Seat Belt Laws: At Any Cost

"It's a trend that shows up with disturbing regularity these days, IMO. But what do we do about it?"

And what exactly is the evidence of this trend? How does it differ from police/citizen contacts of 10, 20, or 50 years ago? Or is this one of the "in the good old days" scenarios, before the advent of the force continuum and police liability and when we pretty much did whatever we felt like.

Whaddya suppose happened if you didnt pay your citation for not properly tieing up your horse at the hitching post back in 1905?
 
The trend of .gov to FORCE confrontation between those with a badge and those without over the most unimportant matters imaginable....and the willingness of some, on both sides, to buy into that trend; arguing that investigation after the fact is enough to prevent future tragedies.
Click to expand...

How can we talk preventing future tragedies, when it's it not even clear what caused the current one? The police won't release details about the case and the family is still waiting on the medical records so at this point we don't even know the cause of death. For all we know, Mr. Vera could have swallowed illicit substances he was holding when he saw the police roll up, which caused him to become briefly combative before his heart stopped.

Edit - Details will probably be aways off as there is now a protective order in this case preventing all parties from talking to the media.
 
"Note the difference? In this case, the writer clearly equates breaking an administrative law with willingness to break all laws."

The best indicator of future performance is past performance. So when the argument is made that criminals wont follow gun laws, that is fallacious? Just because they broke laws in the past is no reason to think they wont break them now? They broke a criminal law in the past, but that is no indicator that they will break an administrative law in the future, like CCW, or oh, say parole for example. That's the logic you are selling Wow. How do you keep your conundrums straight?
 
"The trend of .gov to FORCE confrontation between those with a badge and those without over the most unimportant matters imaginable."

Let's see the evidence of this "trend".
 
Let's see the evidence of this "trend".
Click to expand...
Fair question. Off the top of my head, I can only think of:
- Seat Belt Laws
- DUI Roadblocks
- Seatbelt Roadblocks
- Insurance Stops
- Papers Please Stops
- No Knocks
- Zero Tolerance
- The War on Some Drugs
- The War on Terrorism
- The War on [Insert Noun Here]
- The Patriot Act
- The Patriot Act II
- The TSA
- Kelo
- Hiibel
- Raich

Fact is, Capt Charlie alluded to a real important point. If a town has enough cops to deploy two to serve a "seat belt warrant" they probably have too many cops OR are not using them in the most productive manner.
Rich
 
Im still thinking the system is to blame for this guy's death.

A previous member mentioned something and it's true.

"The trend of .gov to FORCE confrontation between those with a badge and those without over the most unimportant matters imaginable."

I mean....come on, a SEATBELT violation warrant? This guy is soooo dangerous for not wearing a seatbelt that the government think's he should not be free to roam with the rest of society... Sendec does that REALLY make sense to you?
 
Perchance Tacitus knew from whence he spoke
"Abuse, if you slight it, will gradually die away; but if you show yourself irritated you will be thought to have deserved it."
"The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government."
Variant: "The more corrupt the state, the more laws."
Original Quote: "And now bills were passed, not only for national objects but for individual cases, and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt." -- Annals 3.27
"They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace."
"The gods favor the strong."
"Liberty is given by nature even to mute animals."
"Great empires are not maintained by timidity."
"The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise."
"They destroy everything and then call it peace."

I have not yet met a politician who wouldn't vote up a bill if it generated revenue or might possibly "save one child's life", even if the Unintended Consequences were to pit the people against the lawmaker's policing agencies. Not that a lawyer turned legislater would think that a bad thing. They need opposition and strife to survive, even self generated strife and opposition.
Maybe Ayn Rand also knew from whence she spoke (in regards to some things).
 
The police were originally intended to be a village's 'night watchmen'; to make sure all were safe while they slept, secure, in their homes. (Hence Orwell's quote.)


As a former LEO myself, I can't help but think that the farther we move from that original concept, the worse off we are. LEOs becoming the unthinking, always obliging enforcement arm of local governments is far too similar to the way some small Latin American dictatorships are run.

Larry
 
"If a town has enough cops to deploy two to serve a "seat belt warrant" they probably have too many cops OR are not using them in the most productive manner."

They were not out to serve the warrant; they were there on another issue, and only later discovered that the suspect had an outstanding warrant. It's highlighted in the news article you yourself posted.

Tim
 
Fact is, Capt Charlie alluded to a real important point. If a town has enough cops to deploy two to serve a "seat belt warrant" they probably have too many cops OR are not using them in the most productive manner.
Click to expand...

Fact is, nobody deployed any cops to serve a "seat belt warrant". They were deployed to investigate a suspicious person call, and it was only after they arrived that they discovered the warrant. Given that the violation was from 2003, it's unlikely they were devoting any resources to actively hunting this guy down to "force a confrontation". It was just Mr. Vera's dumb luck that he decided to give the system the finger and got caught.

Do I think the law is stupid? Yes. Do I have any sympathy for Mr. Vera having a run in with the police? None what-so-ever... just because you think a law is stupid doesn't mean you don't have to follow it, and if you choose not to follow it anyways, you need to be ready to accept the consequences. Mr. Vera chose not only to disregard the law, but he chose to disregard the consequences... in this case, the fine, and whatever other steps might have been attempted after his initial failure to pay and before the warrant was issued for his arrest.
 
