Proof that not all cops are jerks
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=174785
Printed Date: 15 November 2025 at 8:00am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Proof that not all cops are jerks
Posted By: Bunkered
Subject: Proof that not all cops are jerks
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 1:20am
|
I got pulled over about 30 minutes ago for a burned out headlight.
The cop probably could have hassled me about my car smelling like weed or the one beer I drank at my buddy's house, but he didn't. He didn't even give me a written warning. Schwing. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 1:21am
|
How is it possible you have so many run-ins with the police?
------------- 
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 1:27am
|
I live with a cop, most cops aren't jerks per-say, they just get bitter over time. That's probably natural given what they deal with on a daily basis.
------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Man Bites Dog wrote:Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 1:32am
How many was that again? That's only the second time I've ever been pulled over (while I was driving anyways).... -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 2:24am
|
Most cops are cool. You just gotta realise they aren't being a butt hole when they ticket you, they are doing their job. It's like complaining the cashier at the 7-11 charges you for groceries.
If you are breaking the law and get caught, take the heat. It is easier to be nicer in a small town because there is a better chance you'll see the person again. You can drop a warning the first time and cite them the second. Give them a chance to correct whatever. In a city it's harder. You don't know how many other cops have just warned him. The long and the short of it is you are in the wrong and get caught, don't complain. It was nice of this guy to let you off. I do know some guys who would have used the smell of dope and alcohol as probable cause for a further search and field sobriety test. And if you'd failed the test or if he'd found your 6kg's of dope they would have been vindicated. And he'd have just been doing his job. |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 2:31am
|
Damn. I wish I had 6kgs.
I only had 3/4 oz, but we'd smoked a blunt on the way to McDonald's. We just finished eating and got pulled over, so I don't know how he didn't think I was high, even if he couldn't smell the dope. I was so facing a distribution charge (even though it's for personal use). -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 3:01am
| Again, I still haven't had a bad experience with the police. |
Posted By: Panda Man
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 5:10am
|
LOL MARY JANE!
------------- 
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 8:16am
------------- 
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 8:19am
This is why we can't have nice things. ------------- 
|
Posted By: reifidom
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 8:40am
|
I was pulled over a few months ago because of my behavior at Arby's. I was in the wrong even though I felt I was provoked, but we sorted it out without any trouble and I was on my way, skirting a disorderly conduct charge in part because I tried to be as polite as possible and calmly explain myself. I make it a point to part amicably with the police no matter the situation and usually shake their hand. That gets an odd look, but I figure they are just doing their job and get too much crap for it most of the time. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 8:43am
|
Time for an Arbys story.
-------------
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 8:45am
|
Do tell, reif.
-------------
|
Posted By: reifidom
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 9:04am
|
Pretty simple really. My wife works overnights, and she hadn't gotten much sleep due to all the errands we had that day, so we'd gone for a nap that afternoon and ended up sleeping too late for her to grab dinner before work. I told her I'd pick something up and bring it to her and she wanted Arby's. No problem, I think.
