Fumanchu

Actually I said plenty. It's sad that you can't realize that I debunked your statement. Oh well. Another day, another troll I guess.

Barwick

Oh, and another thing, THIS is cool... on the right to travel, there's another supreme court case that says it's unconstitutional to levy a tax on someone for exercising an unalienable right. AND, another case has said that license fees are a TAX.

See where I'm going on this? If the government actually followed their rules, then license fees to get plates or a PRIAVATE operator's license is unconstitutional. Isn't that funny. Unfortunately, they'll never let that slide, unless, like I said, mass civil disobedience, which probably isn't going to happen, since Americans are LaZy.

Madrx7racer

aznpoopy

you're getting "usage of roads / traveling" confused with "operating an automobile."

nobody can deny a person the right to travel.

what they ARE legislating is the right to operate a car.

standards are set in place so that vehicle operators are deemed 'fit' to operate a vehicle. this is obviously set in place for the benefit of the driving public.

standards, as they are, are VERY lax.

i'm pretty sure 99% of americans would rather have it the way it is now, as opposed to your system of 'anyone can drive anything' any way they choose.

i know you are going to try to counter with :

"CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579."

the devil is in the details.

"traveling BY automobile" does NOT equate "traveling while operating said automobile."

the current system reflects this fact.

even if you lose your driver's license you can still sit in a car or move your stuff in a vehicle using public roads.

in other words, no you don't need a license to use public roads. that, however, has nothing to do with requiring a license to drive a vehicle on public roads.

what you need to find is a legal precedent where it is shown that the right to operate a vehicle on public roads in any capacity is an unalienable right guaranteed by the government.

Supper

SERVED!

siamiam

its still a kill :P

Barwick

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It's been upheld on multiple occasions.

YOU (like me for a long time) are confusing "driving motor vehicle" (commercial) with "operating an automobile" (private).

(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

Anywhere a court has said anything, they've said there is no right to drive a motor vehicle, because the definition of "motor vehicle" is "an automobile used in commerce", and driving is the act of operating a motor vehicle (in commerce). There is no inherent right to use the public roads for corporate use (profit).

But, as in the Thompson v Smith case, and others like it, when the prosecution (aka the government) cannot show that the automobile was being operated in commerce, they cannot do anything.

After all, did you ever see pictures of George Washington on his horse, with a license plate hanging on a piece of string off the horse's tail? No, because until someone did something ridiculously stupid, they were allowed to use the public roads for travel as they wished. And don't try saying horses are safer than automobiles. Have you ever been around a spooked horse? There's no "off" button, there's no "brakes", just "oh crap".

There should be no required licenses/plates for private individuals today, the supreme court has held that view, but the government doesn't really care. It'd be a very unpopular thing for a politician to get rid of drivers licenses and plates because every knucklehead out there thinks that licenses and plates keep us safe.

Going on to your other points...

You say these standards are set in place to make sure someone is "fit" to use the roads. Good example, thank you for it. So now the government can determine who's "fit" to exercise their inalienable rights (they've been doing this for decades now, it's nothing new). So if they can find a reason that's "for the good of the public", they can determine who's "fit" to have kids. Or who's "fit" to carry a gun (did you know that that's where the first gun control laws came from? when they released the slaves, they determined that some blacks weren't "fit" to carry guns...)

And going back (again...) NOBODY is saying that anybody can drive anything they want any way they choose. If some dude is going 150 mph weaving through dense traffic, that's obviously threatening someone else's life. But merely going 150 mph isn't what did it, it's the conditions (road, traffic, light, etc) that made it unsafe. Same thing with what they're driving. If there's others on the road and it's smoking and leaving a trail of smoke that makes it hard for others to see, or dumping oil all over the place... get the point?

And your counter to case 2 is lacking. Operation of a private automobile (that is not threatening to others) is an unalienable right that falls into the category of "use of your own property". They can't deny you the right to use your own property, whether you're operating it or someone else is.

Skylance

Did I mention the fact that I bent the steering column with my chest? I didn't break any ribs (I don't know how), but I was in pain for the next couple of days. I was wearing my seatbelt, but I guess it didn't catch before I hit the steering wheel. Yes, she did screw up royally. The point of the story is that the accident would have been Much worse if I had been going my "comfortable speed", and that unexpected things happen that endanger you and those around you.

