Good advice. Do not, I repeat DO NOT get into a situation created by the police, then try to extract yourself from the situation they created. You might put them in a no-win situation by trying to avoid the situation they created.
Good advice. Do not, I repeat DO NOT get into a situation created by the police, then try to extract yourself from the situation they created. You might put them in a no-win situation by trying to avoid the situation they created.
Is it time for OSA tor riot?
You know what's funny? This was obviously pushed through because of those troopers on I40 got hit. The guy that hit them is bring prosecuted. It's not like the guy is getting away with it due to the lack of this law.
Not to mention even if this law were in effect, it wouldn't have stopped the guy. He was already in violation of the law.
This is exactly like the push for background checks after Newtown. It wouldn't have stopped Newtown but everyone just wanted to "do something". Wonder how many of you guys opposed BG checks but support this law?
Not to mention even if this law were in effect, it wouldn't have stopped the guy. He was already in violation of the law.
This is exactly like the push for background checks after Newtown. It wouldn't have stopped Newtown but everyone just wanted to "do something". Wonder how many of you guys opposed BG checks but support this law?
I definitely see that, the msm won't let anyone not see it. I for one though, think I am the one that is in control of myself when I encounter an officer. My own direct actions dictate how the interaction will go. If I act like an asshat, I expect to be treated like an asshat. I am also not naive enough to believe just because he's an officer, he has to be nice to me. I have no clue how his day is going up until the point we may have an interaction. Maybe he's on the last hour of a 12 hour shift, and he's 10 days into a 15 day rotation and just flat out tired and cranky? If I have an issue with the way he treats me, I'll take it up with his boss if it comes down to that. I realize there are officers that do handle situations poorly, but that isn't the "norm".
Then again, I have no plans on going out and robbing a store, and then trying to beat up an office, or being nefarious enough to gain a reputation as a drug dealer, or selling guns illegally, etc. Your average everyday law abiding citizens don't have to worry about that unless they want to wear that asshat helm, then they open the door their self for trouble.
The best solution, I think, is still a few years away but coming. That is vehicles talking to each other and preventing collisions. When we have that then people can drive down the road drunk, texting, putting on makeup or just generally having their head up their ass without danger to the rest of us.
That I don't doubt, reactive governing.
I'm personally fine with 4473's. It's not a perfect system, or a perfect world. In a perfect world, people that couldn't own guns would stay locked up and we wouldn't need them, but that doesn't happen. People shouldn't be out of prison until they are ready to be free members of society again, not a restricted member of society. We'd have to use an entire state for a prison to house all the douchbaggery that happens in this country if that were the case. That also shows the problem we have in that system, we aren't actually rehabbing these people, just throwing away a key for a set amount of time. Out of sight, out of mind. But that's the system we have.
I never said reach X age and your license is revoked, did i? And 50+ years without an accident doesn't mean a whole lot of you're faculties are going. You don't have to have a history of accidents to reach an age where you confuse the gas for the brake, either.
Requiring retesting isn't the same as guilt. In fact, i believe they can require retesting for anyone who goes to renew their license, can't they? Or is that just if you move to another state?
For the same reason that doctors don't check the prostate of 20 year olds as often as they do those of 60 year olds. With age comes different, and often more common, issues. Why is it unreasonable to reflect that same fact within our laws?
Really, though, i'm not advocating for mandatory age checks or anything like that. This topic came about by the ridiculous statement that laws should only be used to punish people after someone was caused harm, not to prevent it.
But as i said earlier, don't like the laws, don't drive.
Not without a warrant. Without the passcode on a locked, passcode enabled 4s or later iPhone you're SOL anyway. I suppose they could compel you to unlock the phone with a search warrant, but none of these seem to likely on a $200 traffic ticket.
It depends on the state, when I moved to CA I had to take their test, when I moved back to Oklahoma I simply had to show a current CA driver's license. The only other reason for a retest is if your license expires...IIRC.
As has been posted on here already, there are already distracted driving laws in place.
There are established rules of safe driving - speed limits, etc...and that's to be expected. If someone is failing to comply with that, sounds like justification for a traffic stop, and maybe more.
But - texting while driving, seatbelt laws, automatic fault for alcohol, etc....do not address the actual violation. But it makes bed-wetters and hand-wringers feel better.