I thought wrong. I'm playing a game until 9:30, knowing that Arby's is three minutes away and they close at 10:00. I take my time getting up and around and end up at Arby's about 9:45. All the lights are off outside and I think they're closed, so I pull over to call my wife and see what else she might want. I quickly see that I'd forgotten my phone, but a car pulls into Arby's drive-thru and I can hear their order being taken. Great! I pull into the drive-thru right behind the person and I'm told that they're closed and they will not be taking my order. I have a short temper. I am livid. I was in the parking lot before that person, they are open for another fifteen minutes, I told my wife I'd bring her food from this place. I tell them it's still a quarter til. They don't care. "We're closed." This is where things start going badly. I have a very short temper sometimes and I wasn't taking my medication like I should. I'm angry enough that I start yelling, very loudly, all manner of terrible things at the drive-thru speaker. If I could think of a swear word, I poured it through that little box and right into the ear of the person who was keeping me from what I wanted just to be a jerk. I didn't think it was possible, but I peeled out pretty hard in the PT cruiser I was driving and sped off home to get my phone so I could come back and get the corporate number. I wanted to leave them a message, which would have the current time stamp on it, to show that I was there on time and they'd refused me service. I make it back and it was 9:50. I'm circling the building looking for the corporate number which is often posted outside places like this and I couldn't find it so I park to call my wife. She wants McDonald's now, right next to Arby's, so I grab some and I'm on my way to drop it off when I get pulled over. The cop wants to know if I was the person at Arby's just now. Yep. Arby's got scared. They thought I'd gone home for a gun and had come back to wait for them in the parking lot. I calmly explain that I had been incredibly angry at them for closing early when I was there before the last person they'd helped, that I was getting food for my wife, and that I'd only gone home to get my phone to call their headquarters to complain. The cop told me that I could be hauled in for a disorderly conduct charge, but that he understood I was upset and wouldn't let Arby's know that they could charge me. He told me that I was allowed to swear at the government, but not the drive-thru window. We shook hands and parted ways. I made it away from Arby's without a misdemeanor charge. Everybody, except those jerks at Arby's, was happy. I was in the wrong, but it was pretty funny and satisfying that I was intimidating enough to scare Arby's employees into calling the police for protection from me. Grrrrrrrrrrr, FEAR REIFIDOM! -------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 9:21am
|
Should have gone to Captain D's
-------------
|
Posted By: reifidom
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 9:23am
They closed the only Captain D's on this side of the city. I was shocked and not just a little bit upset. That, and my wife is not a fan of the Captain. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 10:21am
|
Do a ride along sometime and you'll notice it's just the opposite: cops are cool guys, but as soon as a civilian gives them attitude, that's when they usually have to put on the bad ass attitude to establish control, and that's when tickets are given.
If you're polite to a cop, chances are pretty good, depending on their mood, that you'll get off. ------------- 
|
Posted By: impulse!
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 10:30am
Captain D? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 11:27am
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: reifidom
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 11:36am
They shame Long John Silver's, their grease covered gimp in the basement of the fast food world. -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 11:40am
|
I wouldn't know. The last time I think I've ever been inside of a Long John Silvers was when I was 5 probably. Something about fast food seafood doesn't sit well with me.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 1:19pm
|
I just got cited for not wearing a seat belt (I hate that god damned law). Warned for carrying multiple forms of Drivers I.D. (Are your kidding me?) and warned for having a two day expired proof of insurance (That's legit) Cop was nice about it, but man... Some of the stupidest things to be cited/warned for... It's not the fact of wearing a seatbelt that bothers me, it's the fact I am required to wear it... I hurt no one by not wearing it, and it is a violation of my personal freedom to fine me for not wearing it. Oh well, I knew what I was doing not wearing it, so I'll take the hit. But the multiple I.D. thing is just ridiculous... ------------- |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 1:28pm
|
I don't know about "getting off", but I generally agree with Linus. Most cops are generally decent folk, but they do (in my experience) enjoy authority - having it, that is. So long as you don't do anything to challenge their authority, things will generally be as ok as they can be. If you cop a 'tude, on the other hand, or do anything that could be construed as a challenge to their authority, it could be a long night. So smile nice, take off your sunglasses, and say "yes, officer" and "no, officer". If you have a gripe, bring it up later. There are times when establishing a record of objection is useful, but most of the time that will just make matters worse. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 1:49pm
Yes, cops are generally good people. However, like all people in a position of authority, they are more susceptible to their desire to improperly exercise that authority.
Sorry, I have to rebut this. 1) If you are in the back seat of a car, not wearing a seatbelt, and even if the person in the front is; in the event of a crash, the force of your body hitting the seat in front of you is more than enough to induce severe injury or death by a variety of different interactions in the front seat. 2) Your death by not wearing a seatbelt takes up time in a morgue, when the examiner could be working on more important cases like a crime or an unknown COD. 3) It's just like the many other laws in place to prevent catastrophes. It's more obvious in industries like construction + demolition, aviation, and other jobs with high physical movement. Is it wrong to keep those laws in place? My life has been saved twice by a seatbelt in crashes where I could have easily flown through the window or broken my neck against a back seat, and I'm sure it's the same way for many people on this forum. So I'm curious, where do we draw the line? Could you object like with medicine? ------------- 
|
Posted By: reifidom
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 1:54pm
|
Maybe have a little speaker in the car that says "Good job!" every time you buckle the seat belt.
