Law vs Freedom

[iceaura]

Sorry but if your drunk, I don't want you driving on the same road as me and I'm willing to suffer a little inconvenience if that's what it takes to get you off the road.

And you are happy to use the State to impose your idea of "a little inconvenience" on me whether I am drunk or not.

Because you are convinced the State will treat you well and take your side, apparently, and only abuse other people. That the police are on your side, seems an article of faith. You would never expect to lose a job or miss a plane or have to tolerate repeated "random" stops for weeks or months by police who have targeted you.

Not everyone is so fortunate.

My horselaugh of a few years ago was a column in the Star Tribune by one of their loud proponents of the child car seat law, in which she complained about the police seriously inconveniencing her - late to important work, fined heavily, forced to a great deal of trouble - because she had tried to drive her daughter five blocks home from day care without a car seat. The car seat had been left in the husband's car by oversight, he was far away, the day care was just down the street, it was a residential neighborhood with little traffic, she was pulled over within sight of her driveway and held there, etc etc etc - she was really angry. That was not how that law was supposed to be used, she fumed. Ha.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

And you are happy to use the State to impose your idea of "a little inconvenience" on me whether I am drunk or not.

Because you are convinced the State will treat you well and take your side, apparently, and only abuse other people. That the police are on your side, seems an article of faith. You would never expect to lose a job or miss a plane or have to tolerate repeated "random" stops for weeks or months by police who have targeted you.

Not everyone is so fortunate.

My horselaugh of a few years ago was a column in the Star Tribune by one of their loud proponents of the child car seat law, in which she complained about the police seriously inconveniencing her - late to important work, fined heavily, forced to a great deal of trouble - because she had tried to drive her daughter five blocks home from day care without a car seat. The car seat had been left in the husband's car by oversight, he was far away, the day care was just down the street, it was a residential neighborhood with little traffic, she was pulled over within sight of her driveway and held there, etc etc etc - she was really angry. That was not how that law was supposed to be used, she fumed. Ha.

They should have a child seat in both cars so this problem would never come up. I'm not sympathetic here.

 

[Asguard]

The longest i have been stoped at a random breath test is 10 min and thats when the whole freeway was blocked. If your running THAT late whos fault is it really? you dont plan ahead thats not the police's responcibility, there could be a crash, there could be road works, there could be anything. Basically SUCK IT UP PRINCESS and leave on time. Breath testing when you havent had anything to drink takes 10 seconds

"this is a random breath test, i need you to take one long continuas breath into this tube until i tell you to stop" Blow..... "0.00 your good to go, have a nice night"

 

[Asguard]

They should have a child seat in both cars so this problem would never come up. I'm not sympathetic here.

Thats the law here and suprise suprise, my mum and dad have a car seat in THERE car for when they have my niece too. No excuse

 

[NMSquirrel]

All it takes is a dog running out in front of you on a rainy day and the next thing you know, you've smashed into a little old lady's Cadillac. :shrug:

hey now..it wasn't raining and he wasn't old, and his car was parked..

 

[iceaura]

They should have a child seat in both cars so this problem would never come up. I'm not sympathetic here.

I'm not sympathetic either. She was as sanctimonious and naive as you, when she was arguing for that law and disparaging the irresponsibility of parents who care so little about their children's safety. I got a kick out of her getting a reality check.

If your running THAT late whos fault is it really? you dont plan ahead thats not the police's responcibility, there could be a crash, there could be road works, there could be anything. Basically SUCK IT UP PRINCESS and leave on time.

When you are working three part time jobs with twenty minutes between, and one of them runs over, you can prattle like that about other people's routines.

Crashes I can handle - I know my routes. Road work I can schedule for. Random stops without cause by police officers to run dogs through my car and dick around with their malfunctioning computer connections and make me get out in the rain and blow into some dubious plastic tube, I should not have to tolerate.

People have lives. Lawbiding, prudently behaving, legally sound citizens should not be molested on the streets, by anyone - much less the cops. At least if I was getting robbed I could give the guy my money and get out of there. Kids. Jesus.

And when their little machine doesn't work right and needs hassling, or their computer doesn't register your license or tabs, and you actually get hauled to the jailhouse and your car to impound? You going to be a smug little self-righteous innocent then?

