PO'ed Veteran

[dcyrilc]

My concerns lie along the lines Brin mentioned. What's to stop passing laws which require ID for any purchase if current laws require select purchase ID. Following that, what stops first a volentary movement followed by a requirement for implanted RIFF chips because of the inconvience of having to provide ID everywhere. Take that one step further and start allowing the government to place RIFF readers around to look for persons of interest. Where does it stop? Give an inch and eventually, they'll ask for a mile.

Look at taxes. I believe it was Lincoln who stated that it would be rediculous to ever have to pay more than 2% in taxes. I may be off on who and the amount, but you get the idea. Today we all pay 50% or more in taxes if you add it all up. Federal income tax, Social security, medicare, state income or sales tax, property taxes, etc. Heck, just the property taxes on my farm are more than 10% of my gross income. Property taxes = $7326.58/yr and gross income is $65K.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

And the "green police" are just gearing up.....

 

[SPYDERLK]

Yeah, the blue cop stops and then frisks you cuz he sees the wine bottles youre taking to the recycle center.
larry

 

[hawkeye08]

My concerns lie along the lines Brin mentioned. What's to stop passing laws which require ID for any purchase if current laws require select purchase ID. Following that, what stops first a volentary movement followed by a requirement for implanted RIFF chips because of the inconvience of having to provide ID everywhere. Take that one step further and start allowing the government to place RIFF readers around to look for persons of interest. Where does it stop? Give an inch and eventually, they'll ask for a mile.

Look at taxes. I believe it was Lincoln who stated that it would be rediculous to ever have to pay more than 2% in taxes. I may be off on who and the amount, but you get the idea. Today we all pay 50% or more in taxes if you add it all up. Federal income tax, Social security, medicare, state income or sales tax, property taxes, etc. Heck, just the property taxes on my farm are more than 10% of my gross income. Property taxes = $7326.58/yr and gross income is $65K.

You're probably looking forward to the state income tax on top of that. If the initiative passes next month, within 2 years the taxes will be on the incomes down to $50k.

 

[Scooby074]

About auto stops. Here the police can stop you at any time under the guise of suspected drunk driving, or insurance check. or defective equipment... you get the idea.

Roadside spot checks are perfectly legal as well

Remember, that question on all (i think) drivers test?.. Driving is a privilege, not a right. And the Gov't can basically do what ever they want, up to and including revoking your license at any time.

Do i like it.. heck no. One night i was coming home from work late, like 2AM, passed a cop, he chased (lights off) me like 5-10 kms, just to go through my car I asked why, his answer "thought you may have been drinking".

Talked to a lawyer friend of mine and the cop was perfectly in his rights But what can you do. Remember that whole right v privilege thing. I do imagine that that tactic is very effective in getting drunks off the road, but its a bit of a catch 22.

 

[hawkeye08]

I was frisked and detained by US Customs on entry to NYC,
detained again on entry into Washington state,
detained and jailed on entry into an "ally" of ours.

Talk about civil liberties being "Challenged".

Went to the middle east in 1999, it is interesting to see other parts of the world. I experienced several countries security checks...

I expect we will stop hearing about illegal aliens within 2 years, they will simply be referred to as non-residents, but if they are illegal, why are they still here?

 

[dcyrilc]

You're probably looking forward to the state income tax on top of that. If the initiative passes next month, within 2 years the taxes will be on the incomes down to $50k.

Yea, don't remind me. Not even the slighest suggestion of reducing or eliminating sales tax either. We already have one of the highest sales taxes in the nation. I expect to have to be paying both soon.

 

[hawkeye08]

Yea, don't remind me. Not even the slighest suggestion of reducing or eliminating sales tax either. We already have one of the highest sales taxes in the nation. I expect to have to be paying both soon.

As to unrealistic laws, why do we need cell phone and texting laws? We already have reckless driving and negligent driving. Of course it is ok for law enforcement to ignore them and be talking on cell phone held to their ear while driving...

 

[CMSporthorses]

Why need laws about the use of cell phones? Cos if you read the definitions of what "negligent" or "reckless" driving are within the law, and the directions in which those deffinitions have been taken by decisions and precedent in the courts, you would realise getting one of those charges to stick for a person simply using their phone without an accident or other very obvious problem occurring would be very difficult and result in a lot of matters being taken to court.
If you write a very simple and clear "use phone=law broken" statute you give a simple enforcement option with very few challenges.

Face it, cell phone usage is as dangerous as DUI and should be controlled for the safety of other road users....so if it means a bit more legislation to save a few more lives, so be it!

Oh, and you will probably find the laws you have, like ours, have an exemption for emergency services...there are times you need to use the phone rather than the radio...OpSec, one to one comms and such...

 

[hawkeye08]

Why need laws about the use of cell phones? Cos if you read the definitions of what "negligent" or "reckless" driving are within the law, and the directions in which those deffinitions have been taken by decisions and precedent in the courts, you would realise getting one of those charges to stick for a person simply using their phone without an accident or other very obvious problem occurring would be very difficult and result in a lot of matters being taken to court.
If you write a very simple and clear "use phone=law broken" statute you give a simple enforcement option with very few challenges.

Face it, cell phone usage is as dangerous as DUI and should be controlled for the safety of other road users....so if it means a bit more legislation to save a few more lives, so be it!