My mother-in-law's van dings almost continuously if the driver doesn't put on a seatbelt. -------------
|
Posted By: Panda Man
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 1:57pm
thats how my lady friends mom Ford Escape is, it has thee most annoying alarm "dinging" noise I have ever heard, so basically you either buckle up or get so, flustered with the dinging you want to go get in a crash. -------------
|
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 2:02pm
It's not the governments place to play nanny by instituting laws that are just that, nanny-laws. For construction and demolition and the like, most of those laws are just as easily policies by the companies, not to say that justifies the law.... If we're worried about the "greater good" (Death examiner reference) we may as well be a socialist country... If I have to wear a seat belt due to the fact it may impede the process of certain activities in the event of my death caused by not wearing a seat belt, I should also be restricted on various other aspects of life. It is a question of where do you draw the line. Such as the law which states one MUST wear a helmet when riding a motorized bicycle. If I know the fact that the risk of injury increases due to not wearing a seatbelt, it should be my own choice to discern that risk factor for myself. It's good to hear a seatbelt as saved your life twice, does that mean you should require me to wear one? Many people report a noticable lack of lung or gum cancer due to not smoking, we may as well make a law against smoking... Same goes with alcohol, hell... that'd due away with drunk driving too! win/win aye? Again, I knew the penalties for not wearing my seatbelt, as such I'm not complaining that I received the ticket, I'm just arguing the topic at this point for recreation. :::Edit::: let me refine the first paragraph of my rebuttal... The people voted on that law, so it hardly qualifies as sole institution from the government. In light of that, I will rephrase to it shouldn't be a concern of the government to propose the law in the first place. ------------- |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 2:45pm
|
I was just curious. I threw in the tidbit because I have personal reasons to be grateful for that law (I wouldn't have worn one at the time if it wasn't a law). Anyway, the solution to your problem is just to throw it on the moment those lights come on, as I doubt the legality will ever change. -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 4:56pm
Damn the government for trying to save your life!!!! Damn them all to hell. Who are they to try and preserve your life?
No it shouldn't. Be thankfull that you live in a country where your leaders care about the health and safety of everyone, not just the smart people. And it doesn't just increase a tiny bit. The force increases about seven times from 20G's to 150G's.
Sure, why not?
What is wrong with this law? I just don't understand the general obsession with: OMG THEIR TAKIN ALL MAH RIGHTS AWAY!!!! FIRST SEATBELTS THEN MAH GUNS THEN MAH LIFE!!!!!! It's the exact same thing as the people that argue that heroin should be legal because it hurts no-one else. |
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 5:23pm
|
I love Carl. He is so good at crystallizing the differences between Americans and Canadians. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: impulse!
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 5:28pm
|
I rather have a helmet law, and be able to split lanes. Such as California.
-------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 5:32pm
It isn't their place. If I wanted my government to instruct me on things that affect me and me alone, I'd go to China. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 5:34pm
|
Stealth, cry less and listen to people who know FAR more about a subject when you do. When crash testing experts need some photography information maybe they'll talk to you, but for now they're telling you how to increase your odds of living in a crash, why is it so hard to listen? Do you honestly even feel your seatbelt once it's on? No.
*edit* also, you're choosing to operate your vehicle on their roads, which are patrolled/ enforced by their employees. If you feel the need to rebel against the seatbelt regime that hard, go drive on your own property without one. |
Posted By: Roll Tide
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 5:48pm
|
While I think you are an absolute moron for not wearing your seatbelt, there shouldn't be a law forcing it. If you die while not wearing it, it's your own fault. And LOL @ smoking a blunt on the way to McDonald's. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> 
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 5:49pm
Our taxes pay their salaries. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 5:56pm
My bad. It just seems a lot of your stories begin or end with the police showing up or something. No offense intended good sir. -------------
|
Posted By: Glassjaw
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 6:07pm
|
Bunkered, do you always drive around with nearly an ounce?
