To Protect and to Serve II

#7,428
#7,428
YankeeVol said:
I've seen a lot of dumb s*** on VN, but this takes the cake.
Click to expand...
Freedom is dangerous. How does the state extorting cash from someone who hasn’t harmed anyone helpful? As I stated, if there are victims, fine, lock the person up or let him pay restitution to the actual victim of the crime, not the state. The state is not a victim here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToineMac
#7,431
#7,431
davethevol said:
Many states have said that their is no obligation to identify yourself unless you are suspected of a crime, and that being a passenger in a vehicle in which the driver has been pulled over for a driving infraction does not require the passengers to identify themselves. I know it’s different in each state.
Click to expand...
To explain the basis of my statement:

Most states tend to track SCOTUS.

SCOTUS has held that LEOs can ask anybody for ID with reasonable suspicion. That seems pretty obvious but somebody challenged it. I think the case was Hiider. They noted in the case that asking for ID was a de minimus intrusion into the person’s privacy. So I think the question left open is whether they can do it without suspicion.

They’ve held in Pennsylvania v. Mimms (one of the worst decisions ever, IMO) that the police can order the driver out of the car and frisk them without suspicion or any nexus to the pretext for the stop. The reasoning was based on officer safety to protect them not only from the driver, but also from oncoming traffic.

They’ve also held in Brendlin v. California that a passenger of a car is seized along with the driver. That doesn’t violate the passenger’s rights. So to some extent the passenger is subject to some slight intrusion along with the driver.

So the government would need to draw a connection between some compelling government interest, like officer safety, and knowing the identity of the passenger. Courts tend to defer pretty heavily to the police on what they think is necessary to do their jobs safely.

Just doing some google research, it looks the first circuit has already said made this connection, but I didn’t check to see their reasoning.
 
#7,432
#7,432
I’ll propose a scenario. Let’s say a man is drunk and drives into a private citizens fence, destroying it. To me, the issue is between the driver and the property owner. The property owner is the victim here. Why shouldn’t the two parties exchange insurance info and that be the end of it? Why does the state have to show up with their enforcers (police) and arrest the driver and extort him out of thousands of dollars the actual fence owner will never see? The most likely answer is it’s used as a deterrent. Let’s see, upwards of 35,000 people are killed on American roadways every year. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing we do on a daily basis. People drive drunk every day, it’s unenforceable. This attitude simply leads to checkpoints and other losses of liberty.

My Aunt was killed by a drunk driver back in 1990. I would never dream of advocating for more laws to make the alcohol content of someone’s blood a crime. Life is full of tragic situations and it is very fragile, but so is freedom.
 
#7,437
#7,437
RockyTop85 said:
To explain the basis of my statement:

Most states tend to track SCOTUS.

SCOTUS has held that LEOs can ask anybody for ID with reasonable suspicion. That seems pretty obvious but somebody challenged it. I think the case was Hiider. They noted in the case that asking for ID was a de minimus intrusion into the person’s privacy. So I think the question left open is whether they can do it without suspicion.

They’ve held in Pennsylvania v. Mimms (one of the worst decisions ever, IMO) that the police can order the driver out of the car and frisk them without suspicion or any nexus to the pretext for the stop. The reasoning was based on officer safety to protect them not only from the driver, but also from oncoming traffic.

They’ve also held in Brendlin v. California that a passenger of a car is seized along with the driver. That doesn’t violate the passenger’s rights. So to some extent the passenger is subject to some slight intrusion along with the driver.

So the government would need to draw a connection between some compelling government interest, like officer safety, and knowing the identity of the passenger. Courts tend to defer pretty heavily to the police on what they think is necessary to do their jobs safely.

Just doing some google research, it looks the first circuit has already said made this connection, but I didn’t check to see their reasoning.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply, because that definitely provides a lot of insight.
 
#7,441
#7,441
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I’ll propose a scenario. Let’s say a man is drunk and drives into a private citizens fence, destroying it. To me, the issue is between the driver and the property owner. The property owner is the victim here. Why shouldn’t the two parties exchange insurance info and that be the end of it? Why does the state have to show up with their enforcers (police) and arrest the driver and extort him out of thousands of dollars the actual fence owner will never see? The most likely answer is it’s used as a deterrent. Let’s see, upwards of 35,000 people are killed on American roadways every year. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing we do on a daily basis. People drive drunk every day, it’s unenforceable. This attitude simply leads to checkpoints and other losses of liberty.