My suggestion would be to enforce a Minimum speed limit. They have them on some of the roads in South Carolina, but they are usually inadeqately low and rarely enforced. Keep everyone driving the same approximate speed. As compared to Grandma driving 35 in a 65, Joe Schmoe driving 65, and other people driving "comfotable speed". At least enforce "Slower traffic keep right". How many times have we come across someone driving slower than the limit in a fast lane? Keeping people driving the same speed is much safer that many different "comfortable speeds".

In my opinion, the right to drive on a road has nothing to do with obeying the laws that govern how we drive on them. Saying, "I feel comfortable with it, so I'll drive 150 mph." I'm not comfortable with people driving like that on the same roads I'm travelling on. Using your logic I'll say, "I feel comfortable with it, so I'm not going to stop at any traffic lights or stop signs. That is no indication of a crime, just because I don't stop." Another example - you often refer to gun ownership. Our right to own a gun has nothing to do with obeying the laws that govern how we use them. I also believe in the right to keep firearms, but that does not mean that it is Okay to murder somebody because I'm "comfortable with it".

So, No, I still don't see your point. But please keep trying to enlighten me. I do have an open mind.

Skylance

I'm not debating low pay = low quality ( although I could ). I am debating the "fact" that cops have low pay. I could be wrong on this but don't most cops have to have a degree in Criminal Justice or graduate from the "Academy" before they can join the force? If so, then so much for "uneducated".

Fumanchu

You are pretty much correct. Out here in California, a career in law enforcement is a really competitive job. 100's apply and only 5-10 are selected. Since it is like this, most agencies look for the applicants with higher education and BA's or MA's even though the job only requires a high school diploma. It has taken me a year or so to finally get hired and I have a clean background, a BA in Sociology and family members in law enforcement. Thats how competitive it is. Plus after you get hired, you are sent to an military-style academy for 6 months, 12 hours a day with a lot of physical training and very hard classes. Yea, it must be a shitty job to endure all of that.


Everybody(lookingforRX7) is always an expert about law enforcement when in reality most people are clueless.

Skylance

Thanks, That's what I thought. Well, so much for the "attracts uneducated people" theory.

Barwick

You're confusing what I'm saying. If you know there is no danger to anybody else, you should be free to do it. That said, running a red light without stopping, you have NO way to ensure that nobody else is being endangered. But if you come to a stop light, there's no traffic that's blinded from your view, come to a complete stop, wait a few seconds to make SURE there's nobody coming, and go through, then you've ensured that there's nobody in danger. Cops do this all the time.

There's streets around here that should allow for this, it's a solid no left turn on red arrow (traffic in your direction has the green) ALL day, all night. During the day, traffic is so heavy that you can't make a left turn there until you get the green arrow anyhow. BUT, at night, there's zero reason for it, but you still have to sit there for about 45 seconds waiting for your left turn on green arrow. It's ridiculous.

Same thing with a gun, anybody should be able to buy a gun until they break a law that would be sufficient to remove that right from them, AND they are found guilty via due process of law (the Constitution specifically says this in the fifth amendment: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law") If they break a law that is sufficient to remove their right to carry a gun (aka not stealing a piece of bubble gum when they were twelve), then fi due process of law takes place, their right CAN be taken away from them.

Nick-7

Ok spimp I appreciate what you said in your reply, but at least spell my name right, Sweetege

badge988

For the risks we take we are under paid by a long shot however no one ever said being a cop was a glamour profession, only the brass have the spotlight.

Not only do we have degrees in criminal justice or other related education we also have to endure some rather difficult physical training along with self defense training. Now no one has ever mentioned intellegent and cop going into the same sentance however there are some exceptions to this rule and high-school dropouts are never encouraged to apply. We have to make split-second decisions based on what we see and within the bounds of the laws, its our asses that are on the lines here especially when we are dealing with the less than cooperative public. The flipside to this is we are human and do make mistakes and sometimes at the price of a life. Police work is very dynamic and difficult, spend 8 hours a day in a car doing paperwork while watching out for the bad guy and when he is found that time can turn to terror in a split second. Has it been mentioned that taking out the trash can be a real bitch?

Badge988

Skylance

No, I am not. I was using your logic. My point is and still remains - Regardless of conditions, Unexpected things happen. You may think no one else is in danger, but you can never know for certain.

Skylance

I won't argure with you on that point. Cops do put their lives on the line every day. No amount of money can pay for that. Believe it or not, some of us are thankful to have you people out there protecting and serving the community.