------------- |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 6:51pm
You'd understand if you had any.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 7:30pm
Keep in mind you vote for the politicians that make the laws. Want it changed? Elect someone who will change it. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 7:47pm
Police officers are civil servants. -------------
|
Posted By: Styro Folme
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 9:36pm
|
the general law enforcement around here are alright. It's the campus police that suck. They'll pull you over for going 2mph over AND search your vehicle at 8:00 in the morning on a public street... I'm not going to get started on all that. I just wish cops wouldn't have such a power-trip sometimes. It's very frustrating for us harmless people. ------------- X |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 9:39pm
|
"My taxes pay your salary"
"That's alright, this tickets on me" Anyhow, saw this commercial when a speaker came to school one year: http://youtube.com/watch?v=LrZ3Iw5723c&feature=related - http://youtube.com/watch?v=LrZ3Iw5723c&feature=related BTW Styro, they can't search your vehicle without your consent or probable cause, so either you allowed them or they spotted something. Next time if they ask, say no. -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 9:55pm
Left that reference out for a reason 
But why should a police officer have to get up at two in the morning to peel your face off the side of the road?
And why isin't it their place? And can someone explain why carrying multiple forms of driver id is against the law? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 10:06pm
|
You are only issued one and when you go to renew yours, or get a different states, you are to turn your current one in as to avoid possible exploitation and the making of fakes. -------------
|
Posted By: Styro Folme
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 10:26pm
------------- X |
Posted By: Roll Tide
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 10:31pm
Dumb argument. If the wreck is bad enough for me to have to get my face peeled off the road, he will be called anyway. The "taking up space" in the morgue argument was really dumb, too. One dead body shouldn't take precedent over another, and if it keeps a really important case from going through, hire more employees. Again, the law doesn't effect me because I always wear my seatbelt, and you are an utter moron if you don't. The government doesn't need to force me to do it. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules>
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 10:34pm
And why isin't it their place? [/quote] Because, if I so choose, I should be able to risk my own life if I want to. Seatbelts are just gateway crimes to gives cops reasons to search your vehicle. -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 11:16pm
I didn't make the morgue argument. Obviously it wasen't a serious argument You may be smart enough but others are not. Why shouldn't the government force them to wear them?
Hardly. Why should it be your right to be unsafe? |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 11:18pm
Hardly. Why should it be your right to be unsafe?[/QUOTE] Because its my life? And "hardly?" Its true, its a gateway law. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 11:22pm
|
You're allowed to consent your own abuse, but you do not have the power of consent for your own death.
Hence why boxing is allowed, but assisted suicide is not. What if someone is tripping on acid, and they decide to try to commit suicide? It's their life, even if they aren't in the correct mental state. (correct for wanting to kill yourself?) -------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 11:23pm
I think you have never done acid. -------------
|
Posted By: Roll Tide
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 11:24pm
I know you didn't but I thought that was ludicrous and apparently missed the sarcasm. Why shouldn't the government? Because that's the point of civil liberties. They might as well ban tobacco and alcohol, too. If you're smoking cigarettes and drinking beer in your house, you aren't hurting anyone else, but it's perfectly legal. It's not that Americans don't want to wear seatbelts as much as we just don't want to be forced to do something if it doesn't bother anyone else. It's the principle. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules>
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 11:36pm
|
Carl, it is just a gateway law. cops have all kinds of things they can do to allow them to further investigate stuff. we were talking about such laws in one of my crim classes earlier in the semester and seatbelts specifically came up. My professors phd is greater than the high school education you have yet to complete. The government has no place dictating safety measures such as seat belts. its job is to protect the right of life to all people, not force it upon them. Also, cops don't get called into work for traffic accidents, thats why they have the night shift. ------------- 
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:04am
Hardly. Why should it be your right to be unsafe?[/QUOTE]Because its my life? And "hardly?" Its true, its a gateway law.[/QUOTE] Not like the law has positive benefits or anything? What is wrong with the government trying to protect your life?
Alcohol will only kill you by alcohol poisoning. This is after drinking lots and lots of it. You can OD on water too... why aren't you using that as an example? That's why you have reasonabe limitations on rights. Keyword: reasonable. What is forcing seatbelits not a reasonable limitation on rights? I prefer the principle of ensuring the safety of the people rather than giving people the idiotic choice of safety.
