bad for society, but the laws against them has only made matters a whole lot worse. We can't win that war unless we can take the money out of the equation. More laws against drugs makes more money for the bad guys and more criminals out of good citizens.

How wrong you are. Lot's of people are killed in gun accidents every year, many of them children. There is very little need for the average person to have a gun around. Mostly they don't know how to really use them and anybody else that knows they have a gun may decide to steal it for easy drug money. If you want to live out in the country I have no problem with you having and using a gun. However, people in a city don't have any business having a gun.
Perhaps YOU do not have any desire nor business to. Perhaps you believe that criminally minded people should not- or inept parents should not.
Belief is not law. And you cannot evade that you are imposing your beliefs, trying to enforce your standards and your desires onto others- for a Life Choice.

Your statement about accidents is a bit absurd. How many children and adults die in vehicle accidents every year? Currently, not only is that figure much, much, much higher than firearms, it's higher than deliberate murders, other accidents and all other transportation accidents combined.
Including children that take over vehicles playing in them. Well, Most families in cities have one or more cars!

The solution you must therefor offer by your logic is: People in cities have no business having a car.


Again you are wrong. You are a part of the society that makes laws to live by. If you don't like a law you have the same option as any citizen to change it. Nothing is ever won forever, you have to keep fighting for what you believe in. Influencing others to believe as you do is hard work, and usually feels very thankless for the effort required.
This is true, to a degree.
My nation was founded on certain concepts lined out in the Constitution of the nation. This premise fundamental to the governing of the nation and without it- the nation no longer is governed by that government.



I know all about Allstate (somebody has to pay for all that advertizing). I said it before and I'll say it again. The required liability insurance should be paid for at the gas pump or the electric charging station and be based on units of fuel used. Right now I only drive 2000 to 3000 miles per year. Why should my insurance cost as much as someone else driving 20,000 miles a year? Why should my insurance cost more because of uninsured motorist? Paying at the pump solves that problem very nicely.
Not a bad idea, really and I'm glad to see you proposing alternatives.
This demonstrates that "laws" may be either good or bad- but a more effective method is a law that enables freedom without enabling hardship.


I won't disagree with that, because I know that not all laws are good laws. Also, no laws ever get changed without lots of lawbreakers taking their chances.

For instance I'm very opposed to drug lords and dealers making all the money because we have the laws against drugs. I don't disagree that drugs are bad for society, but the laws against them has only made matters a whole lot worse. We can't win that war unless we can take the money out of the equation. More laws against drugs makes more money for the bad guys and more criminals out of good citizens.
Well put.

I think you are missing the point of laws. We live in a society that produces our great standard of living as opposed to living naked in caves or the trees worried about the next meal or predator looking to make us a meal. But why should I have to put up with you being uninsured if you insist on driving a car? If you cause an accident with no insurance and no way to cover your financial responsibility. Where does that leave the injured party and if you are injured, where does that leave the people that care about you? You need to find a way to be insured or continue to be a bad citizen.
this is where the discretion should be..I have been driving since i was 16 and i have only had two accidents..one only involved myself and a telephone pole(well not an actual telephone pole, but same material used to reinforce a hill from landslides), the other was to avoid a dog..
the first totaled my car and i did have insurance so i got a new car out of it (although not the same make and model i had)
the second i did not have insurance and the owner of the parked car i hit was understandable and the damage was minimal so he didn't pursue financial compensation.
My point being that as a good driver, my risk of getting in an accident are pretty low, thereby i should be able to use my own judgement as to whether i should carry insurance or not..

PLUS Insurance law are fundamental discriminatory against those that are financially challenged...(poor) and the penalty twice as biased..

I do like your idea about pay at the pump..unfortunately i don't see it happening as those that would oppose it would capitalize on the fear factor of rising gas prices..
(which the fear factor is what i believe to be most of the problems of new laws getting passed)


Laws concerning kids are for their protection. Laws like that don't get passed without a good reason, whether your aware of those reasons or not. You have access to the Internet and should be able to do some research on specific laws. Take a look first and then if you still feel like complaining you will be doing it from a more knowledgeable position.
again reasonability HAS to be factored in..and not fear..there is no law that would prevent a kid from being stolen, if someone so desired to steal a kid.
just like there is no lock that could prevent a person from getting into your house if they really wanted to..

again my position is that of reasonability and of discretion, and against blind obedience, as the cops are required to do.




Where does my freedom to do as I want interfere with your freedom not to be victimized? Guess we need a law to resolve that problem don't we?
I agree with neverfly on his point that ANY freedom can be made to interfere with another..so i don't buy that as an argument.
especially with those that scream victim when they are not..(see over-litigation)

My point being that as a good driver, my risk of getting in an accident are pretty low, thereby i should be able to use my own judgement as to whether i should carry insurance or not...
An insurance company does promote better rates fro lower risk drivers...

I still have a problem with this sentence itself.

The problem with the statement is that while your risk may well be lower than some peoples, no one gets into an accident on purpose. Anyone will reasonably avoid one as best they are able. Yet they still happen. It's the nature of playing the odds.

So that statement does not support the conclusion.

Firstly If the cop wanted to book you with ANYTHING he wouldnt have let you off with a warning the first time

Secondly If you hadnt done anything wrong it doesnt MATTER how long the cops follow you they wont find anything

Thirdly The courts found you guilty, THEY obviously didnt think it was harrasment.

Once again, i love how people try to blame the police for there own stupidity, if you dont want to get booked DONT COMMIT CRIMES and in this case DONT ACT LIKE A RETARD

Secondly If you hadnt done anything wrong it doesnt MATTER how long the cops follow you they wont find anything
tell me that your life is impervious to scrutiny, and i will call you a liar..


Thirdly The courts found you guilty, THEY obviously didnt think it was harrasment.
the courts did not find me guilty..this wasn't a trial..
I pled guilty because i did not have a car seat..i admitted my own responsibility.


Once again, i love how people try to blame the police for there own stupidity, if you dont want to get booked DONT COMMIT CRIMES and in this case DONT ACT LIKE A RETARD
once again i love how ppl refuse to listen to truth and only to their own stupid opinions..(you started it..)
like you say..DON'T ACT LIKE A RETARD!
pay attention to what is said..
(see how that works neverfly? he started it..)

An insurance company does promote better rates fro lower risk drivers...
i'm not so sure i believe that anymore..besides..just cause i don't get in accidents, doesn't mean i don't get tickets..



no one gets into an accident on purpose.
True enough..


