|
|
| Post Number: 31
|
Truth 
Group: Members
Posts: 552
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 14 2004,9:21 am |
|
   |
Hey dude you're alive. We were worried about you. How was the clinic? I can't remember, is Betty Ford still alive.
It's not me being biased it's called procedural law. If you stop at the library they have books there on the topic. You can also check several terrific web-sites with extensive case law and dissertation on the laws of criminal procedure. I will concede, to you, that the law may seem to have it out for you, but, that may just be paranoia getting the better of you. Trust me on the seatbelts.
--------------
The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy.
Nietzsche
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 32
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2004,9:34 am |
|
 |
| Quote |
A law enforcement officer may stop a vehicle when there exists reasonable suspicion that the driver has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime (including a traffic violation).
|
The traffic violation has to be a primary law violation and in MN it currently isn't a primary law violation to not wear your seatbelt. But there are about 4 bills ready for a vote in the senate that will make not wearing your seatbelt a primary violation in Minnesota in the 2004 session. So, by the end of the year the police in MN should be able to pull you over ticket and you for nothing more than being stupid or forgetful, even if your actions are no threat to public safety.
The police are here to protect the publics safety and to serve the public. And protecting me from my own stupidity falls way outside the realm of protecting the publics safety.
If the government continues to think up ways to tell me how to live my life, I wonder what my wife's going to do with all the free time 
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 33
|
Truth
Group: Members
Posts: 552
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2004,10:03 am |
|
|
Nice work. See and you will remeber it better because you dug up that little morsel yourself.
I don't agree, again, because driving a car is a privilege not a right. BIG DIFFERENCE. That's your next challenge...go go.
--------------
The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy.
Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 34
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2004,10:21 am |
|
|
"Hey dude you're alive. We were worried about you. How was the clinic? I can't remember, is Betty Ford still alive."---->Huh?  LOL Here we see a guy attempt to be funny by somehow making the connection between the Minnow and drugs and only end up insulting Betty Ford.  !
And furthermore, displaying ingnorance by not knowing if Betty Ford is alive, while at the sametime belittling those who seek treatment for substance abuse....as if to wish that treatment wasn't even an option and you could just incarderate all of them. 
Hrmmm...let me see...
Because driving is a priviledge--->we need a law to protect us from ourselves? Huh? LOL I don't follow your logic.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 35
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2004,11:01 am |
|
|
| Quote |
don't agree, again, because driving a car is a privilege not a right. BIG DIFFERENCE. That's your next challenge...go go.
|
You're right driving is a privilege, just like smoking in public is a privilege. But, apparently you only want to respect property rights of certain individuals and not others.
If I use your logic the govt. should have no right to tell me not to smoke in a restaraunt where I may infringe on the rights of others. But, they should be able to tell me to strap myself in a car when not doing so would never infringe on the rights of another person?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 36
|
MrTarzan
Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2004,11:46 am |
|
|
Maybe someone, like me, should start a thread about seatbelt laws. Supersizing only affects seatbelts if you get too fat to wear one.
--------------
Be not simply good, be good for something-Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 37
|
Truth
Group: Members
Posts: 552
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2004,5:46 pm |
|
|
Liberal, as your name implies you just don't get it.
Like a torch cutting into the sheet metal of liberal deceit and confusion, Truth now has the floor.
Driving on our public roads is a privilege. Smoking in public place is your choice to make. When you are in someone else's home or business you do not have the eminent right to smoke or start any kind of fire for that matter. Like-wise the government only has limited authority to control what happens on or inside private property. Liberal you have confused public and private property rights. Sure the government could outlaw smoking in public places but, we (the true government have the "RIGHT" to stop it.) Once again I say unto you, if you don't like smoke in businesses, don't go into those were you will encounter it.
This is very simple. A greater threat to public safety or breach of law is required for the government to enter into the private sector and mandate change. That is not the case in public places. However, operating a motorvehicle is entirely different because you are entering into an area of law that controls the use of a privately owned piece of property being operated on a publicly owned roadway. Think of it this way. Do you have the right to operate your car on your own property without a seatbelt....yes. Why? Because you're not on the public roadway. On the public roadway we (you and I the voters) have decided you need a seatbelt. See? There's nothing wrong with my logic because in truth there can be only one logic. Logic by definition is not mine, it is of its own.
I just get it.
--------------
The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy.
Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 38
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2004,7:15 pm |
|
|
Your public/private property argument makes about as much sense as your definition of logic.
The MN state seatbelt law makes no distinction between public and private. I can get ticketed for not wearing my seatbelt (as long as I commit a moving violation also) in Wal-marts parking lot just as easily as I can on broadway.
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/169/686.html
| Quote |
Logic by definition is not mine, it is of its own.
|
Look up the word in the dictionary you'll see you're wrong about that too.
Definition of logic
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 39
|
Truth
Group: Members
Posts: 552
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2004,7:37 pm |
|
|
In Minnesota the only traffic laws that are enforceable on private property are DUI and wreckless driving.
You are looking under the seatbelt statute. The application of MSS chapter 169 is not established strictly by the language of each code section. There are procedural conciderations you are not taking into account when you are looking strictly at 169.686. Check the opening definitions and scope of chapter 169 as well Minnesota case law. I will research the case law and provide a link when I find a few good ones.
Logic-inescapable relationship and pattern of events: the relationship between certain events, situations, or objects, and the inevitable consequences of their interaction. Encarta
I'm not refering to theoretical logic. I'm telling you about the causal relationships of the individual points of our arguments. Be sure to read the entire definition next time. In the context of our discussion it is you, sir or madam, who is incorrect.
--------------
The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy.
Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 40
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2004,8:15 pm |
|
|
What a load of gobligook...BS. Are you high?
"On the public roadway we (you and I the voters) have decided you need a seatbelt"--->That's incorrect. Big insurance bought Washington--->Washington extorted the states with threats of less $$$.----->Yes, I do see.
Your logic makes as much sense as outlawing Big Macs because it may somehow...in some way affect your pocketbook through increased health premiums. We don't make laws to protect ourselves from ourselves in order for big insurance to pocket a couple more clams. See?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