Secondarily, it may be a gateway law but does that mean that it doesn't do any good? Why does the government have no place dictating such safety measures? |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:07am
|
It isn't the governments place to tell me what I can and cannot do.
-------------
|
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:09am
|
Isn't that pretty much the entire function of government? ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:09am
|
carl, i just told you. lern to read. christ.
-------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:09am
Then what does the government do exactly if not that? Because one would think that that is exactly what a government would do. |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:10am
Maybe in your ultra-liberal commie world, but in America we value individual rights. -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:16am
No you didn't. I am still looking for a logical answer for why the government has no place dictating such safety measures.
No you don't, you pick and choose your rights to protect like everyone else does. Your world seems to revolve around having no government at all. |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:20am
|
We certainly do, but the "govern"-ment, well, governs. What do you think all those "laws" and "judicial decisions" and "regulations" are, if not the government telling you what to do? ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: techietaichi
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:23am
|
Since I've been in MA, I've been pulled over a total of four times in three years.
#1: I was pulled over because I was in the left lane, except it was 7am commuter traffic and I was surrounded by cars! The Trooper was a jerk, "Is http://b9.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00854/93/81/854451839_l.jpg - THIS http://a952.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/7/l_1f43db1da599aa65c2bfa0ab5492f187.jpg - YOUR car?". That pissed me off because I couldn't figure out how that had any relevence. I also won't lie, the "Race card" was on my mind. Isn't, "Driver's license and registration please" or "Do you know why I pulled you over" the usual ice-breaker? Anyway, the guy gave me a $100 ticket, I requested a trial, went to court and spoke with the magistrate, he saw it my way, threw it out and told me to have a nice day. PATOOEY! You @*&$%# statey!! 
#2: It was my fault. I was late for work and pulled a wild 45 in a 35mph zone. The officer combed over my car with his flashlight, checked my registration sticker and plates, but when he spoke to me, to my surprise he turned out to be Ok. I told 'em I was Security over in Cambridge running late and he said, "keep it down" and let me split. Sweet. #3: Heading to Boston about halfway I get pulled over again. Tricky one this time though. The officer walks up, my hands on the wheel and his flashlight in my face. Statey: "You know why I pulled you over?" Me: "No I don't sir, I was just about to ask you." Statey: "You were doing 80 in a 65 zone." Me: "I won't deny that, but I was following that station wagon in front of me and when you kicked your lights on, some guy flew right past us, didn't you see that?" Statey: "So you don't think you did anything wrong?" Me: "No sir I don't think so." Statey: "Watch your speed son." Me: "Thank you officer." THAT was @&*%'n weird, but I lucked up again. #4: I was tired and wanted to get home right away so I could get some sleep. Third shift kicked my butt! Did 85 in a 65 and attracted a Statey. Mr. Trooper gave me a $200 ticket and I had no angle out of this one.  BAM! Bum gets a new bench to sleep on in the park.
I'm batting .750 and it's been just over a year since the last encounter. Man, I think I'm due for another stop, lol. ------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCZWhJCF6Ig"> 
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:25am
| So can someone explain why carrying multiple forms of driver id is against the law? |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:30am
You are correct though in saying that americans value individual rights in the conservative sense. But you fail to realize that even in America there are multiple schools of though as to the extent of the law and what is legitimately criminalizable. Seatbelt laws really are not just a restriction on your individual rights. They are also their to protect others as Linus' PSA demonstrated. Since conservative Americans tend to argue the Harm Principal in the legitimacy of a law then a seat belt law would apply in this context. {harm principal = any conduct that is likely too setback the welfare interest of another) Expand your mind. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:33am
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:36am
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:38am
|
techie, troopers are notorious for giving tickets.