So that statement does not support the conclusion.

revisit:
"My point being that as a good driver, [I[my risk of getting in an accident are pretty low, thereby[/I] I should be able to use my own judgement as to whether i should carry insurance or not."

i don't see a problem with it..bold can stand alone without the prerequisite.
many prerequisites can apply..
how about using 'since this is a free country' before the bold..or how about 'since i am an adult' before the bold..or even delete the italicized part..it is still a valid opinion.


If i had gotten into alot of accidents, then it does make sense to have insurance as i would go broke with the repair bills..(both self ,car and others)

That would be a reasonable law..IE If a person gets into more than X amount of accidents within X amount of time, then they HAVE to have insurance..

Firstly If the cop wanted to book you with ANYTHING he wouldnt have let you off with a warning the first time

Not sure how it is where you live; but where i live an officer must have Probable Cause to stop you.
They must have "reasonable cause" to think that a crime has been committed, is in the process of being committed or a crime is about to be committed.
Kinda gray...

Any officer has the option of issuing a citation- which is a bond, really. A P.R. bond. It's a promise to appear in court.

An officer can, if he feels that the option of a citation will end in dismal failure:p, haul a person in to jail to await appearing in court.

Squirrel.
Much better without the "Because I'm a good driver."

There's an old brainteaser about painting a wall, goes like this:

Bob has this big wall, and it has spots of discoloration on it - subtle, but the big ones are noticeable; they stand out. He wants to remove the irritation, but not waste paint on the whole wall, so he thinks to himself that he will just paint out the bigger, irritating spots - the ones that stand out.

He does this.

But then there are still a few spots bigger than the rest, that stand out now that the very biggest have been painted. So he paints them. But then the next level of bigger spots stands out - - - -

What should he do?

The traditional answer is that he should paint the big spots down to the size of the smaller ones, until there are too many about the same size for any to stand out. But that won't work here:

We have so reduced the standard perceived dangers and hazards of childhood that a car accident while being driven down a local street to the park stands out; the risks attendant on a ten year old walking a block from the bus stop in the afternoon stand out; the extra hazards of swimming off a dock instead of shallow water stand out; the risks of unhelmeted vs helmeted bike mishap stand out; and so forth. And we are obsessed with eliminating all risks that stand out.

We are missing a consideration: there are real risks in raising children in a swaddled, cosseted, helmeted, padded, slow speed, shallow water, fenced yard, no tree climbing allowed world. And these are not just the kinds of behaviors that attract bored monkeys who have been prevented from monkeying around (fight club, anyone?) - they are also the foregoing of competencies and developments, physical courage and injury tolerance not the least, that we are quite possibly inflicting on the next generation of adults; they are also the absence of memories of risks faced, dangerous things done, thrills had, and simple fun. What an adulthood will be whose only childhood thrill memories are of things like achieving some high level of thumb twiddling on a game console, I don't know - but there's an odd sadness to childhood now. Kids don't even get to screw around in the back seat on the way to church.

Meanwhile the adults are being bureaucratically encircled as well; and here the beneficiaries have more venal and cynical motives: for example, as a reasonable person driving to work, I must perforce buy insurance for the vanity and profligate folly of people who by appearances have way more money than is good for them and the automotive judgment of a magpie decorating its nest. Look - one of the reasons I don't own a 70,000 dollar car is that I don't want to pay for such nonsense. How these rich fucks got a law passed putting me at risk for damages to whatever small-dick compensation and conspicuous consumption fantasy they feel like wheeling out into traffic I don't know, but it's damn irritating to write that check to that multistory glass walled executive mound every six months.

And leave us not get started on air bags and ABS brakes, mandatory seat belt usage and its concomitant impositions (among them, the impossibility of getting a decent seat belt stock in a car), helmet laws and random stops and commercial driver drug testing. Feh.

Not sure how it is where you live; but where i live an officer must have Probable Cause to stop you.

so when is it gonna be that the excuse of 'it is probable that any given person is committing a violation of the law at any given time'
will be justification for 'probable cause'..

Not sure how it is where you live; but where i live an officer must have Probable Cause to stop you.
They must have "reasonable cause" to think that a crime has been committed, is in the process of being committed or a crime is about to be committed.
Kinda gray...

Any officer has the option of issuing a citation- which is a bond, really. A P.R. bond. It's a promise to appear in court.

An officer can, if he feels that the option of a citation will end in dismal failure:p, haul a person in to jail to await appearing in court.

Squirrel.
Much better without the "Because I'm a good driver."

I live in Australia and for the record the fact that your in a car is enough "probable cause" under the trafic act for the police to stop you, breath test you, Drug test you (never actually had one of these done, probably because it takes longer than the 10 seconds for a breath test), check your all wearing seat belts, check the car is in working safely. No they cant search the car for drugs or severed heads unless they can see them openly but not having a car seat falls under the trafic act and they dont NEED probable cause to check that. You ever herd of random breath testing? one of the best weapons against the road toll (you DO realise you are MUCH more likly to die in a car crash than to be murdered right?) and here it happens all the time. Hell on a Friday or Sat night in Melbourne they will some times block off the whole Easten Freeway and test every single car that passes. On the way in to work they will sit there a) checking to make sure there are multiple people in the cars on the transit lane and b) checking to make sure everyone is wearing seat belts (and speed of course)

I live in Australia and for the record the fact that your in a car is enough "probable cause" under the trafic act for the police to stop you, breath test you, Drug test you (never actually had one of these done, probably because it takes longer than the 10 seconds for a breath test), check your all wearing seat belts, check the car is in working safely. No they cant search the car for drugs or severed heads unless they can see them openly but not having a car seat falls under the trafic act and they dont NEED probable cause to check that. You ever herd of random breath testing? one of the best weapons against the road toll (you DO realise you are MUCH more likly to die in a car crash than to be murdered right?) and here it happens all the time. Hell on a Friday or Sat night in Melbourne they will some times block off the whole Easten Freeway and test every single car that passes. On the way in to work they will sit there a) checking to make sure there are multiple people in the cars on the transit lane and b) checking to make sure everyone is wearing seat belts (and speed of course)

As far as keeping the drunks off the road, hows that working for you. Also, is it true that in Australia your considered drunk if you blow a .05? It's .08 for us here in the U.S.

As far as keeping the drunks off the road, hows that working for you. Also, is it true that in Australia your considered drunk if you blow a .05? It's .08 for us here in the U.S.

Quite well actually, and yes.

