Virginia legislature passes bill preventing cops from stopping cars with no headlights, brake lights, etc

[Saltwater60]

Then they will bitch where’s our revenue. Any cop that writes a ticket today is a moron. That would be my protest.

 

[spat]

Rules are predecessors of law, rules are required to have a functioning society, the smaller society's had rules , they needed them to survive. . larger society have laws, they need them to function. The nature of society is to have rules or laws . You cannot have one without them . In other words absolute freedom does not, nor ever did exist in a society . with the exception of hermit type characters like yourself Rules and laws are necessary for society.

What we call laws are just rules enforced by the government. They are a bit arrogant and call them laws and we follow along, but they aren't really laws.

Real laws *cannot* be broken, and if you think you found a way to do it, it just means you didn't understand the law.

Gravity is a law.

Supply and demand is a law.

Conservation of energy is a law.

Try and violate them at your peril.

 

[spat]

I'm hoping this pandemic hoax steers more people in the right direction though.

It will do the opposite.

Already half the sheep are bleating "thank god for FUAC's leadership, we could have been in real trouble".

 

[holdover]

What we call laws are just rules enforced by the government. They are a bit arrogant and call them laws and we follow along, but they aren't really laws.

Real laws *cannot* be broken, and if you think you found a way to do it, it just means you didn't understand the law.

Gravity is a law.

Supply and demand is a law.

Conservation of energy is a law.

Try and violate them at your peril.

Your wife says you cant go out Friday with your friends Try and violate them at your peril.

 

[spat]

Your wife says you cant go out Friday with your friends Try and violate them at your peril.

Oh, you can go out.

It's getting back in that's the challenge

 

[Jezman]

And then you went on to post 2 crimes with blatant victims. A loss of property and a loss of life.

Ok so there were victims in those examples and crimes were committed and laws were broken. So if a law is broken purposely then there needs to be recourse?

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

So if a law is broken purposely then there needs to be recourse?

Um. Of course? On another note... I see some people keep posting about the need for laws, rules, whatever you want to call them in society. I don't think anyone in this whole thread has advocated otherwise. That's would be anarchy. No one has said they want 0 rules/laws.

 

[Darth]

So if a law is broken purposely then there needs to be recourse?

That would depend on the law.

Saying "FUAC" and having 30 round magazines? Of course not.

 

[holdover]

Um. Of course? On another note... I see some people keep posting about the need for laws, rules, whatever you want to call them in society. I don't think anyone in this whole thread has advocated otherwise. That's would be anarchy. No one has said they want 0 rules/laws.

They said victimless crimes are not crimes . and the government is overreaching specifically in the cases of traffic safety.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

They said victimless crimes are not crimes . and the government is overreaching specifically in the cases of traffic safety.

Maybe better wording would be victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes? I don't know if we're just playing word games here. Anything that's a crime is of course so because somewhere along the way a group of people declared it so.

 

[Truebeliever]

Running a red light and defective headlights are the same class of violation.

You are arguing that red light and speed cameras don't work.

Then we should get rid of them all.

I’m against red light camera and speed cameras. Unlike a cop who can ticket the driver, the owner of the car can get a huge number of tickets without ever knowing before they arrive in the mail. The owner can’t correct the situation until it’s too late.

 

[Podmonkey]

Now get rid of vehicle inspections and registrations.

 

[Truebeliever]

Except these concepts are in active practice some places and the world doesn't end.

It has been proven that the apocalypse predicted without the nanny state dictating our every move doesn't occur.

The statists all say "without this law everyone will drive 200mph and everyone will die" Then the libertarians point out that some places *don't* have speed limits, and people manage to find a reasonable speed to drive all on their own anyway. And the statists just ignore the giant 800 lb gorilla of a counter example and go on about how we'll all die without FUAC dictating every detail of our lives.

I remember a discussion on the old forum with some NYC cop that was only around for a month or so.

He said "you think people should be able to have tanks and fighter planes ? Imagine all the damage they could do ?"

I linked to a website showing actual fully functional tanks for sale, and showed him the number of FAA registered MIG fighter jets in private hands in the US and said "We've got lots that now, they're not hurting anyone".

He was unable to accept the idea that it was possible for people to act responsibly without government involved in every aspect.

IIRC his response was something along the lines of "tanks and fighter jets, you guys are nuts" despite the clear evidence right in front of his face to the contrary.

Are you against speed limits or just what the limit is. Without an actual speed limit , how would one prove the person was reckless driving? Someone doing 120 mph where the speed limit is 35 for example.

 

[Truebeliever]

Why not ?

The ultimate goal would be for *no* interaction with police until there is a citizen complaint, about anything. Sit in your station eating chili till you get a call like the firemen.

If the citizen can provide sufficient video evidence and it isn’t an arrestable offense, why even leave the station ?

It would probably cut down on road rage a lot.


Instead of tryong to smash the other guys car, the enraged driver would be "wait till I get home and upload this dash cam footage, he'll regret cutting me off then...."