If you are going to get a ticket, you are pretty much more likely to get one from them then a local PD or SO. Atleast that's how it's thought. -------------
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:39am
-------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:41am
|
But in some cases to properly protect the people, wouldn't you have to force things on people? (reasonable limitations on rights)
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:41am
You and your "logic." What skillet is trying to say is that the government shouldn't dictate how we treat ourselves. Common and statutory law say otherwise, but I don't see how that could POSSIBLY matter in deciding on what the government should do. Also, it seems easier to want to put the choice in the hands of the general populace when you are one of the more affluent members of society. It's easy to say you should be able to risk your life when you know you would more than likely never do it. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:46am
|
Gatyr explained it pretty well. -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:47am
Exactly what I was getting at back there. Just because you would always do something doesn't mean everyone else would. I gurantee that seatbelt laws save thousands of people per year. |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:47am
|
I agree that this was probabry the core of Skirret's point. I was merery reacting to his rather sirry overstatement about the nature of raw and government. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:48am
I like to overgeneralize. And I just hate Carl with a passion. -------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:49am
 -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:54am
They're job isnt to protect the people from themselves, its to make sure no one takes the right to life from them. they are to protect the right, not the person (from themselves.) choosing not to wear a seatbelt is a personal choice. -------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 1:01am
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 1:03am
They don't have to ride with you. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 2:26am
|
What if you're ejected from the car and hit a pedestrian? -------------
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 2:34am
Not usually... But I just picked it up. Thus the blunt on the way to McDonalds. -------------
|
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 3:01am
In that instance we ought not to be allowed to drive in the first place. You can argue personal safety laws all you want, at the end of the day it's all about where you draw the line. I'd rather not give any inch of my personal freedom of choice up, for others they are willing to sacrifice some room, hence the seat belt law. Like I said, I'm not complaining I got the ticket, I know the consequences and readily accept the fine. Doesn't mean I condone the law, infact for me the law is one of the main reasons I don't buckle up... If I get fined, I'll take it, pay it, and be on my way... But I won't buckle up because a bunch of researchers told me so - as chewp put it... It's my choice, not theirs. Various philosophies could argue about this all day, and in many respects all of them will be logical in different manners... It's all about which one you subscribe to... The seat belt law flies because it's a minute thing. The question is, what happens when cigarettes are illegal because they harm you and others, or same example with alcohol? You allow them to do it with seatbelts with the same philosophy in mind, so how can you not allow them to do it with others? And in that point, I find most Pro-belt law supporters begin to dance around the subject, as you all have as of yet. :::Edit::: Is it stupid of me to drive with out one? No doubt, I completely agree. Should there be a law to make certain I do for my own safety? I don't believe so. ------------- |
Posted By: pabz
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 3:11am
|
not all but most of them are jerks! most are blinded by money....that is why when you are not in the upperclass of life, never thing of the word JUSTICE ------------- I love this site! It is 100% free to make money online here.I have been paid numerous times! All that is really asked of you is to fill out simple offers. http://www.lighteningoffers.com |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 3:13am
Are you kidding me? ------------- |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 4:37am
Except it's NOT. It is a law. If you want the law changed, vote for people who will change it. There are also things that ride along with seatbelts, like airbags. Those only work if the person is restrained in some way. Aside from that, it is an anti litigation law. In the States people sue for the most idiotic things, and worse, win. This way the car companies are covered if you die in an accident when you haven't been wearing your saftey belt. It isn't a faulty car desing. You are breaking the law and you need to face the consequences. Seriously, why is THIS an issue? It is a saftey belt for God's sake. They have been around for years. They DO improve occupant saftey. There are very very few instances where they actually hinder. If you are worried about it, buy a quality saftey belt cutter. This way you can 1) obey the law, 2) be restrained in an accident and get the full benifit of things like Airbags 3) cut yourself free in the small-oh-so-minute chance you need to get out of the saftey belt in an emergency. The Goverment isn't strying to stop your personaly liberties, they are saying "It has been statistically proven that it's safer to wear belts, now wear them". As for the idiotic comments about smoking? Um, hello. It IS illegal in many places. Smoke free zones and laws about where cou can smoke when you can? Like others have said, if you don't like the goverment's laws 1) change them. 2) don't drive on their roads. 3) get caught and pay the fines. KBK |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 8:12am
|
If you're not wearing it on principal, that's a bigger problem. Think of it this way: A steering column to the gut during a crash is like being hit dead center in the torso with a rocket powered battering ram. If the airbag is still engaged and you're not wearing a seatbelt... well... there's nothing like a good ol' decapitation to start the day. I'm sure that if you survive a crash at over 50 mph, you'll have some severe permanent brain damage and might become a quadriplegic. Heck, a skull fractured in 10 places is bad enough. An impact induced gastrointestinal bleed isn't too nice an experience to live through either. This is all aside from the possibility that you'd get ejected in the car. I mean, when the car is rolling, you could get caught halfway outside your side window. In that case, I'd much rather die than live through the insanely painful recovery time and permanent damage to my body. Unjust or not, it's plain stupid not to wear a seatbelt. It's like playing Russian roulette every time you pick up a revolver in protest of gun control. -------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 8:49am
|
This thread is going nowhere.