I found this with a quick search

http://www.caradvice.com.au/156631/australias-road-toll-lowest-since-1946/
http://www.theage.com.au/national/how-low-can-we-go-20090709-depn.html

In 1970 (from memory) the road toll for victoria ALONE reached 1034 which lead to a massive campain by the government "Declare war on 1034" Now the 5 year average for victoria up to 2011 was 121. Now FR will jump in at this point and say "ah but cars are safer now" and he is right to a point but not compleatly. Its not ALL a matter of car saftey (if your interested i can point you to a section of Monash Uni which resurches road saftey and they have alot of infomation about this sort of stuff), alot of it is driver attitudes and enforcement. Speed traps, random breath testing, these are the sorts of things which make a HUGE difference and as the head of the major crash squad in victoria said at a lecture he gave for a scout group i was at "we would rather pick you up at a random breath test than scrape you up 100m down the road".

Quite well actually, and yes.

I found this with a quick search

http://www.caradvice.com.au/156631/australias-road-toll-lowest-since-1946/
http://www.theage.com.au/national/how-low-can-we-go-20090709-depn.html

In 1970 (from memory) the road toll for Victoria ALONE reached 1034 which lead to a massive campaign by the government "Declare war on 1034" Now the 5 year average for Victoria up to 2011 was 121. Now FR will jump in at this point and say "ah but cars are safer now" and he is right to a point but not completely. Its not ALL a matter of car safety (if your interested i can point you to a section of Monash Uni which researches road safety and they have a lot of information about this sort of stuff), a lot of it is driver attitudes and enforcement. Speed traps, random breath testing, these are the sorts of things which make a HUGE difference and as the head of the major crash squad in Victoria said at a lecture he gave for a scout group i was at "we would rather pick you up at a random breath test than scrape you up 100m down the road".

Yes it does look better. They do checks here once in a while, not very consistent about it though. .05 is very low, but not the lowest. In Japan any amount of alcohol in the system will get you busted with an immediate 1 year suspension of your drivers license.:D

when your on your L's and P's its zero and i have never understood 0.08, when you look at crash data rates of crashes are reasonably steady up to 0.05 but go up expoentually above 0.05, even between .05 and .08

when your on your L's and P's its zero and i have never understood 0.08, when you look at crash data rates of crashes are reasonably steady up to 0.05 but go up exponentially above 0.05, even between .05 and .08

It used to be .1 and they played hell trying to get it down to .08. I'm sure they would be afraid of being voted out of office if they pushed for it to be lowered to .05. But then they also let just about anybody have a hand gun, no training required.

Speed traps, random breath testing, these are the sorts of things which make a HUGE difference and as the head of the major crash squad in victoria said at a lecture he gave for a scout group i was at "we would rather pick you up at a random breath test than scrape you up 100m down the road". Tyranny is always for your own good.

The benevolence of the State, the comparative triviality of one's personal concerns about time, inconvenience, privacy - all common themes.

Tyranny is always for your own good.

The benevolence of the State, the comparative triviality of one's personal concerns about time, inconvenience, privacy - all common themes.

Sorry but if your drunk, I don't want you driving on the same road as me and I'm willing to suffer a little inconvenience if that's what it takes to get you off the road.

"My point being that as a good driver, my risk of getting in an accident are pretty low,
The odds of winning the lotto are pretty low too, yet people still buy tickets.

All it takes is a dog running out in front of you on a rainy day and the next thing you know, you've smashed into a little old lady's Cadillac. :shrug:

Sorry but if your drunk, I don't want you driving on the same road as me and I'm willing to suffer a little inconvenience if that's what it takes to get you off the road. And you are happy to use the State to impose your idea of "a little inconvenience" on me whether I am drunk or not.

Because you are convinced the State will treat you well and take your side, apparently, and only abuse other people. That the police are on your side, seems an article of faith. You would never expect to lose a job or miss a plane or have to tolerate repeated "random" stops for weeks or months by police who have targeted you.

Not everyone is so fortunate.

My horselaugh of a few years ago was a column in the Star Tribune by one of their loud proponents of the child car seat law, in which she complained about the police seriously inconveniencing her - late to important work, fined heavily, forced to a great deal of trouble - because she had tried to drive her daughter five blocks home from day care without a car seat. The car seat had been left in the husband's car by oversight, he was far away, the day care was just down the street, it was a residential neighborhood with little traffic, she was pulled over within sight of her driveway and held there, etc etc etc - she was really angry. That was not how that law was supposed to be used, she fumed. Ha.

And you are happy to use the State to impose your idea of "a little inconvenience" on me whether I am drunk or not.

Because you are convinced the State will treat you well and take your side, apparently, and only abuse other people. That the police are on your side, seems an article of faith. You would never expect to lose a job or miss a plane or have to tolerate repeated "random" stops for weeks or months by police who have targeted you.

Not everyone is so fortunate.

My horselaugh of a few years ago was a column in the Star Tribune by one of their loud proponents of the child car seat law, in which she complained about the police seriously inconveniencing her - late to important work, fined heavily, forced to a great deal of trouble - because she had tried to drive her daughter five blocks home from day care without a car seat. The car seat had been left in the husband's car by oversight, he was far away, the day care was just down the street, it was a residential neighborhood with little traffic, she was pulled over within sight of her driveway and held there, etc etc etc - she was really angry. That was not how that law was supposed to be used, she fumed. Ha.

They should have a child seat in both cars so this problem would never come up. I'm not sympathetic here.

The longest i have been stoped at a random breath test is 10 min and thats when the whole freeway was blocked. If your running THAT late whos fault is it really? you dont plan ahead thats not the police's responcibility, there could be a crash, there could be road works, there could be anything. Basically SUCK IT UP PRINCESS and leave on time. Breath testing when you havent had anything to drink takes 10 seconds

"this is a random breath test, i need you to take one long continuas breath into this tube until i tell you to stop" Blow..... "0.00 your good to go, have a nice night"

They should have a child seat in both cars so this problem would never come up. I'm not sympathetic here.

Thats the law here and suprise suprise, my mum and dad have a car seat in THERE car for when they have my niece too. No excuse

All it takes is a dog running out in front of you on a rainy day and the next thing you know, you've smashed into a little old lady's Cadillac. :shrug:

hey now..it wasn't raining and he wasn't old, and his car was parked..

They should have a child seat in both cars so this problem would never come up. I'm not sympathetic here. I'm not sympathetic either. She was as sanctimonious and naive as you, when she was arguing for that law and disparaging the irresponsibility of parents who care so little about their children's safety. I got a kick out of her getting a reality check.


If your running THAT late whos fault is it really? you dont plan ahead thats not the police's responcibility, there could be a crash, there could be road works, there could be anything. Basically SUCK IT UP PRINCESS and leave on time. When you are working three part time jobs with twenty minutes between, and one of them runs over, you can prattle like that about other people's routines.

Crashes I can handle - I know my routes. Road work I can schedule for. Random stops without cause by police officers to run dogs through my car and dick around with their malfunctioning computer connections and make me get out in the rain and blow into some dubious plastic tube, I should not have to tolerate.