Huh, you post a laundry list of what may or may not be problems, this your definition of a trend? No, show me a increase "forced confrontations"

Your words:
"The trend of .gov to FORCE confrontation between those with a badge and those without over the most unimportant matters imaginable."

Ya guys just dont get the obvious - this guy was arrested for failure to appear, not the seatbelt violation. Ok, you tell me, which crimes get a bye?Seatbelts? Trespass? - nobody was hurt, nothing was taken, its not public property, why should I care. Petty theft? Heck, it says petty in the name. OMVI/no accident? Nobody was hurt after all.

I cannot speak for the other cops here, but I havent been forced to engage in confrontations lately......

:rolleyes:
 
So, bottom line:

You guys are expousing that it is OK to ignore a court order if you dont agree with it. Not even contest it in court, just ignore it. Riiight. That'll show'em, the big meanies.
 
sendec,

you are completely missing the point of the discussion.

Rich is posing the concern that it seems to be a recent trend among government and LE to answer every kind of infraction, however minor, with the same response, which is governmental force.

The discussion is not about whether seat belts are a good idea (they are), whether you ought to buckle up (you should), or whether it's a good idea to disobey a court order (most of the time, it is not). The discussion is about whether it's OK for the government to forcibly arrest anyone over a simple misdemeanor, thereby equating even the slightest violations of ordinance with the most serious crimes when it comes to LE and how they deal with it.

To wit: if the only tool in your toolbox is the hammer (overwhelming force to gain immediate compliance), then you are very likely to regard every problem as being worthy of that force.
 
I've never seen a seatbelt roadblock, but I'd guess if you're wearing the belt you slide right thru. DUI checkpoint?, same drill. "Papers please" stops dont exist, neither do stops for checking insurance. Dont like TSA? Dont fly and you'll never know they exist. No Knocks? Ever try to get a judge to approve one? (They have to, judicial oversight, but you knew that right? Same way with non-daylight warrants) Identify a current zero tolerance policy outside of public schools. Child support maybe?
 
No, you are missing the point: He wasnt arrested for the seatbelt violation, he was arrested for not fulfilling his obligation to appear in court or otherwise resolve the ticket. Again, the cops arresting him likely had no idea of what the original offense was, just that he had failed to appear. He had his shot at a day in court and he blew it.

Let me guess, we should give him another ticket and let him go again, If he really squeally promises to show up this time. :rolleyes:

No government can function if it cannot count on its citizens to fulfill their obligations
 
They didn't drag this guy out of his car in 2003, throw him in handcuffs and then toss him in prison for not wearing his seatbelt. Instead they wrote a traffic summons, which he chose to ignore. Even after he ignored it, they didn't send the SWAT team to his house at 2am with a no knock warrant to drag him off to jail. No, instead they simply made a note of his failure to comply in the computer system, and then two years later when a couple officers stumble upon him in a completely unrelated matter and learn that he still hasn't resolved the issue, suddenly it's the heavy hand of the government crushing the oppressed citizenry over minor violations. Give me a break.

If you exhaust every other tool in your tool box to no avail, sometimes you just gotta take out the hammer to fix the problem.
 
Sendec

(Off topic)

But are you implying that the "Papers please" stops do not exist?
DUI check points are just that...

Stopping me and asking for my ID without me being a suspect of a crime is... well it's a violation of my rights (4th).

And I have called my state/local reps, (Senators office, Mayors office, Governors office) and they say they are within their rights...because it's for the safety of society....
 
"Let me guess, we should give him another ticket and let him go again, If he really squeally promises to show up this time."

Exactly. And then I guess we'll have to hear this conversation:

"Bailiff, where is Mr. Vera?"

"I don't know, your Honor. He didn't show up."

"Oh, darn. Well, just forget it then."

Tim
 
DUI stops are not violative of the 4th. They do not target individuals. Because prior notice is given as to when and where the checkpoints are you have the option of avoiding them. Driving a car is not a right. The government has the right to try to stop dangerous drivers on public roadways. I daresay that you could walk right through one without being stopped, but if you wanna drive the state can require you to possess a license.

I cannot cite cases off the top of my head but these DUI stop issues have been to the Supremes many times. You may not like it, but it is legal.
 
For, now the FOURTH time:
This thread is not about whether this individual should have been arrested....it is about laws that demand that LEO's arrest and detain for the most absurd infractions.

I have already posted the alternative:
In NC it's against the law not to pay your property taxes. Failure to do so: You can't renew your registration or license. Simple. Effective. Not one person has died in the enforcement action at DMV yet.
Click to expand...
Would this have been effective in the instant case? One cannot know; the "perp" is dead due to a Seat Belt violation. But it would certainly free up LEO's to act on warrants of a more substantial nature.

The counter argument has been that Vera would simply have broken more laws. Interesting thought process, that: says volumes about the posters' views of American Citizens in addition to foreign nationals.
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top