-------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 12:53pm
|
Do you not wear the seatbelts on roller coasters, Stealth?
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 1:06pm
Flawed argument. Doesn't equate. You WILL 100% fall out of most roller coasters without a seatbelt on. And Stealth, were you trying to say making alcohol or cigarettes illegal iis like seatbelts being illegal? Those 2 should be illegal. Cigarettes because of second hand smoke. Alcohol, because it causes accidents. Seatbelts don't cause accidents. ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 1:37pm
Really? I love you...
But why? Who does it harm to place laws requiring you to wear a seatbelt? I hate the overgeneralization... Is this really a debate of individual rights or is it just a debate of requiring you to wear seatbelts? But you never know... laws on wearing seatbelts could somehow become the step before communism.
Yes, just like how we are going to become communists because of the laws. Like I said, REASONABLE limitations on rights. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 3:49pm
| I honestly don't understand why the world is full of people who immediately feel they have to oppose anything that they don't have a say in. A really good idea, proven by countless testing, is suddenly the devil because it infringes on your rights. Sure it does. |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 3:49pm
Who deems limitations to be reasonable? We already have a case above us where a person says a seatbelt law is unreasonable, but a ban on alcohol is. Does that make them any more correct or incorrect than ourselves? Not at all. It does how ever illustrate the fact that you can not do things of this nature: "Reasonable limitations for the greater good". Because every one has a different idea on what's reasonable and what's not... Every one subscribes to different philosophies, none of which are more correct/incorrect than the other. So which camp gets to decide what the other camps have to do, regardless of philosophy? That's the main point of my question. As for communism, that's a steep leap... But the America we have currently would appear to be far far from it's original intent, hell the Constitution has been fairly bruised up in the last decade. Little things lead to bigger things, it's a basic marketing/legal/political technique. (And though that may not be the original intent at all, humans have a tendency to change things to fit what they want) Fact: When the seatbelt law was originally instituted, a officer could ticket you had you already been pulled over, and were found to not be wearing a seatbelt at that time.... It was said that it would not be allowed for an officer to pull some one over due to not wearing a seatbelt. That was a bit over 13 years ago as I understand it. ------------- |
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 3:54pm
|
The answer to all of the above questions: "Our democratically elected representatives".
------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 3:56pm
|
This is pretty unrelated, but it fits better here than anywhere else:
DID YOU KNOW: The founding fathers opposed political parties? |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 4:01pm
So, what's you're general take on the click it or tick it campaign Susan? ------------- |
Posted By: captpainntball7
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 4:13pm
| I've gotten pulle dover like 10 times. I was high almost every time and the po's never noticed or said anything. However, they did all write me tickets. Luckily I'm ballin' enough to pay all the fines immediately. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 4:23pm
That just makes you a bad driver/ tool. |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 4:32pm
indeed. ------------- |
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 4:59pm
|
I'm torn. I very much share the American spirit of "I'll mind my own business, thank you very much". At the same time, I hold the common sense of the common man in little esteem, and occasionally it is appropriate for the government to intrude, whether for the common good or not.
------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 5:09pm
Pretty much where I am at, I just lean further to the first point than the latter. ------------- |
Posted By: Panda Man
Date Posted: 15 April 2008 at 6:16pm
They were also against other nations as our "Allies". -------------
|