People have lives. Lawbiding, prudently behaving, legally sound citizens should not be molested on the streets, by anyone - much less the cops. At least if I was getting robbed I could give the guy my money and get out of there. Kids. Jesus.

And when their little machine doesn't work right and needs hassling, or their computer doesn't register your license or tabs, and you actually get hauled to the jailhouse and your car to impound? You going to be a smug little self-righteous innocent then?

Um I've been in a situation where the machine didn't register my plates because they were interstate plates, you don't get hauled off to jail or that, at most you get an infringement notice which you can then dispute.

Furthermore the speed cameras now check registration automatically

And you are happy to use the State to impose your idea of "a little inconvenience" on me whether I am drunk or not.

Because you are convinced the State will treat you well and take your side, apparently, and only abuse other people. That the police are on your side, seems an article of faith. You would never expect to lose a job or miss a plane or have to tolerate repeated "random" stops for weeks or months by police who have targeted you.

Not everyone is so fortunate.

My horselaugh of a few years ago was a column in the Star Tribune by one of their loud proponents of the child car seat law, in which she complained about the police seriously inconveniencing her - late to important work, fined heavily, forced to a great deal of trouble - because she had tried to drive her daughter five blocks home from day care without a car seat. The car seat had been left in the husband's car by oversight, he was far away, the day care was just down the street, it was a residential neighborhood with little traffic, she was pulled over within sight of her driveway and held there, etc etc etc - she was really angry. That was not how that law was supposed to be used, she fumed. Ha.
Sorry, but when one considers that the best way to catch drunk drivers is by random breath tests, people who complain about the inconvenience of such tests don't get my sympathy. If getting a drunk driver off the road means that I am going to be however long late, then I'll rather be late.

there are alot of DD's around here and there are lots of checkpoints, (i have only been through three myself, since i have been here 20+ years)

but i do have a story of one..
(that even shows discretion..)
I had went to a bar and had ONE beer, I usually do not drink or go to bars, but i was going stir crazy that night, anyway after the bar i went home and came to a road block, the officer ask me to step out of the car and asked me how many beers i had, and proceeded to give me the sobriety check..(he did not have me blow in a tube,but did the whole 'walk this line and touch your nose' thing) I asked him why he was doing this to me because i only had one beer..he said i smelled like beer..it was then that it dawned on me what had happened..while i was at the bar and sitting on a podium type thing, i had accidentally spilled another persons beer, and had wiped it up with my butt..it was that which he was smelling..we both thought it funny and since i was headed home, he told me just to go straight home and he wouldn't make a deal of it..(there was pry the fact that i had no dui's that also influenced his decision to let me go)
Moral of the story..don't drink with yur butt..:D

Um I've been in a situation where the machine didn't register my plates because they were interstate plates, you don't get hauled off to jail or that, at most you get an infringement notice which you can then dispute. I have spent a night in jail once, and had my car impounded from under me once, on computer failures to recognize my driver's license or plates, errors generated during traffic stops.

People have had their bicycles confiscated and been left on foot in Minneapolis, on registration issues. That includes women crossing dubious parts of town late at night and miles from home.

On the bright side, I have never been apologized to so profusely and with such sincerity by a government official. On the other hand, there is a reason police should need probable cause to pull people over and subject them to inquiry. The power to harass and abuse is a great danger.


Sorry, but when one considers that the best way to catch drunk drivers is by random breath tests, people who complain about the inconvenience of such tests don't get my sympathy. Not even the black people who get "randomly" pulled over much more often than white people? Who are twice as likely to be patdown searched when stopped for any reason?

The best way to catch a lot of criminals is by tromping all over peoples civil liberties. It's foolish to let your government do that, though.

Not even the black people who get "randomly" pulled over much more often than white people? Who are twice as likely to be patdown searched when stopped for any reason?

The best way to catch a lot of criminals is by tromping all over peoples civil liberties. It's foolish to let your government do that, though.

The best way to prevent a drunk driver from smashing into another car or people is to do RBT's.

I am a little older so I had the opportunity to live through the transition in the way law and order is approached. When I was younger, culture was much more masculine. The men in culture had been in the service due to the draft and most had fought in wars. After being in war they had real experience of danger to the nth degree. The attitude was different because of this.

I remember drinking and driving use to mean you needed to have a cocktail in your hand while you cruised the strip. The penalty was your beverages would be impounded, which during short money could spoil the night. Men were required to have more self control and were less feminine (weaker sex). If you could not hold your liquor there was something wrong with you. The mentality was you needed to be battle hardy and if you were soft and weak you were doomed. Being strong was help you survive. You never knew about the next war. If you wished to jump off the bridge, it was OK, since you may need this.

With the end of the Viet Nam War and the repeal of the draft, civil rights, women's right, the line between male and female became blurry. More protection was also created for criminals because females like the bad boys. This has led to the nanny state. You create spoiled uncontrolled children and the nanny has a job for life.

The problem is a nanny likes to overprotect the child, which then does not allow then to build self reliance. The older way required self reliance. while the new way was dependency based on female insecurity, which men can exploit.

For example, back in the 1950's discrimination and racism was real. Compared to the state of today, now would have been considered paradise back then. But the nanny state, based on insecurity, will pitch now as the worse of all time.

I wish the young people could have lived back when culture was more masculine. More was expected of you in terms of self control and self reliance. That is why it is called the golden generation. The tradeoff was law was lighter. The nanny state is oppressive, but it is needed due to the dependency of the spoiled children it creates. It might be a good idea to let the pendulum swing the other way. Back then the police were there to protect and serve, not to harass. The nanny state is a busy body state were snooping, nagging and controlling is what nannies like to do. This young generation got ripped off.

duplicate post

I am a little older so I had the opportunity to live through the transition in the way law and order is approached. When I was younger, culture was much more masculine. The men in culture had been in the service due to the draft and most had fought in wars. After being in war they had real experience of danger to the nth degree. The attitude was different because of this.

I remember drinking and driving use to mean you needed to have a cocktail in your hand while you cruised the strip. The penalty was your beverages would be impounded, which during short money could spoil the night. Men were required to have more self control and were less feminine (weaker sex). If you could not hold your liquor there was something wrong with you. The mentality was you needed to be battle hardy and if you were soft and weak you were doomed. Being strong was help you survive. You never knew about the next war. If you wished to jump off the bridge, it was OK, since you may need this.

With the end of the Viet Nam War and the repeal of the draft, civil rights, women's right, the line between male and female became blurry. More protection was also created for criminals because females like the bad boys. This has led to the nanny state. You create spoiled uncontrolled children and the nanny has a job for life.