 

[Asguard]

Um I've been in a situation where the machine didn't register my plates because they were interstate plates, you don't get hauled off to jail or that, at most you get an infringement notice which you can then dispute.

Furthermore the speed cameras now check registration automatically

 

[Bells]

And you are happy to use the State to impose your idea of "a little inconvenience" on me whether I am drunk or not.

Because you are convinced the State will treat you well and take your side, apparently, and only abuse other people. That the police are on your side, seems an article of faith. You would never expect to lose a job or miss a plane or have to tolerate repeated "random" stops for weeks or months by police who have targeted you.

Not everyone is so fortunate.

My horselaugh of a few years ago was a column in the Star Tribune by one of their loud proponents of the child car seat law, in which she complained about the police seriously inconveniencing her - late to important work, fined heavily, forced to a great deal of trouble - because she had tried to drive her daughter five blocks home from day care without a car seat. The car seat had been left in the husband's car by oversight, he was far away, the day care was just down the street, it was a residential neighborhood with little traffic, she was pulled over within sight of her driveway and held there, etc etc etc - she was really angry. That was not how that law was supposed to be used, she fumed. Ha.

Sorry, but when one considers that the best way to catch drunk drivers is by random breath tests, people who complain about the inconvenience of such tests don't get my sympathy. If getting a drunk driver off the road means that I am going to be however long late, then I'll rather be late.

 

[NMSquirrel]

there are alot of DD's around here and there are lots of checkpoints, (i have only been through three myself, since i have been here 20+ years)

but i do have a story of one..
(that even shows discretion..)
I had went to a bar and had ONE beer, I usually do not drink or go to bars, but i was going stir crazy that night, anyway after the bar i went home and came to a road block, the officer ask me to step out of the car and asked me how many beers i had, and proceeded to give me the sobriety check..(he did not have me blow in a tube,but did the whole 'walk this line and touch your nose' thing) I asked him why he was doing this to me because i only had one beer..he said i smelled like beer..it was then that it dawned on me what had happened..while i was at the bar and sitting on a podium type thing, i had accidentally spilled another persons beer, and had wiped it up with my butt..it was that which he was smelling..we both thought it funny and since i was headed home, he told me just to go straight home and he wouldn't make a deal of it..(there was pry the fact that i had no dui's that also influenced his decision to let me go)
Moral of the story..don't drink with yur butt..

 

[iceaura]

Um I've been in a situation where the machine didn't register my plates because they were interstate plates, you don't get hauled off to jail or that, at most you get an infringement notice which you can then dispute.

I have spent a night in jail once, and had my car impounded from under me once, on computer failures to recognize my driver's license or plates, errors generated during traffic stops.

People have had their bicycles confiscated and been left on foot in Minneapolis, on registration issues. That includes women crossing dubious parts of town late at night and miles from home.

On the bright side, I have never been apologized to so profusely and with such sincerity by a government official. On the other hand, there is a reason police should need probable cause to pull people over and subject them to inquiry. The power to harass and abuse is a great danger.

Sorry, but when one considers that the best way to catch drunk drivers is by random breath tests, people who complain about the inconvenience of such tests don't get my sympathy.

Not even the black people who get "randomly" pulled over much more often than white people? Who are twice as likely to be patdown searched when stopped for any reason?

The best way to catch a lot of criminals is by tromping all over peoples civil liberties. It's foolish to let your government do that, though.

 

[Bells]

Not even the black people who get "randomly" pulled over much more often than white people? Who are twice as likely to be patdown searched when stopped for any reason?

The best way to catch a lot of criminals is by tromping all over peoples civil liberties. It's foolish to let your government do that, though.

The best way to prevent a drunk driver from smashing into another car or people is to do RBT's.

 

[wellwisher]

I am a little older so I had the opportunity to live through the transition in the way law and order is approached. When I was younger, culture was much more masculine. The men in culture had been in the service due to the draft and most had fought in wars. After being in war they had real experience of danger to the nth degree. The attitude was different because of this.