It is not against the law (in Washington state) to use cell phone with handsfree mode, only if you hold it up to your ear. It is not the holding the cell phone that causes the accidents and poor driving, it is the complete distraction of answering, talking, calling ,etc. It completely takes your attention away. They did not go after the cause, just the easy symptom and the cops set very poor examples. It is not saving lives, it is driving revenue. We have red light cameras here also. Studies have shown that accidents INCREASED at the intersections after the red light cameras were installed. Some expected that from people trying to stop in time (more rear end accidents, less t-bone accidents) but the t-bone accidents increased. The ticket revenue is over $500,000 in the first year, so they are putting more cameras in. Generate revenue is the game. Please note that the city has not had a traffic engineer on staff for many years. The lights are not sequenced and the yellows are not consistent or in some cases even allow a car to stop reasonable before it goes to red. Years ago, when they did have a traffic engineer on staff, the lights were all synchronized on main arterials during rush hours so traffic stayed moving if they drove at or just below speed limit. My family avoids talking at all (if we are alone in car) on the cell phone when driving, we safely pull off and then answer or make calls. It is not worth the distraction.

If the definition of reckless or negligent driving is not sufficient, then fix it, don't create a bunch of new laws that are outdated when the next new technology gadget comes along. Another comment on your post, why should a person get a ticket if they are not in an accident or causing other very obvious problem?? ("you would realise getting one of those charges to stick for a person simply using their phone without an accident or other very obvious problem occurring"). Maybe next will be you getting a ticket for talking to your wife while you are driving because it could cause an accident? or maybe telling the kids in the back seat to quiet down?

 

[jinman]

I was in Walmart yesterday and picked up a can of spray lube. When checking out at the self-check, the register said I would have to get store clerk approval. As she was walking up to the register, I said, "Ma'am, if you ask me for my ID, I'm gonna kiss you on the lips!" She said, "If I don't ask for your ID, will you at least give me a hug?" We both had a good laugh.:laughing:

 

[MossRoad]

It is the stop part Moss, without probable cause and then once the officer stops you if he sees anything in your car that he deems suspicious he can frisk you and even search your car and you did nothing to provoke any of this....The officer never had probable cause and in my day , back in the '60's , you needed probable cause to stop someone...now days you don't..Now there will be those that say ..well, it does not bother me since I am doing nothing wrong..Well maybe and then again maybe not..it depends on the officer and his intent and honesty..The real point is...we used to be free to drive without interference unless we violated some law...that is no longer the case ..Is it ?

I agree that the stop part is bad. No cause, they shouldn't be stopping you to see your driver's license and proof of insurance. Funny that the legal basis for a DUI checkpoint has nothing to do with DUI. It has to do with checking for valid driver's license and proof of insurance, which has been deemed constitutional. Then, if they smell alcohol, pot, or see anything out of order in the car that is considered good reason to search.

I would like to see some studies regarding the effectiveness of DUI checkpoints VS spending the money and manpower on other forms of enforcement. 20 state cops spending 4 hours of O.T. , which equates to 120 hours of straight time pay to nab ZERO drunk drivers seems like a huge waste. They do usually get 3-4 people on outstanding warrants, though, but is seems like a low bang-for-the-bucks use of taxpayers' money.

 

[20 20]

You can't hold a crooked town with crooked cops responsible for all of societies woes. That kind of stuff happens in all sorts of occupations in all sorts of settings across the board. There are bums in all professions.

agreed, and I don't hold them responsible for societies woes, I hold society responsible for letting crap happen like this in the 1st place, that's why I started the thread.

 

[20 20]

Brin I like your way of thinking. I am not a smoker either but I hated to see smoking banned{in this state} in privately owned establishments. If I don't like smoking then I can go elsewhere, the government HAS NO BUSINESS telling a private institution that they can't allow a legal activity.

MossRoad; I agree, I'd also like to see some studies done on the amount of money that is made{and wasted} of off check points. I'd also like a comparison done on money made of off simple traffic violations compared to catching real scum. I could take you to a city right now that is writting illegal parking tickets. I recieved one, called and told them they were wrong, mine was dropped, they also told me they'd fix the problem, quess what folks are still getting illegal fines. Is it the cops fault, is it the cities fault or is that people just say who gives a _____ it's only a couple $ ???? I'll write it again little issue's have away of growing bigger and eating holes into society.

 

[brin]

Moss - Please clarify for me what you consider political since you are a Moderator. To me as long as no one is talking about democrats or republicans or specific parties or candidates but rather our rights as Americans...that can hardly be politcal in my view but if I am wrong please correct me.

 

[CinderSchnauzer]

Brin I like your way of thinking. I am not a smoker either but I hated to see smoking banned{in this state} in privately owned establishments. If I don't like smoking then I can go elsewhere, the government HAS NO BUSINESS telling a private institution that they can't allow a legal activity.

Without going into the whole list we have fairly wide ranging "banned smoking." The argument the customer can always go elsewhere is significantly countered by the fact non smoking employees cannot go elsewhere and their "rights" are protected by the ban.

In the last few days we have MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) advocating unrestricted random traffic stops with mandatory breathalizer tests on the spot. Not surprising, the Deputy Commissioner of Police thinks this would be a great idea.

It would appear George Orwell was right on with his book - just off by a few years.

 

[brin]

The More I think about it...........I may just go up in the attic and find my old Pipes..I used to enjoy smoking a pipe...maybe I will take that up agian and dare someone to try and stop me from smoking my pipe on my farm ....Yeah ...that's the ticket.