The problem is a nanny likes to overprotect the child, which then does not allow then to build self reliance. The older way required self reliance. while the new way was dependency based on female insecurity, which men can exploit.

For example, back in the 1950's discrimination and racism was real. Compared to the state of today, now would have been considered paradise back then. But the nanny state, based on insecurity, will pitch now as the worse of all time.

I wish the young people could have lived back when culture was more masculine. More was expected of you in terms of self control and self reliance. That is why it is called the golden generation. The tradeoff was law was lighter. The nanny state is oppressive, but it is needed due to the dependency of the spoiled children it creates. It might be a good idea to let the pendulum swing the other way. Back then the police were there to protect and serve, not to harass. The nanny state is a busy body state were snooping, nagging and controlling is what nannies like to do. This young generation got ripped off.

I did live through it all, along with many others on this forum and your the only one I know that sees life in the way you do. :D

Think of it this way. Did you ever stop to think how the hippies and the love generation were able to get away with so much, including getting the government to lower the drinking age to 18 years old? That alone would give the nannies of today a heart attack. The reason was, the family was strong, the parents were good people and they taught their children to be good, self reliant people. They were adult enough to make choices; sink or swim.

The taboos of the nanny state were not yet instituted. Ironically the same young people who took the most freedom; liberals, became the nannies who shifted to excessive law and control. The bulk of the nanny law comes from the democratic party, who took the most freedom.

My theory is, adults project their own nature onto their children. The parents of the 60's generation were very trustworthy (golden generation) and projected that into their children. The nanny state is a projection of untrustworthiness, due to propaganda and deception of the dual standard. Ironically, a more open society with fewer restrictions, is championed by the republicans.

I was part of the open generation of the 60's and ran with the liberals, but I switched sides when these hippi-crates the nanny class based on dependency. They became the very things they accused their parents of being, but worse.

Think of it this way. Did you ever stop to think how the hippies and the love generation were able to get away with so much, including getting the government to lower the drinking age to 18 years old? That alone would give the nannies of today a heart attack. The reason was, the family was strong, the parents were good people and they taught their children to be good, self reliant people. They were adult enough to make choices; sink or swim.

The taboos of the nanny state were not yet instituted. Ironically the same young people who took the most freedom; liberals, became the nannies who shifted to excessive law and control. The bulk of the nanny law comes from the democratic party, who took the most freedom.

My theory is, adults project their own nature onto their children. The parents of the 60's generation were very trustworthy (golden generation) and projected that into their children. The nanny state is a projection of untrustworthiness, due to propaganda and deception of the dual standard. Ironically, a more open society with fewer restrictions, is championed by the republicans.

I was part of the open generation of the 60's and ran with the liberals, but I switched sides when these hippi-crates the nanny class based on dependency. They became the very things they accused their parents of being, but worse.

I think you are deluded in what you believe, but that's just my opinion. The republicans suck on so many levels it puts any mistakes the dems might make much easier to take. I believe business can be promoted without raping the world and money we spend on war could better be spent in our own country on upgrading and repairing our infrastructure, improving our educational facilities and teachers and doing the right thing to fix our nations drug and gang problems. I believe the republicans are holding us back on all fronts.

The best way to catch a lot of criminals is by tromping all over peoples civil liberties. It's foolish to let your government do that, though.
”
The best way to prevent a drunk driver from smashing into another car or people is to do RBT's. That isn't true.

There are many more effective - your apparent criterion for "best" - ways to prevent drunken driving -

such as requiring the installation of video and chemical monitoring interlock devices in all vehicles, hardwired to the police station, so the police can monitor everyone's location and behavior while driving, and shut their car off by remote control.

Or devices that shut off the car's electrical system, preventing them from even starting, if alcohol is detected in the car's air.

Or any of a dozen others. Because what's a little inconvenience - and these devices would have the advantage of being less inconvenient (even dangerous) to me than random traffic stops without probable cause - when the horrors of drunken driving are being combated?

such as requiring the installation of video and chemical monitoring interlock devices in all vehicles, hardwired to the police station, so the police can monitor everyone's location and behavior while driving, and shut their car off by remote control.




Video monitoring??
no way.. talk about infringement of rights, that would just open the door to other video monitoring laws..

how about a breathalyzer at the store?
If they can't pass it,they can't buy beer..

That isn't true.

There are many more effective - your apparent criterion for "best" - ways to prevent drunken driving -

such as requiring the installation of video and chemical monitoring interlock devices in all vehicles, hardwired to the police station, so the police can monitor everyone's location and behavior while driving, and shut their car off by remote control.

Or devices that shut off the car's electrical system, preventing them from even starting, if alcohol is detected in the car's air.

Or any of a dozen others. Because what's a little inconvenience - and these devices would have the advantage of being less inconvenient (even dangerous) to me than random traffic stops without probable cause - when the horrors of drunken driving are being combated?

For some convicted drunk drivers that need to drive to get to work, they do require these breathalyzers be installed in order to start the car. But they cost several hundred dollars, so not very practical for all cars and if for some reason you can't blow hard enough your car still wont start. I knew someone that had to do that.

For some convicted drunk drivers that need to drive to get to work, they do require these breathalyzers be installed in order to start the car. But they cost several hundred dollars, I'm not talking about a breathalyzer. My two options were cheaper than that -

but come now, expenses are just inconvenience, after all, and so that's not the issue. Look at the response to anyone who suggests that buying two or three car seats is expensive for many young parents with children - or we might mention the high cost of random traffic stops, including on the stopped as well as the taxpayer.


Video monitoring??
no way.. talk about infringement of rights, that would just open the door to other video monitoring laws.. Oh, it wouldn't have to be continuous - let's make it random. That would be OK with anyone who thinks police running dogs through people's cars and making them wait in line to blow into machines and submit to inspection of their vehicle without probable cause - whenever they want to, essentially - is the "best" way to combat drunken driving.

The longest i have been stoped at a random breath test is 10 min and thats when the whole freeway was blocked. If your running THAT late whos fault is it really? you dont plan ahead thats not the police's responcibility, there could be a crash, there could be road works, there could be anything. Basically SUCK IT UP PRINCESS and leave on time. Breath testing when you havent had anything to drink takes 10 seconds

"this is a random breath test, i need you to take one long continuas breath into this tube until i tell you to stop" Blow..... "0.00 your good to go, have a nice night"

and that's having a flagrant disregard for how the real world works. I work 6 days a week. I might leave on time once or twice a week. very few people leave on time. its not that simple and to pretend it is is just disengenious.

