Seat Belt Laws: At Any Cost

What makes the seatbelt law a bad law? Because it encroaches on our personal freedoms? Could it be because it actually saves lives?
Click to expand...
Marko has answered this far more eloquently than I have.

In my words, a Bad Law is one that demands I comply with certain actions which threaten no one but me.....but the Devil's in the details. Some here claim that, if I take an action that might cost them tax money, there should be a law. If so, you open the door for YOUR legislators to criminalize everything from your house color to your dietary habits.....not to mention that nasty "love affair" you have with dangerous firearms.

In my words, Bad Law is one that tempts LEO's to believe that crime runs rampant in the law abiding public.....just run the name; see, this guy didn't buckle his seat belt 3 years ago.

Do you really believe (as some have suggested) that our legislators are sitting around only thinking about new ways to tax us? Do you really think that people would really vote for people like that or keep those people in office? Are we voters really that stupid and have we just had the wool pulled over our eyes? Maybe everyone in politics is just getting a great big laugh at how were are just stupid sheeple. I'm not a conspiracy theorists but I'm not a moron either (I scored just a few point above that level on my IQ test.)
Click to expand...
I can't speak to how many points above moron you scored. Not my deal and you sound fairly intelligent to me. But I'm pretty well known around here for NOT buying into Conspiracy Theory; I'm also pretty well known for my views that those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it. Governments take on their own lives and it requires constant vigilance to be kept in check....there is no such thing as a Govt Power that is not at the Direct Expense of Citizen Freedoms.

History is replete with governments that passed Laws which are Amoral. This is **always** done in the name of safety. It inevitably moves into the realm of personal behavior which affects no one but yourself. It is seldom orchestrated. It is usually by degrees....look only to Canada, England, Australia and others for evidence of this.
You mentioned that the police used deady force (if pepper spray can be considered that).
Click to expand...
Now, tit for tat, kindly answer this. Where did I ever say such a thing?
Rich
 
If you do find something new, please keep us updated.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there is a protective order in effect preventing all parties involved from giving any further details to the media. The text of the protective order, along with the details released by the department prior to the issuance of the order are available on the Allen Police Department Web Page.
 
I feel your comment is idiotic.
Click to expand...
stehpen, you have been up way too late. Or maybe you do think I'm idiotic for agreeing with you. Whatever; it's a literary device called "irony."
 
Rich,

You mentioned that the police used deady force (if pepper spray can be considered that). Now, tit for tat, kindly answer this. Where did I ever say such a thing?
Click to expand...

My bad. I guess after 10 pages of posts, its hard to keep track of everything. I officially take back any statements or inferences that you mentioned that the police used deadly force. I was actually anal retentive enough to reread through all of your posts just to confirm. I won't lie. I was actually hoping to catch you :p :D .

Anyways, I guess I will check back to see what new developments this thread comes up with. I would also love to find out the real story of what happened when the official report comes out. Good night all. Its been fun!
 
My bad. I guess after 10 pages of posts, its hard to keep track of everything.
Click to expand...
Agreed. No harm. No foul at all. Rereading 10 pages of this thread is penance enough....for several lifetimes. :D

Class Act for not hedging.
Rich
 
One last thing before I go...

gc70,

Whatever; it's a literary device called "irony."
Click to expand...

Do you mean sarcasm? The other two comments you made afterwards did't seem to support that. According to my recollection of highschool english classes, irony is when something different from what is expected occurs. Just for kicks, I looked it up for you on dictionary.com.


i·ro·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)
n. pl. i·ro·nies

The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.

Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).
An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
Dramatic irony.
Socratic irony.

gc70 said:
Or maybe you do think I'm idiotic for agreeing with you.
Click to expand...

Now if you were actually agreeing with me, THAT would be ironic! :D

Goodnight all!
 
Stephen,

"First of all, where in either of the posted articles does it say he was a good man? Second, if the simply stated the part that the police attempted to arrest Vera after learning of an outstanding warrent without stating what it was for, would you still be upset by the officer's actions?"

I don't see where it says whether either party was a "good" person. I worded that wrong, my mistake. What I should have said was, I can see where it would pit two seemingly good people against eachother, regardless of whether the law saves lives or not. (Also, assuming the officers were using excessive force, yes I would still be upset, unless the guy was a child molester. I tend to have different opinions on how those guys should be treated).

However, I truly believe this seatbelt law has the ability to cause good people to get stuck in bad situations, like this case. I think that belief, coupled with the fact that I don't want to be "forced" into making a certain decision (btw, I certainly do wear my seatbelt. I just don't respond well to being pushed around by the .gov) and feel others should be able to make theirs, regardless of how foolish the decision may be.
 
Rich, I see a substantial problem with some of the suggested approaches to Bad Laws.

Bad Laws should be repealed (or never adopted), but the answer to Bad Laws should start and stop right there. The suggestion that Bad Laws should not be enforced is inconsistent with a logical and predictable legal system.

Many have said that a warrant should never have been issued as a result of a seatbelt infraction. I agree with the emotion, but not the logic, of that view. In this case, violating a law and ignoring the penalty eventually resulted in the predictable issuance of a warrant as an enforcement mechanism.

Laws must have enforcement mechanisms or they cease to be laws and become expressions of social desires. If a law, whether Bad or simply minor, had no enforcement mechanism, it would be a blatant admission that the law was not worth enforcing. Since laws are designed to compel or restrain behavior, a law that is not worth enforcing should not even exist.

