On Saturday 10 October 2009, David Hardy wrote: > Yes, I believe "shakedown" is the appropriate term here for this activity; > I myself was on The Job up until 23 years ago and the only time we stopped > anyone in another jurisdiction was if we were in "close pursuit." We > certainly never set up speed-traps in those towns. My, how times have > changed, between this and the ever more frequent frivolous use of tasers and > shootings. State cops in marked cars sitting in speed traps either picking out the lone motorist who's usually driving on roads they know like the back of their hand in the middle of the night when they are the only car on the road; or sitting on the interstate watching 10 cars speeding by and picking the most apparent, or easiest from the bunch.
Yep, a shakedown that enriches the coffers of their toy-chest and the insurance companies. But when that $171 ticket ends up costing them $500 in administration and time, the value-proposition shifts dramatically. If more people contested tickets maybe the state would ease up on frivolous stops. If cops are actually going to live up the their "public safety" label, then they need to stop being the bagman for the State. Some cops, after they've ascertained that I'm a sober, if speedy, citizen - will actually warm up a bit and often agree with me. "I'm just doing my job", when combined with the mandate of quotas (i don't know if quota systems exist here), make it clear that it all boils down to mooks and 'good guys' in their eyes. I've been doing drug reform advocacy and in many places LEA attitudes are starting to turn, slow as it is. Since drug reform encompasses transit issues it is conjoined to driving (under an influence). I say people should be held fully accountable for their actions. I don't care if someone has been drinking, taking prescription meds, dodging a frog in the road; if they lose control of their vehicle and it causes damage then they lose the priv of driving for an appropriate length of time. No "This is the 10th suspension for ......" and they are still on the road. Ever consider how many people driving under some influence manage to ever make it home? Well, they do, more than are ever cited. Speed limit signs would be more effective as a courtesy. "Please" on every one. In some parts of the world, enlightened minds have gotten rid of them completely and motoring is actually safer. I was a city cabby in NYC, Denver and Boston and you know what; at every interection where a traffic light was broken people actually got thru intact, like water finding its own level. They were more conscious of their surroundings. My assertion is that laws (DMV) prevent citizens from both exercising their best judgments AND holding themselves accountable for their bad decisions. I'm actually looking forward to my next citation. I have legal counsel and 30 pages of arguments just on the constitutionality of motor vehicle laws themselves. Watching that go through the courts will be worth the price of the fine anytime :) Happy to take this off-list if you'd like to continue the conversation. > > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Rion D'Luz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thursday 08 October 2009, Paul Flint wrote: > > > Dear Tony, > > > > > > Maybe this topic is best layed to rest now... > > > > > -- 3010 Rte 109 Waterville, VT 05492 email: rion_at_dluz.com web: http://dluz.com/Rion/ AIM/Jabber/Google: riondluz Phone: 802.644.2255 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/6/126/769 Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens'? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