I'm not talking about a breathalyzer. My two options were cheaper than that -

but come now, expenses are just inconvenience, after all, and so that's not the issue. Look at the response to anyone who suggests that buying two or three car seats is expensive for many young parents with children - or we might mention the high cost of random traffic stops, including on the stopped as well as the taxpayer.

Child seats don't cost hundreds of dollars and if you can afford two cars you should be able to afford one extra child seat.


Oh, it wouldn't have to be continuous - let's make it random. That would be OK with anyone who thinks police running dogs through people's cars and making them wait in line to blow into machines and submit to inspection of their vehicle without probable cause - whenever they want to, essentially - is the "best" way to combat drunken driving.


I've never known one that wasn't random and in different places too. Plus they only breathalyze when they see obvious signs of drinking and it goes without saying if they see drugs or paraphernalia they will search the car. The problem with a permanent spot of continuous testing is everyone will know it's there and avoid it every time. (A real big waste of time and money)

and that's having a flagrant disregard for how the real world works. I work 6 days a week. I might leave on time once or twice a week. very few people leave on time. its not that simple and to pretend it is is just disingenuous.

There are two types of people in this world, on time people and then everyone else. I would say if you can't give your work notice when your going to be a few minutes late, then you have a problem.

Child seats don't cost hundreds of dollars and if you can afford two cars you should be able to afford one extra child seat. A family that spaces three children two years apart with no multiple births or adoptions or relatives; never breaks, wears out, or loses its child seats; experiences no changes in the laws making its seats obsolete; etc; over five years would need two infant seats for the two cars, and at least four more larger child seats (three for one car and one for the other), to avoid that situation you guys were having no sympathy with above.

At 150 dollars apiece (sales tax, various costs of purchase), that's about 900 dollars. Minimum.


I would say if you can't give your work notice when your going to be a few minutes late, then you have a problem. Welcome to the life of the working poor.


I've never known one that wasn't random and in different places too. - - - - - The problem with a permanent spot of continuous testing is everyone will know it's there and avoid it every time. (A real big waste of time and money) Hence the superiority of my suggestions, why they are "better" than random traffic stops - they cannot be avoided, etc.

Plus they only breathalyze when they see obvious signs of drinking and it goes without saying if they see drugs or paraphernalia they will search the car. Of course, of course they will. I had my car searched one time, and was made to stand in the rain while being patted down, because I had a Brillo pad in the back window - or so I was told. And they got very tense when they found I was carrying a jackknife in my hip pocket - things got a little scary there, on top of soaking wet and late for a movie.

The Minnesota Highway patrol routinely ran sniffer dogs through every car they stopped "randomly" in their shortlived anti-drunk program - and afterwards, running the numbers, we discovered the most common criminal apprehended was a guy behind on his child support payments.

They quit when they started to get sued, and no politician with re-election ambitions would back them by legislation.

My suggestions wouldn't have these kinds of problems. So what exactly is wrong with them?

The Minnesota Highway patrol routinely ran sniffer dogs through every car they stopped "randomly" in their short lived anti-drunk program - and afterwards, running the numbers, we discovered the most common criminal apprehended was a guy behind on his child support payments.

They quit when they started to get sued, and no politician with re-election ambitions would back them by legislation.

My suggestions wouldn't have these kinds of problems. So what exactly is wrong with them?

Well yes that does seem a bit over done. Sense most people seem to have cell phones I would suggest a special report a drunk driver program be started, with heavy fines for false reporting.

Well yes that does seem a bit over done. That's why you don't let the police do things like that to law abiding citizens "at random". You require probable cause, hot pursuit, etc etc.

If you have any sense.

Sense most people seem to have cell phones I would suggest a special report a drunk driver program be started, with heavy fines for false reporting. We already have that, in Minnesota, with no heavy fines for false reporting - erratic driving and drunks taking the wheel are encouraged, standard items for 911 calls.

We already have that, in Minnesota, with no heavy fines for false reporting - erratic driving and drunks taking the wheel are encouraged, standard items for 911 calls.

I wonder how many angry girlfriends and wives make false reports when they feel like getting even or just plain revenge?

Its just as dangerious to use a mobile while driving as to be 0.05 (mythbusters demonstrated this one)

Its just as dangerious to use a mobile while driving as to be 0.05 (mythbusters demonstrated this one)Same goes for eating, checking on a child in the backseat, or being pestered by an older child in any seat. I didn't see that Mythbusters episode but over here some advisors tell us that using a cellphone while driving is equivalent to .08, the draconian new redefinition of DUI. (It used to be .10.)

The reason given is the typical one for almost any activity: people who are drunk are at least trying to drive. People who are eating, arguing with children, having a really important conversation on the phone, etc., don't even think about what they're doing for long periods of time.

Its just as dangerous to use a mobile while driving as to be 0.05 (mythbusters demonstrated this one)

I'd be willing to bet most people could dial 911 without taking their eyes off the road and holding a phone up to your ear and talking briefly also shouldn't be a problem and over here it's .08 which means driving drunk is probably more of a problem than using the cell phone.

ok..here is a clear example of the law going too far..

Americas 'Nanny State' Laws (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americas--nanny-state--laws.html)

New York banning Soda?
Fines for texting while walking?
how bout not having a life jacket NEAR the river?
Or having your pants hang too low..

Or having your pants hang too low..

I can't disagree with this one...:D

Ok, yes I can. I hate it when I see that- but if it was illegal, that would be worse.

ok..here is a clear example of the law going too far..

Americas 'Nanny State' Laws (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americas--nanny-state--laws.html)

New York banning Soda?
Fines for texting while walking?
how bout not having a life jacket NEAR the river?
Or having your pants hang too low..

What are you talking about, those are fine laws. You know that when your pants are hanging to low you might be mistaken for a gang member and shot dead, and the rest of the items you mentioned all have serious health issues.:D

No law or lack of law will ever stop or accelerate the process of natural selection.

What are you talking about, those are fine laws. . . . the rest of the items you mentioned all have serious health issues.Every individual must have the right to perform his own risk analysis and management. No one else can decide for him whether the benefit of relief, pleasure, inspiration, etc., derived from an action or decision is or is not worth the cost in money, health, social standing, etc. The reason is that no one else is capable of measuring the benefit, and also because they probably can't measure the cost to a level of accuracy that would be required in any other calculation. This weak ability is weakened even further by the actuarial aspect: No one can judge for anyone else whether, for example, experiencing one day of happiness today is worth the risk of experiencing one month of misery fifty years in the future if the subject even lives that long.

This is the underlying fallacy of the Nanny State. Each one of us, as imperfect as he is, is the only person who has even the slightest rational ability to make such decisions for himself.