So the police Officer doesn’t have the right to see the violation but the citizen does? That’s a denial of citizens rights to that officer, huh?
They have police like that in Europe where they don’t patrol. Crime is rampant especially crimes like pickpocking, burglary etc.

Criminals know how long it takes the police to get to the location from the stationhouse and plan according.

You would rather have electronic surveillance than human interaction, If you think the government is intrusive now, wait for that type of enforcement .
Most actual crimes aren’t caught on video. And with the type of electronic surveillance you are thinking of, that is privately owned , it’s only 35 dollars to buy a device that would defeat most of the private DIY systems. It disrupts the WiFI.
You don’t think those devices would become popular if that’s the only way they would get caught. Heck, most criminals now were hoodies to cover their faces from video surveillance now.

 

[repete]

When you are on the job there is nothing stopping you from driving 100mph at night with your lights off.

Umm, I hate to say this but way back when I was a teen it was the 'thing' to do! Back road one car sometimes two side by side and just try to ignore those huge oak and maple trees lining both sides. Usually it was about the speed limit (55) but sometimes...
So yeah we do have and need the laws.

 

[spat]

Are you against speed limits or just what the limit is. Without an actual speed limit , how would one prove the person was reckless driving? Someone doing 120 mph where the speed limit is 35 for example.

They manage to make it work elsewhere.

Speed is a terrible way to decide whether someone is driving recklessly.

It's very easy, which is why we do it, but it is a very bad way to do it.

Just like setting an age limit and pretending it is a measurement of how responsible someone is.

75 can be reckless or perfectly safe on the same stretch of road depending on circumstances.

Saying "65 is safe and 75 is reckless" is just stupid.

100 is probably fine on that stretch of road on a sunny summer day, and 40 would be reckless in the middle of a blizzard.

 

[spat]

Umm, I hate to say this but way back when I was a teen it was the 'thing' to do! Back road one car sometimes two side by side and just try to ignore those huge oak and maple trees lining both sides. Usually it was about the speed limit (55) but sometimes...
So yeah we do have and need the laws.

We had those laws back then, and you did it anyway right ?

So, what was the point again ?

 

[Truebeliever]

They manage to make it work elsewhere.

Speed is a terrible way to decide whether someone is driving recklessly.

It's very easy, which is why we do it, but it is a very bad way to do it.

Just like setting an age limit and pretending it is a measurement of how responsible someone is.

75 can be reckless or perfectly safe on the same stretch of road depending on circumstances.

Saying "65 is safe and 75 is reckless" is just stupid.

100 is probably fine on that stretch of road on a sunny summer day, and 40 would be reckless in the middle of a blizzard.

They “make it work” in other places because they allow subjective “ feelings” into their court rooms. Go study their justice systems. Guilty until proven innocent is often how those places work.

 

[spat]

So the police Officer doesn’t have the right to see the violation but the citizen does? That’s a denial of citizens rights to that officer, huh?
They have police like that in Europe where they don’t patrol. Crime is rampant especially crimes like pickpocking, burglary etc.

Criminals know how long it takes the police to get to the location from the stationhouse and plan according.

You would rather have electronic surveillance than human interaction, If you think the government is intrusive now, wait for that type of enforcement .
Most actual crimes aren’t caught on video. And with the type of electronic surveillance you are thinking of, that is privately owned , it’s only 35 dollars to buy a device that would defeat most of the private DIY systems. It disrupts the WiFI.
You don’t think those devices would become popular if that’s the only way they would get caught. Heck, most criminals now were hoodies to cover their faces from video surveillance now.

Police don't generally catch real criminals in the act now.

When was the last time you caught a pick pocket in the act ?

Or do you usually show up after and take a report.

It's your idea that cops are going to be everywhere at once *stopping crimes as they happen* that's the fantasy.

 

[spat]

They “make it work” in other places because they allow subjective “ feelings” into their court rooms. Go study their justice systems. Guilty until proven innocent is often how those places work.

Like Montana ?

 

[Truebeliever]

Police don't generally catch real criminals in the act now.

When was the last time you caught a pick pocket in the act ?

Or do you usually show up after and take a report.

It's your idea that cops are going to be everywhere at once *stopping crimes as they happen* that's the fantasy.

Actually I have. I have also caught shoplifters and interrupted robberies as they began. And burglary suspects before anyone called 911.

 

[Truebeliever]

Like Montana ?

Montana has speed limits.

 

[spat]

Actually I have. I have also caught shoplifters and interrupted robberies as they began. And burglary suspects before anyone called 911.

The question isn't "does it happen". The point is that most of the time it's the opposite.

You have to admit, the vast majority of shoplifters are "private security calls you and supplies video evidence they took with their own cameras".

That is the model I am advocating. Not something outrageous, just the existing model that's used all the time expanded a bit.

 

[spat]

Montana has speed limits.

Off and on again.

There is no apocalypse when they don’t have them.