Barwick

Ok, you're right, you can never be sure everyone's 100% safe, even on a stretch of empty highway with no entrance ramps, or when you're sitting at a red light with no traffic around for > 1/2 mile, there's always that chance that someone could be hurt.

SO... let's make a law that it's illegal to go more than twenty-five miles per hour in any vehicle, because you never REALLY know. Well, no, because that might be dangerous in some situations too. How's about 15, yeah that's safe. No, sometimes people falling out of planes might fall right in front of you on the road and if you were going 15, you MIGHT not be able to stop... so, 5 miles per hour, yeah that's safe.

And we all have to drive cars made of rubber on the inside, filled with impact-absorbing foam on the inside, and with brittle impact-absorbing materials on the outside. And we all have to wear helmets so we don't hit our heads. Oh, and every car needs to have a maximum of seven horsepower, because that's all it takes to go 5 miles per hour.


Give me a break... you can eliminate 99.9999999% of the danger in some situations. What I said still stands...

This is a country based on FREEDOM, not on nanny government taking care of you and protecting you from every single thing that 1 out of a hundred trillion times might get someone hurt (like stopping at a red light, looking for traffic for 3-5 seconds, then going through... they do this at 4-way intersections with 2-way stop signs all the time).

Skylance

Ok. A little clarification from me may be in order.

1). You are sitting at a traffic light at nite like you said earlier. it is dark. You can NOT see everything. granted in some areas, the intersections are lighted,but not all intersections are. I'd even say that most intersections are not lighted. So, you are there, it is dark, you look up one way and down the other. A car pulls up behind you, and there is a car across the street. You don't see anything coming down the street you want to cross. Jump back in time about 5 minutes. What you don't know is that Joe just left the bar a few blocks down the road. Granted he should not be driving drunk, but he is. In his drunken stupor, the idiot forgets to put his lights on. Why? You ask, because drunk people do dumb things. Fast forward to you sitting at the intersection. Your light is red, Joe is coming down the street you want to cross. Joe sees that his light is green, so he keeps going. You don't see him, so you go for it . . . and an accident happens. Joe is dead. You barely make it out alive. Unfortunately for you, you have at least two witnesses who saw YOU run a red light. Depending on where you live, Joe may or may not have an autopsy, so no one may know that he was driving drunk. That makes the accident your fault. Think of the consequences.

2). Okay, lets assume that there is a public road that is completely abandoned. There are no exits, and no intersections for miles. You are driving alone down this road. Since you are "comfortable" with it, and since no one else is in immediate danger, you drive at 150 mph. Suddenly, a deer jumps in front of you! What is your immediate reaction? You swerve. You somehow manage to miss the deer, but since you were moving so fast, it is harder for you to regain control of your car. You lose all control of the car and are involved in a serious accident. Fortunately, no one else was injured. Now, lets say that you survive, but are seriously injured, you are now a quadrapalegic (sp?). You are now completely dependent upon your family for EVERYTHING. Even though no one else was injured, your actions have still impacted your loved ones. Let me give you another scenario. After the accident, you are dead. Yes, dead. Is that your child in the avatar? Congratulations! (s)he who will grow up never knowing his/her father!

I am not for ridiculous or stupid laws, but I am for common sense. Your actions affect others, even the ones you love the most. Like it or not, traffic laws are there to keep us from hurting others - in all circumstances.

angelck022

I didn't have time to read this whole thread but felt compelled to comment. You sir are an idiot. Baiting people like that is bullshit! You are a civil servant and as such have a responsibility to protect and serve...only service you provided was ******* these kids for life and risking an even higher speed accident...after pushing these idiots to go faster just to issue a felony-- that is F**Ked up. After you pulled them over you should have written them tickets for the speed they were going BEFORE you baited them. Granted they are retarded for racing and moreso for not spotting you as a cop--If it were me I would definitely higher a good lawyer and take this to the top.
On top of it all you come on here and try to find out if it was a kill! Wow, you're the man... talk about abuse of power...un-freakin-believable...! Hopefully your son will be irresponsible and race on the highway - get passed by an unmarked cruiser coaxing them to go faster just to get them into felony territory before pulling him over.

Madrx7racer

if by baiting you mean followed them as they sped up cuz they thought he was trying to pass them...then yes he was baiting them.

Bob_The_Normal

I love it when people think that by coming up with complicated situations that somehow the BASIC TRUTH becomes blurred? lol.