Obviously when other people are affected this must be taken into account. Driving 100mph on a residential street endangers the lives of others so it is reasonable to outlaw this behavior, no matter how much fun it might be. But the health risk from drinking an oversize cup of soda accrues entirely to the drinker. The automatic retort from the Nanny Left is that if you are hospitalized for the effects of a lifetime of soda drinking, and you have no medical insurance, the public treasury will have to pay your bills and that affects every taxpayer.

Indeed. This in a nutshell illustrates why I am a libertarian. If you spend your life drinking oversize sodas, and you don't buy medical insurance, you should be allowed to die in your easy chair. That risk should be yours, not mine.

If everyone were allowed to experience the consequences of their own risk analysis and management, instead of Big Nanny stepping in to save them from themselves, perhaps they would become wiser risk analysts.

Every individual must have the right to perform his own risk analysis and management. No one else can decide for him whether the benefit of relief, pleasure, inspiration, etc., derived from an action or decision is or is not worth the cost in money, health, social standing, etc. The reason is that no one else is capable of measuring the benefit, and also because they probably can't measure the cost to a level of accuracy that would be required in any other calculation. This weak ability is weakened even further by the actuarial aspect: No one can judge for anyone else whether, for example, experiencing one day of happiness today is worth the risk of experiencing one month of misery fifty years in the future if the subject even lives that long.

This is the underlying fallacy of the Nanny State. Each one of us, as imperfect as he is, is the only person who has even the slightest rational ability to make such decisions for himself.

Obviously when other people are affected this must be taken into account. Driving 100mph on a residential street endangers the lives of others so it is reasonable to outlaw this behavior, no matter how much fun it might be. But the health risk from drinking an oversize cup of soda accrues entirely to the drinker. The automatic retort from the Nanny Left is that if you are hospitalized for the effects of a lifetime of soda drinking, and you have no medical insurance, the public treasury will have to pay your bills and that affects every taxpayer.

Indeed. This in a nutshell illustrates why I am a libertarian. If you spend your life drinking oversize sodas, and you don't buy medical insurance, you should be allowed to die in your easy chair. That risk should be yours, not mine.

If everyone were allowed to experience the consequences of their own risk analysis and management, instead of Big Nanny stepping in to save them from themselves, perhaps they would become wiser risk analysts.

But they make drugs illegal. It seems by your reasoning this is a bad idea, as far as any health issues are concerned? But, if users didn't have to pay black market prices, crime wouldn't be much of a problem either and what would happen to our gang problem without all that drug money in circulation?

But they make drugs illegal. It seems by your reasoning this is a bad idea, as far as any health issues are concerned? But, if users didn't have to pay black market prices, crime wouldn't be much of a problem either and what would happen to our gang problem without all that drug money in circulation?You're preaching to the libertarian choir, young man. The second-order effects of drug prohibition are far more pernicious to society and its members than the drugs themselves. My parents grew up in Chicago during Prohibition and they saw first hand what happens when an out-of-control government decides to shift a popular commodity to the black market.Marketing the commodity becomes a high-risk occupation so only people who are comfortable taking high risks are willing to engage in it: criminals. Risk is a factor in pricing decisions, as is limited supply, so prices skyrocket. The Law of Supply and Demand predicts this, but governments believe they are exempt from all laws except their own. Without government oversight, and with production forced (often literally) underground, quality control deteriorates or disappears. During Prohibition many people were blinded or killed by wood alcohol in their liquor; during the New Prohibition many people are similary killed by impurities, or simply by overdoses due to inaccurate formulation. Without recourse to the legal system to resolve disputes, rival dealers and unhappy customers resort to shooting each other in the street, often catching bystanders in the crossfire. There were entire neighborhoods in Chicago where my parents refused to travel, and today in Mexico (where today's U.S. government has cleverly offloaded the current drug war because nobody in our country cares about dead Mexicans) there are vast regions where it's not safe to travel. The new wave of immigration from Mexico is rich people driving across the border in their BMWs with all the correct paperwork, buying mansions in San Antonio and running their businesses from there. Since children are difficult to capture and prosecute, they are recruited as runners, introducing them to a life that is much more exciting than going to school--and pays better. These same children compare the lives of their hard-working parents to the limousines and bling of the gangsters, and decide which life they want for themselves. In American society, which does not revere authority the way European and Japanese people do, doing something illegal is merely naughty, and doing something naughty is cool. My mother lamented that the worst thing about Prohibition is that it motivated women to start going to taverns ("speakeasies"). In addition, things that are naughty and cool appeal to children. The enormous sums of money passing through a black market are an irresistible temptation to many hard-working and basically honest police officers, district attorneys, judges, prison guards, and other public servants. Corruption during the Depression was so bad that no one even tried to deny it. As one journalist put it, "Prohibition is a miracle because it satifies everyone: the people who don't like liquor because the law was passed, and the people who do like it because it is not enforced." Life magazine actually ran a spread on taverns in New York City. The cliche was, "It's really hard to get a drink in New York. You have to shout over the crowd and get a busy waiter's attention." Ultimately the effect of passing a law that conflicts with the citizens' own view of morality is to undermine respect for government. During the 1920s the U.S. government was a laughingstock. When FDR took office in 1933 he turned that around by doing two things: starting up the New Deal to end the Depression, and repealing Prohibition to bring respect back to government. Oh yeah, and in an era when income tax was not at its current confiscatory level, the tax on alcohol increased federal revenue by about 30%!Bottom line: You can't legislate morality. The more powerful a government becomes, the more harm it causes.

Its just as dangerious to use a mobile while driving as to be 0.05 (mythbusters demonstrated this one)
”
Same goes for eating, checking on a child in the backseat, or being pestered by an older child in any seat. Not eating. Or smoking, or listening to the radio. Almost nothing distracts and incapacitates like a phone call - an odd fact, but as a frequent passenger and professional driver, an obvious one to me. Nobody drives well while on the phone.

Checking on the backseat child is a hazard, and one poorly considered by the child safety folks. It's a hazard to others - the thing governments are supposed to concern themselves with.

Not eating. Or smoking, or listening to the radio. Almost nothing distracts and incapacitates like a phone call - an odd fact, but as a frequent passenger and professional driver, an obvious one to me. Nobody drives well while on the phone.I have often hypothesized that the problem with a cellphone (hand-held or hands-free) is that it completely dominates one ear, leaving the other as the only source of environmental sound. Remembering that our forebrain is quite neatly divided into two hemispheres, I suggest that this might result in each of the two focusing entirely on its own environment and losing touch with the other's. So if one hemisphere is alarmed by a weeping babysitter while the other one hears an auto horn (from a direction it can't identify because it has lost the ability for stereophonic placement), it might take the two hemispheres a fourth of a second to decide who gets to be in charge. At freeway speed your car travels more than one car-length in a quarter of a second! This could make the difference between screeching to a halt and crashing into the next car.

