Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<I'm not painting you as a horrible person, peeaanuut. But I'm also growing bored with the idea that the government is out to get, specifically, you. You say you have all these tickets. Did you deserve none of them?>> I have paid for every ticket I deserved. But in a case by case situation, each party needs to follow the law. Same as in a crime scene. if you dont follow the chain of evidence, the evidence becomes admissable. if a police officer doesnt follow the law in regards to issuing a citation than his/her testimony (aka the written ticket) becomes admisable. the same for an uncalibrated radar detector. <<Yes, that's exactly what I said. Always accept guilt. That's exactly what I said.>> that is not what I said either. I said you are unwilling to fight for yourself.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan You are saying we should not allow the prosecution of people in this country to become slipshod because it costs money to use your rights as an American?<< Either you're looking for an argument, or intentionally missing the point. I never said anything about slipshod prosecution, or unfair tickets or whathaveyou. I simply said that if I get a ticket, and I know I deserved it, then I'm paying the fine and not going to piss and moan about it, nor waste valuable court time, nor an officer's time. Don';t frame me for murder or anything over that, okay?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I said you are unwilling to fight for yourself.<< See post 82. If that doesn't clear it up, I can't help you.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut but by doing that, you are willing to allow the govt take advantage of you. That simply makes no sense to me what-so-ever.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I simply said that if I get a ticket, and I know I deserved it, then I'm paying the fine " The thing is that you should want the prosecution to properly have evidence against you, and hold their feet to the fire. That is how justice is ensured. If you don't want to, fine. But it is how many unjust tickets are given out in the first place, because just let them. "Don';t frame me for murder or anything over that, okay?" Too late. I've turned you over to the San Mateo DA office, and you'll be having your door broken down momentarily.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>That simply makes no sense to me what-so-ever.<< I'm not surprised.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Too late. I've turned you over to the San Mateo DA office, and you'll be having your door broken down momentarily.<< Well, it'll be a quick case. I'm unwilling to fight for myself. >>But it is how many unjust tickets are given out in the first place, because just let them. << Yes, and if I felt that it was unjust, or a case of harrassment or something, or if the cop was overthe line in some way, I would, contrary to peeaanuut's opinion of me, fight for my rights. Everyone happy? Good. Drive safely.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<Yes, and if I felt that it was unjust, or a case of harrassment or something, or if the cop was overthe line in some way, I would, contrary to peeaanuut's opinion of me, fight for my rights.>> so a cop breaking the law to bust you for breaking the law doesnt seem skewed to you?
Originally Posted By peeaanuut Drive safely doesnt mean drive within the letter of the law. So I will drive safely, but I will not obey every law.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper "...but I will not obey every law." Nice attitude. At some point in time right and wrong became meaningless. I guess it goes back to Reagan in the 80s and Clinton in the 90s. We started to figure, hey...if our leaders can lie and get away with it, why can't we? I'm curious to know from some of you, when you teach your children about right and wrong to you tell them, "hey...listen...there are laws that you should follow and laws you shouldn't. Like a stop sign for instance. You need only stop if someone is around to see you." Such a convenient (ie...lazy, irresponsible, trouble free) world you've created for yourselves. Laws aren't really meant to be followed. If we do something wrong we shouldn't admit we did, etc. And yet we are surprised when athletes and starlets exhibit the very same types of behaviors. Go figure.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Drive safely doesnt mean drive within the letter of the law.<< Surprisingly, it really does. But this explains why you get so many tickets.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>so a cop breaking the law to bust you for breaking the law doesnt seem skewed to you?<< I'm really curious as to where, in any of my posts, you would gather that? Are you actually reading what I'm posting at all? I feel like I'm writing it in plain English, but perhaps I'm not...
Originally Posted By jonvn "At some point in time right and wrong became meaningless. " Of course, not. But at some point you have to realize that the law is basically ignorant of what is right and wrong, and is just a law. Sometimes laws are wrong. Sometimes violating the law is the proper thing to do. And sometimes, you can even be breaking a law without knowing it, even if you think you never break the law.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper The phrase, "ignorance of the law is not a plausible offense" comes in here. I guess I have to drop down to the basics here. Yes, of course, you may actually break the law without knowing it. If picking one's nose is against the law in Italy then there is a chance I broke said law when I visited. I think you are trying to come up with convenient ways to explain away you abuse of your driving priviledges (and let's be clear that driving is a priviledge and not a fundamental right). Suicide is "against the law". But, if I had to throw myself in front of a car in order to save my child then, yes, I've knowingly broken the law but it was the proper thing to do. Oh, and the 55 mph speed limit introduced in the 70's was not a reaction to dangerous driving It was an effort to conserve fuel during the oil crisis. Oddly enough, less people died during that time which was a byproduct of the environmental disaster we were facing.
Originally Posted By jonvn " think you are trying to come up with convenient ways to explain away you abuse of your driving priviledges " I don't abuse my driving privileges. In fact, I drive people by the hundreds every year in busses of all sizes, and my driving record is completely clean.
Originally Posted By barboy "let's be clear that driving is a priviledge and not a fundamental right" Please tell me the difference--- as they mean the same thing, no? All they are is just labels. They are as different as a car is to an auto. So what is the appreciable difference between the two?
Originally Posted By peeaanuut there is a difference and I know for certain driving is a privelage and not a right. The difference being is that you are not simply given a license because you have the right to it. You have to prove (even though it is the absolute barest minimum whatsoever) that you can pilot a care safely (at least in the eyes of the govt and not a proper authority).
Originally Posted By barboy And you have to prove to the US that you are 18 to vote and hold citizenship status but yet voting is a right. Or another way to look at it is one doesn't automatically get to vote even though it is considered a "right". Like I said they are just different labels on the same item like auto, car and vehicle. Anyone else out there want to give it a try?