Thanks for trying the slippery slope argument, unfortunately. YOU FAIL.

1) Driving with your headlights off is illegal. So is driving drunk. Running a red light is illegal. There is ALWAYS an autopsy performed by the coroner's office on motor vehicle accident deaths, so **** that idea eh? Depending on your local laws guilt will be found. You running the red light will give you most of the blame. And it should. If you can't tell if you could see a car, even with its lights off, coming down the road... YOU DON'T GO UNESS YOU WANT TO TAKE THE RISK, AND ARE READY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. In CA. if they found out he was drunk, you'd be scott free... chalk one more up for idiot drunk dying in a car accident. **** drunk drivers. Unfortunately in REALITY, you'd die... the drunk would be fine, because his body wouldn't tense and break/fracture bones throughout his body when the car crashed. Then they'd send his stupid *** to jail. Good.

2) Risk I'm willing to take mean anything to you? Yeah, my family would be sad, my girlfriend would be sad, my friends would be sad. But if they don't understand why, and understand that THAT is HOW I AM.... then **** em, they don't get me, obviously we're not that close!

--Gary

OneRotor

iTrader: (3)

this has been an entertaining thread. lookingforrx7 is an idiot, plain and simple. I'm 20, and i've always repsected cops. they have some big brass cohones doing that job. I've had two run-ins with cops, the first was very plesant, and the other i deserved what was coming to me. the first time i got pulled over was 3 weeks after i got my license (still had the paper license), drove my sister's car for the first time ('98 escort with a 5 speed), not a quick car, but faster than the truck that i DD. 43 in a 25, 11:30 at night. no written sitation, just a "slow down please". the second time was a few weeks ago, 12:40 at night, just leaving Ann Arbor. it was wet out, and with a 5 speed and no weight over the rear end, it's hard to get traction. went for the 2-3 shift at about 35 in a 30, and my RPM's were still up when i hit 3rd. bumped to 40 and got pulled over. i deserved it, didn't fight it, just payed the $120.

I have a couple of questions for you Badge998

first, i went to school at Michigan Tech for the past two years, and if anyone here has ever driven from St. Ignas to Marquette, you know what the Sceney Stretch is. It's a stretch of road along M28 that is 25 miles long, going through a national forest, one pull off for a rest area the whole way, no roads coming into the highway, nothing. speed limit is 55, would you pull someone over for doing 90 if there was no one else around (like cruising through there at about 2am)?

second, a friend of mine was driving from Houghton to St. Ignas, and got blown away by a cop. he was doin about 65 when the cop passed him on the Sceney Stretch, so he sped up and stayed about 3/4 of a mile behind him and tailed him all the way to st. ignas. There were two cops in the front and a prisoner in the back. The cop radioed ahead to the St. Ignas police, and they pulled him over and gave him a ticket. Would you do something like that, and could he have fought it in court and had a good case for why the ticket needed to be dropped?

third, same friend was driving through the UP, going to Tech, and he was the middle car in a line of 3. There was a sport bike in front of him and an eclipse behind him. They crested a hill doing 90, and a state bull crested the hill going the opposite direction at the same time. The cop never got a lock on them, but they saw him hit his brakes right away and go for the u-turn. the bike gunned it and he was gone, the eclipse ripped it down a road and hid down there, and my friend dropped anchor and put it into a gas station. the cop came into the station, furious and yelled at my friend saying that he couldn't give him a ticket because he never got a lock on him and he got onto private property too fast. is this true, or could the cop have given him reckless driving?

badge988

Well lets see here, I know a little about michigan having driven along US-2 many times down to Macanaw following the Lakehead Pipeline on inspection duty.

Would I pull someone over for 90 in a 55 with absolutly no traffic and a clear road? Yes I would given the fact the violation is at night, how would you know if a hitchiker was down the line around the curve and in the driving lane? Would I write a violation? Boy thats a tough call in itself. If it was a straight shot and lets say you were late for work I might be inclined to give you a break as I know what its like to be late for work. Would I write for 90 MPH? doubtful.

Following a cop at his rate of speed is not a smart thing to do. Consider they have a prisoner in transport and not knowing Mich State Police procedures I would be inclined to believe they were trying to get him to jail as quickly as they could so they would be back on patrol in short order. Now for him to radio another unit to stop you was dirty pool however he had no idea if you were going to ambush them and free the suspect, these things have happened in the past. Some officers are quite paranoid and trust no one not even their extended family.