I remember drinking and driving use to mean you needed to have a cocktail in your hand while you cruised the strip. The penalty was your beverages would be impounded, which during short money could spoil the night. Men were required to have more self control and were less feminine (weaker sex). If you could not hold your liquor there was something wrong with you. The mentality was you needed to be battle hardy and if you were soft and weak you were doomed. Being strong was help you survive. You never knew about the next war. If you wished to jump off the bridge, it was OK, since you may need this.

With the end of the Viet Nam War and the repeal of the draft, civil rights, women's right, the line between male and female became blurry. More protection was also created for criminals because females like the bad boys. This has led to the nanny state. You create spoiled uncontrolled children and the nanny has a job for life.

The problem is a nanny likes to overprotect the child, which then does not allow then to build self reliance. The older way required self reliance. while the new way was dependency based on female insecurity, which men can exploit.

For example, back in the 1950's discrimination and racism was real. Compared to the state of today, now would have been considered paradise back then. But the nanny state, based on insecurity, will pitch now as the worse of all time.

I wish the young people could have lived back when culture was more masculine. More was expected of you in terms of self control and self reliance. That is why it is called the golden generation. The tradeoff was law was lighter. The nanny state is oppressive, but it is needed due to the dependency of the spoiled children it creates. It might be a good idea to let the pendulum swing the other way. Back then the police were there to protect and serve, not to harass. The nanny state is a busy body state were snooping, nagging and controlling is what nannies like to do. This young generation got ripped off.

 

[wellwisher]

duplicate post

 

[KilljoyKlown]

I am a little older so I had the opportunity to live through the transition in the way law and order is approached. When I was younger, culture was much more masculine. The men in culture had been in the service due to the draft and most had fought in wars. After being in war they had real experience of danger to the nth degree. The attitude was different because of this.

I remember drinking and driving use to mean you needed to have a cocktail in your hand while you cruised the strip. The penalty was your beverages would be impounded, which during short money could spoil the night. Men were required to have more self control and were less feminine (weaker sex). If you could not hold your liquor there was something wrong with you. The mentality was you needed to be battle hardy and if you were soft and weak you were doomed. Being strong was help you survive. You never knew about the next war. If you wished to jump off the bridge, it was OK, since you may need this.

With the end of the Viet Nam War and the repeal of the draft, civil rights, women's right, the line between male and female became blurry. More protection was also created for criminals because females like the bad boys. This has led to the nanny state. You create spoiled uncontrolled children and the nanny has a job for life.

The problem is a nanny likes to overprotect the child, which then does not allow then to build self reliance. The older way required self reliance. while the new way was dependency based on female insecurity, which men can exploit.

For example, back in the 1950's discrimination and racism was real. Compared to the state of today, now would have been considered paradise back then. But the nanny state, based on insecurity, will pitch now as the worse of all time.

I wish the young people could have lived back when culture was more masculine. More was expected of you in terms of self control and self reliance. That is why it is called the golden generation. The tradeoff was law was lighter. The nanny state is oppressive, but it is needed due to the dependency of the spoiled children it creates. It might be a good idea to let the pendulum swing the other way. Back then the police were there to protect and serve, not to harass. The nanny state is a busy body state were snooping, nagging and controlling is what nannies like to do. This young generation got ripped off.

I did live through it all, along with many others on this forum and your the only one I know that sees life in the way you do.

 

[wellwisher]

Think of it this way. Did you ever stop to think how the hippies and the love generation were able to get away with so much, including getting the government to lower the drinking age to 18 years old? That alone would give the nannies of today a heart attack. The reason was, the family was strong, the parents were good people and they taught their children to be good, self reliant people. They were adult enough to make choices; sink or swim.

The taboos of the nanny state were not yet instituted. Ironically the same young people who took the most freedom; liberals, became the nannies who shifted to excessive law and control. The bulk of the nanny law comes from the democratic party, who took the most freedom.

My theory is, adults project their own nature onto their children. The parents of the 60's generation were very trustworthy (golden generation) and projected that into their children. The nanny state is a projection of untrustworthiness, due to propaganda and deception of the dual standard. Ironically, a more open society with fewer restrictions, is championed by the republicans.

