Law vs Freedom

[NMSquirrel]

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

 

[Asguard]

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)

 

[NMSquirrel]

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.

 

[spidergoat]

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

 

[KilljoyKlown]

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.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

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.

 

[Asguard]

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

 

[Asguard]

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

 

[KilljoyKlown]

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?

 

[Asguard]

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

 

[NMSquirrel]

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?)

 

[wynn]

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.

 

[NMSquirrel]

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..

 

[Crunchy Cat]

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.

 

[gmilam]

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.

 

[Neverfly]

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.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

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.

 

[NMSquirrel]

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?)

 

[Crunchy Cat]

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.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

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.