Your friend in the eclipse was quite smart but stupid. Smart in that he pulled into private property however because the violation happened on a public street he could have been papered anyway. The cop however had no real right to come and yell at him in the manner he did. Personally I would have written a complaint for his unprofessional conduct and it doesnt matter if he "had a lock" or not. Radar doesnt mean much in itself and how is he going to really prove the radar in court anyway? Ive had many radar cites thrown out because I had no hard evidence, only my word in court during the argument is taken into consideration.


Now Im going to be very honest and straightforward to you angelck022 and do not take this personally but you've earned this flame.
You sir are the idiot. If you read the first post carefully you would have seen that I did NOT bait the perps in that instance. They themselves and ONLY themselves were in control of the throttle in their car. Did I magically reach over and pull their throttle open to get them to speed up? NO! Maybe you should read the entire first post again to refresh your memory, here it is in bold so you can read it easier:

Last leg of my shift I spot 3 imports going head to head down the freeway (35W@lake south) and I estimated the speed around 80 MPH. I floor my unmarked and catch up at 38th street in very light traffic and hold with these guys for another mile to get a good speed for the records. I suspect the drivers thought my blacked out cruiser to be one of those "sporty" crown vics and they went for another 25 MPH at this point. I kept up with them while waiting for backup but didnt hit the lights. They added more to bring them past 110 MPH (felony) but I kept right up with them. Knowing where my backups were I pushed MY cruiser another 10 over them to get them into a "box" with the other marked unit behind, both of us hit our lights at the same time and left them no where to go. Nowhere did I coax them into speeding up, they did it on their own. I was following procedure for a high speed stop and not trying to push them into an all out race. What part of this did you NOT understand? You may have an issue with law enforcement officers and that is yours alone however to jump to conclusions without all of the facts is only going to feed your dislike. I hope we have an understanding here now.


I try to be fair while on duty and take alot of crap during my shift. I am NOT one of these ticket writing machines with nothing better to do than make peoples lives miserable. You maybe have had a run in with a bad cop and Im sorry that happened, yes there are bad cops around but there are also good cops who dont use the badge as a means of total control with the idea that everyone is guilty of some crime. To me this is personal, I lost a friend to a drunk driver and I have made it my job to keep the drunks off the streets. That is my primary objective however with that comes enforcing the laws as they are and as stupid as some of them are. I didnt write the laws and would rather throw some of them out however they are there for some reason or another, if I dont do my duty I dont get a paycheck simple as that.
Badge988

tomm

^Unless a cop car has its lights on and its not absolutely necessary they should be driving the posted speed limit. Off duty cops are aaaaalways sppeding around just because they think they can and because thier in a cop car. This cop thaat lives by me is always flying down my street on his way home well over the speed limit. And he seats in front of my house at speed trap and I always is pulling people over for going brely over the limit. One day he was ******* flying down my street nd he was inches from hitting a dog that was running across the street. A couple days later a kid was hit by a piece of **** cop that was off duty but driving his cruiser and he was going down a oneway street about ten miles over the limit. So cops on and off duty are defintely idiots some times and need to slow the **** down if there going to be giving out these bullshit tickets for people going barely over the limit.
Im not saying that 90 in 55 doesnt deserve aa ticket, but I would have to agree with Mazdarx7racer that you did bait them.

Barwick

You're absolutely right, and when Jupiter aligns with Saturn, and it rains .032 inches of rain on a Tuesday, on a leap year, during the month of August, and a black cat is sitting in the car you just drove by...

Dude, give me a break, first of all, if the dude didn't have his lights on at night, he's to blame, no matter where you are. And for the record, the intersection and surrounding area was lighted enough to see cars with or without lights.

And on point #2, once again, refer to the "nanny government" example. Why don't we go ahead and ban all forms of auto racing too, I mean people get hurt in Formula 1, CART, IRL, and NASCAR all the time, that should be ILLEGAL!!! Someone might get hurt.

No offense, you've got a good heart, and only want to help, but there's only so much that government is legally allowed to do. Helmet laws is NOT one of them. Seatbelt laws is NOT one of them. Mandatory seatbelts in all cars is also NOT one of them. But they do it anyway. Sorry, if I had to pick between the two, I'd rather die in a country where every individual is FREE, than live in a country where every individual is constrained by nanny government. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather live AND have a free country, but if I had to pick between the two, I'd rather have this nation be truly FREE.