In short, making a Bad Law unenforcable, or effectively voluntary, is not a good solution.
 
stephen,

Just chalk it up to lil' ol' ironic me.

The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
Click to expand...
.. logic is totally unacceptable .... personal responsibility is a discredited concept .... the fact of resisting arrest is irrelevant ..
 
gc70,

You're right man. I was in some serious lack of sleep. My bad. I just reread it and things seem to make so much sense when a few more brain synapses are firing! :eek: :D Have a great day and I'll probably be on later today. Time for me to work!
 
Rich,

Your google info is not complete or accurate - get your facts straight regarding my background if you wanna bring it into play. And if you dont have the backbone to list yours, well, that says enough for me.

USP

Whether I agree with a law or not is irrelevent. I gather the facts regarding an incident, examine them to see if a law is broken, and then, based on the totality of circumstances determine a course of action that I think would best resolve the situation. Each incident is unique, and a one-size-fits all approach usually doesnt apply. Therefore, any situation can be dealt with by a continuum of choices - citation, custodial arrest, warning or nothing at all. There are two or more sides to every story- one man's inconsequential tall grass is another man's weed spewing, rodent sheltering eyesore.

I will say that my first inclination is not to ignore arrest warrants for failure to appear. That person has already demonstrated that they cannot be counted on to comply with a lesser response than arrest. They have ignored a summons or skipped bail, so they have already abused a number of lesser steps
 
GC70 said:
Bad Laws should be repealed (or never adopted), but the answer to Bad Laws should start and stop right there. The suggestion that Bad Laws should not be enforced is inconsistent with a logical and predictable legal system.
Click to expand...
I submit that you're partly right on this. Non-enforcement of a Bad Law is a poor substitute for repeal; however, it is often the only option left to free men, working together. LEO's pick and choose the laws they will enforce daily....they have to, otherwise they'd not make it 3 blocks from the station house: The Speeding Ticket, unwritten; the questionable "Resisting" charge unfiled; the "unlicensed" gun in the inner city nurse's glove box on her way home from work at 4 AM. LEO's have some discretion on what they charge and what they don't....and as some active LEO's here have pointed out, lawmakers increasingly put them in the position of having to exercise that discretion.

Many have said that a warrant should never have been issued as a result of a seatbelt infraction. I agree with the emotion, but not the logic, of that view. In this case, violating a law and ignoring the penalty eventually resulted in the predictable issuance of a warrant as an enforcement mechanism.
Click to expand...
Circular argument, I think. It presupposes a "Good Law" in the first place. We're arguing that this is not a 'Good Law". We're arguing that our Police have much bigger fish to fry and should not be required to baby sit us.

In short, making a Bad Law unenforcable, or effectively voluntary, is not a good solution.
Click to expand...
Nobody is arguing that it be "voluntary". Just that there are steps, short of Police Action and brute force, that can punish the "perp" in line with the crime: this is regularly done by building officials, DMV, IRS, professional regulatory boards and the like. Why does every answer to a problem of law have to end up in a confrontation between LEO's and Non-LEO's?
Rich
 
Police brutality, when it happens is exceptional and we don't paint the entire LEO profession with its brush.
Click to expand...

However, I don't see pepepr spray on someone resisting arrest as police brutality. It is a generally accepted means of subduing someone non-lethally, except in rare cases such as this.

If it comes back as it was strictly the spray that killed him, I don't really know what should happen.

If it came back that the officers beat him to death, the sure, by all means, fire them, prosecute them, open them up to civil suits.

If it comes back that he was hopped up on something, and overdosed, too bad for him.

In my words, a Bad Law is one that demands I comply with certain actions which threaten no one but me.....
Click to expand...

A BIG +1 there. If it affects no one but you, and there is a law against it, then it is a bad law. No argument if it costs someone tax dollars, they are the ones that decided that they wanted their tax dollars to go to health care. If we are going to get into legislating based on health care costs to the public, I propose a national diet plan and excersise time.

He has to be a good man because the only other two there were Cops...
Click to expand...

That is the way most of these end up going.


Also, I find other witness testimony to be questionable. I don't know of too many people that could hear someone being thrown on the ground from inside a house.
 
Why are these types of laws bad and how did we get them?

That is the essential question. The National Motorist Association has a short history of how we got our mandatory seatbelt laws here. While it's a bit more complicated than this, it is the essential explanation.

Seat belt laws are foisted upon us by politicians who accept money from certain lobbies and the groups they represent. In the instant case of seat belt laws, one needs look no further than the insurance companies.

These types of law will continue because cities, counties and states reap the rewards of increased revenue. These types of law will continue because insurance companies reap the same rewards. Increased Revenue is the name of the game.

Follow the money.
 
It's always the simple truths that are so hard to understand, yes?

A question for you sendec: When mandatory insurance legislation passed, who made the most money? Corollary to that, did your rates go down like the lobby said it would?

Please note that I'm not saying having insurance is a bad thing. Just asking why it is mandatory and who actually benefitted...
 
Its mandatory so that when some knucklehead wrecks into you, you dont have to spend the rest of your life lying in your own waste while drooling and can actually get decent medical care.

You are right, some people just cannot grasp the simplest concepts. :rolleyes:
 
good.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top