I was part of the open generation of the 60's and ran with the liberals, but I switched sides when these hippi-crates the nanny class based on dependency. They became the very things they accused their parents of being, but worse.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Think of it this way. Did you ever stop to think how the hippies and the love generation were able to get away with so much, including getting the government to lower the drinking age to 18 years old? That alone would give the nannies of today a heart attack. The reason was, the family was strong, the parents were good people and they taught their children to be good, self reliant people. They were adult enough to make choices; sink or swim.

The taboos of the nanny state were not yet instituted. Ironically the same young people who took the most freedom; liberals, became the nannies who shifted to excessive law and control. The bulk of the nanny law comes from the democratic party, who took the most freedom.

My theory is, adults project their own nature onto their children. The parents of the 60's generation were very trustworthy (golden generation) and projected that into their children. The nanny state is a projection of untrustworthiness, due to propaganda and deception of the dual standard. Ironically, a more open society with fewer restrictions, is championed by the republicans.

I was part of the open generation of the 60's and ran with the liberals, but I switched sides when these hippi-crates the nanny class based on dependency. They became the very things they accused their parents of being, but worse.

I think you are deluded in what you believe, but that's just my opinion. The republicans suck on so many levels it puts any mistakes the dems might make much easier to take. I believe business can be promoted without raping the world and money we spend on war could better be spent in our own country on upgrading and repairing our infrastructure, improving our educational facilities and teachers and doing the right thing to fix our nations drug and gang problems. I believe the republicans are holding us back on all fronts.

 

[iceaura]

The best way to catch a lot of criminals is by tromping all over peoples civil liberties. It's foolish to let your government do that, though.
”
The best way to prevent a drunk driver from smashing into another car or people is to do RBT's.

That isn't true.

There are many more effective - your apparent criterion for "best" - ways to prevent drunken driving -

such as requiring the installation of video and chemical monitoring interlock devices in all vehicles, hardwired to the police station, so the police can monitor everyone's location and behavior while driving, and shut their car off by remote control.

Or devices that shut off the car's electrical system, preventing them from even starting, if alcohol is detected in the car's air.

Or any of a dozen others. Because what's a little inconvenience - and these devices would have the advantage of being less inconvenient (even dangerous) to me than random traffic stops without probable cause - when the horrors of drunken driving are being combated?

 

[NMSquirrel]

such as requiring the installation of video and chemical monitoring interlock devices in all vehicles, hardwired to the police station, so the police can monitor everyone's location and behavior while driving, and shut their car off by remote control.

Video monitoring??
no way.. talk about infringement of rights, that would just open the door to other video monitoring laws..

how about a breathalyzer at the store?
If they can't pass it,they can't buy beer..

 

[KilljoyKlown]

That isn't true.

There are many more effective - your apparent criterion for "best" - ways to prevent drunken driving -

such as requiring the installation of video and chemical monitoring interlock devices in all vehicles, hardwired to the police station, so the police can monitor everyone's location and behavior while driving, and shut their car off by remote control.

Or devices that shut off the car's electrical system, preventing them from even starting, if alcohol is detected in the car's air.

Or any of a dozen others. Because what's a little inconvenience - and these devices would have the advantage of being less inconvenient (even dangerous) to me than random traffic stops without probable cause - when the horrors of drunken driving are being combated?

For some convicted drunk drivers that need to drive to get to work, they do require these breathalyzers be installed in order to start the car. But they cost several hundred dollars, so not very practical for all cars and if for some reason you can't blow hard enough your car still wont start. I knew someone that had to do that.

 

[iceaura]

For some convicted drunk drivers that need to drive to get to work, they do require these breathalyzers be installed in order to start the car. But they cost several hundred dollars,

I'm not talking about a breathalyzer. My two options were cheaper than that -

but come now, expenses are just inconvenience, after all, and so that's not the issue. Look at the response to anyone who suggests that buying two or three car seats is expensive for many young parents with children - or we might mention the high cost of random traffic stops, including on the stopped as well as the taxpayer.

Video monitoring??
no way.. talk about infringement of rights, that would just open the door to other video monitoring laws..

Oh, it wouldn't have to be continuous - let's make it random. That would be OK with anyone who thinks police running dogs through people's cars and making them wait in line to blow into machines and submit to inspection of their vehicle without probable cause - whenever they want to, essentially - is the "best" way to combat drunken driving.