My evidence to support this hypothesis is the 1970s, when almost every driver on the road had a CB radio. Talking on a CB wasn't just a matter of "hand-held," it was downright awkward! The microphone was connected to the dashboard by a spiral cable. Yet I never heard of an accident caused by using a CB while driving. Why? Because the sound came through a loudspeaker in the dashboard, just like the radio! It didn't block the sounds going into either ear, so you could still hear the traffic and the emergency vehicles just fine, in stereo so you knew where they were.

Most car stereos already have a jack for plugging in external sound sources like iPods. All we need is for cellphones to sprout output cables like iPods that can be plugged into those jacks. Then we can hear the sound through the stereo speakers and still hear the real world outside.

I guarantee that the cellphone accident rate will drop to almost zero.

As for other distractions, a comedian once said something that I thought was pretty astute:
People who eat while they're driving are much more dangerous than drunks. Drunks are at least trying to drive. People who are eating just want the sugar!
Checking on the backseat child is a hazard, and one poorly considered by the child safety folks. It's a hazard to others - the thing governments are supposed to concern themselves with.Oh don't get me started on that Big Nanny lunacy! The reason we're now required to put children in the back seat is that every year something like forty children were killed by air bags in the front seat. But now, something like seventy children are killed every year by heat stroke, from being forgotten in the back seat. The shit-for-brains government actually made it worse!

Yes of course, we're all perfect parents (well not me, I don't have kids) who would never in a million years forget that our precious baby is in the back seat. Yet it happens to some American seventy times every year. The usual scenario is that the spouse calls with an emergency--my check to the caterer bounced so they won't bring the food to the graduation party tonight unless you go over there right now and give them your Visa card. So you end up coming to work at a different time, from a different direction, maybe even parking in a different lot. All of your daily habits are overridden. You've got no cues to remind yourself of the back seat passenger that you completely forgot to drop off at day care because you didn't even drive down the street where the day care center is located.

Some guy invented a really cool device that attaches to the bottom of the back seat and can tell that something with the exact weight of a baby in a baby seat is there. If you turn off the engine and close the doors, it will make siren noises at you. No way could you forget little Oscar in the backseat with one of those things.

And ya know what? He couldn't sell the patent to any manufacturer. They did lots of market research and discovered that nobody would buy the thing. Nobody can admit to themselves that they might be confused enough to leave their precious baby in the car. So they don't need a warning siren.

This is something that Big Nanny will have to legislate and force the manufacturers to include in the standard equipment.

** The libertarian sighs dejectedly. **

I have often hypothesized that the problem with a cellphone (hand-held or hands-free) is that it completely dominates one ear, leaving the other as the only source of environmental sound. Remembering that our forebrain is quite neatly divided into two hemispheres, I suggest that this might result in each of the two focusing entirely on its own environment and losing touch with the other's.

That's an interesting hypothesis - seems like some enterprizing neuroscientist should be able to test it.

I've always gone for a more prosaic explanation: when you're on a phone call, you're explicitly concentrating on the conversation and the other person, which is not part of your local driving environment. This differentiates it from having a conversation with a person in the passenger seat - he's in the same environment as you are, so if a sudden obstacle pops up in front of you he's likely to stop talking and yell "look out!" A person on a cell phone isn't going to do that.

The more basic mechanism that usually gets referred to here is that the brain does not "multitask." When you try to perform multiple tasks at once, your brain simply switches between them and only works on one at a time. So, the more overhead there is associated with switching tasks, the less total cognitive attention you pay overall. Likewise, the more engaging/distracting a task is, the less frequently you switch over to the other tasks.


My evidence to support this hypothesis is the 1970s, when almost every driver on the road had a CB radio. Talking on a CB wasn't just a matter of "hand-held," it was downright awkward! The microphone was connected to the dashboard by a spiral cable. Yet I never heard of an accident caused by using a CB while driving. Why? Because the sound came through a loudspeaker in the dashboard, just like the radio! It didn't block the sounds going into either ear, so you could still hear the traffic and the emergency vehicles just fine, in stereo so you knew where they were.

That is an interesting test - but do we know that CB usage did not correlate with more accidents? And weren't CBs used almost exclusively by professional drivers?



Most car stereos already have a jack for plugging in external sound sources like iPods. All we need is for cellphones to sprout output cables like iPods that can be plugged into those jacks. Then we can hear the sound through the stereo speakers and still hear the real world outside.

That already exists - although the bigger problem is how to handle the input microphone, and deal with echo and environmental noise. But that has all been solved as well, and most new cars offer a BlueTooth option - you don't plug your cell phone in at all, it just connects wirelessly to the microphones and speakers built into the car (which are placed in good positions acoustically to minimize echo and noise). My wife's SUV has this feature, and she seems to like it. But I do not know whether these systems have been shown to result in lower rates of accident (although they are legal to use while driving).



I guarantee that the cellphone accident rate will drop to almost zero.

Well, we shall see - the technology is already out there, and will likely become totally standard as older cars are retired. I wouldn't buy a new car that didn't have that feature, myself.

As long as you want to talk distractions, I can't think of anything more distracting than this.

Waitress Denies Oral Sex Caused Car Crash (http://forums.zybez.net/topic/1309221-waitress-denies-oral-sex-caused-car-crash/)

That is an interesting test - but do we know that CB usage did not correlate with more accidents? And weren't CBs used almost exclusively by professional drivers?By the late 1970s CBs were as common in passenger cars as "I heart my dog-head" bumper stickers would be a few years later. I think I was the only person in my crowd who didn't have one, probably because I was the most dedicated motorcyclist and didn't drive on four wheels any more often than absolutely necessary--which isn't very often in L.A. None were professional drivers.

People used them to listen in on the truckers to keep track of the Smokeys, to coordinate with each other on their way to a common destination from different starting points, and simply to socialize at random with other drivers. Come to think of it the citizen's band may have been the first Social Medium.
Well, we shall see - the technology is already out there, and will likely become totally standard as older cars are retired. I wouldn't buy a new car that didn't have that feature, myself.I'm still out of synch with technology. I keep a cellphone in the glove box in case I have a problem that requires calling 911 or the AAA. About twice a year somebody calls me while I'm driving and it's always important enough to answer and short enough to not agonize over the risk. If I have to make a call I pull over. Only my nearest and dearest even have the number.

The last time I had a breakdown pre-cellphone, on a busy highway, it took 15 minutes before somebody finally stopped to help. And that was sheer luck. I was wearing a Grateful Dead t-shirt and it was a whole family of Deadheads in a minivan.