My Aunt was killed by a drunk driver back in 1990. I would never dream of advocating for more laws to make the alcohol content of someone’s blood a crime. Life is full of tragic situations and it is very fragile, but so is freedom.
Click to expand...

Sorry about your Aunt. I hope the offender answered for their crime. Yes, it was a crime.

So...no personal injury, no foul, right? Okay...you walk into a bank; show a robbery note; never show a weapon; and walk out with a bag of money. Customers in the bank didn't even know it was a robbery until after you left.

Civil matter, right? No one was hurt. The bank is the victim here, not the State.

Hmmmm.......
 
#7,442
#7,442
DancingOutlaw said:
How does the law protect you from ANYTHING? It’s like a gun free zone sign.
Click to expand...
If you don’t think that DUI laws have deterred people getting smashed and driving behind the wheel, then I don’t know how we could have a reasonable discussion. We just disagree with the very principle of your argument here and neither of us are going to convince the other any differently. I against most over policing, but with DUI enforcement, I just feel differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496 and marcusluvsvols
#7,443
#7,443
GreyWolf1129 said:
Sorry about your Aunt. I hope the offender answered for their crime. Yes, it was a crime.

So...no personal injury, no foul, right? Okay...you walk into a bank; show a robbery note; never show a weapon; and walk out with a bag of money. Customers in the bank didn't even know it was a robbery until after you left.

Civil matter, right? No one was hurt. The bank is the victim here, not the State.

Hmmmm.......
Click to expand...
I believe theft is a crime in every state.
 
#7,445
#7,445
GreyWolf1129 said:
Sorry about your Aunt. I hope the offender answered for their crime. Yes, it was a crime.

So...no personal injury, no foul, right? Okay...you walk into a bank; show a robbery note; never show a weapon; and walk out with a bag of money. Customers in the bank didn't even know it was a robbery until after you left.

Civil matter, right? No one was hurt. The bank is the victim here, not the State.

Hmmmm.......
Click to expand...
Not sure if you technically want to go down this road using that example. The money that bank has is just an electronic entry.

You cant rob money from somebody that has access to a printing press.
 
#7,448
#7,448
BearCat204 said:
If you don’t think that DUI laws have deterred people getting smashed and driving behind the wheel, then I don’t know how we could have a reasonable discussion. We just disagree with the very principle of your argument here and neither of us are going to convince the other any differently. I against most over policing, but with DUI enforcement, I just feel differently.
Click to expand...
I don’t think DUI laws stop anyone from drinking and driving any more than homicide laws stop murder. There are plenty of stories of people getting their 8th or 10th or 15th DUI. Texting and driving leads to far more accidents and fatalities than DUI, shall we start chucking those people in jail as well?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tumscalcium
#7,449
#7,449
DancingOutlaw said:
I don’t think DUI laws stop anyone from drinking and driving any more than homicide laws stop murder. There are plenty of stories of people getting their 8th or 10th or 15th DUI. Texting and driving leads to far more accidents and fatalities than DUI, shall we start chucking those people in jail as well?
Click to expand...

Indeed. You’re more than twice as likely to be killed by a sober driver than one with any alcohol in their system. I’m not advocating for drinking and driving, just pointing out a fact. 30% of all fatalities involve alcohol. 70% don’t.
 
#7,450
#7,450
DancingOutlaw said:
I don’t think DUI laws stop anyone from drinking and driving any more than homicide laws stop murder. There are plenty of stories of people getting their 8th or 10th or 15th DUI. Texting and driving leads to far more accidents and fatalities than DUI, shall we start chucking those people in jail as well?
Click to expand...
Rasputin_Vol said:
Not sure if you technically want to go down this road using that example. The money that bank has is just an electronic entry.

You cant rob money from somebody that has access to a printing press.
Click to expand...

Solid post, Ras. You just eliminated our entire national debt.

Send Xi Ping, or whatever his name is, a full moon shot. We're back in the black.

:cool:

Honestly, I've never liked someone so much that I disagreed with so often.

Well, except for my bride...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top