We are about to have a Texting while driving law

[Eagle Eye]

think about it. Your argument is no one was victimized by an incidence of texting while driving, yet you get fined for it, then you are the victim. Your right was infringed.
I am supporting your logic.

But, in the real world (since this is a law now), you would have broken a law and therefore you would no longer be the victim

 

[soonerwings]

So is the crime speeding, or killing the kid?
I think a page or three ago, it was acknowledged that some traffic laws are expected and reasonable. But that's cool if you need to spin it to make the argument.

Well, if you want the technical answer, it's that the CRIME is killing the kid. "Violations" (of "public welfare/safety" statutes) don't meet the definition of CRIME as there is no mens rea required for guilt. They don't rise to the level of a misdemeanor or felony.

However, that wasn't the point of my post. The point of my sarcasm directed at sh00ter was that he's an ardent opponent of preventive laws...right up to the point that he finds one he likes. If you're going to take a stand on principle that all preventive laws are bad for liberty, then that stand should apply to all laws, and not just the ones you don't like.

 

[excat]

I understand now that Ted's victim is in fact Ted.

For things like this, I see a lot of the issue as some people just live under a rock. I understand the entire premise of live and let live, mind your own business, all that good stuff. I don't disagree with it at all either. There also is a line that has to be drawn between leaving something be, and some type of preventative measure.

I would argue that the people opposed to this law, are people that seldom see this happen, on a regular basis. "living under a rock". Just becuase they don't see the issue, the issue isn't real to them, sadly. There's 100's of dead teenagers parent's out there I bet wish their kid got pulled over for texting while driving, and got that $200 ticket to open their eyes. I bet there is equally the same amount of parentless kids out there that wish their parent would have gotten pulled over and a ticket, so every time they pulled their phone out, they would have that reminder as well.

 

[donner]

i guess drunk drivers shouldn't be charged with anything until they injure or kill someone. I mean, up until then, it is a victimless crime. Or is that one of the reasonable traffic laws we're okay with?

Also, can anyone explain why drunk driving isn't covered under the 'distracted' or 'negligent' driving laws? Why did we have to separate out DUI from every other issue? I mean, surely it wasn't to draw more attention to the issue/ establish stiffer penalties for a particular infraction and to try to dissuade the activity. Right?

 

[Eagle Eye]

I am not against this law. I was merely saying that i understand the logic of Ted and Henschmen (and others i forget to mention).
understanding does not mean i believe in it now.
I think there are certain rights that may be infringed on like the right to text and drive.

In this society we have to pick and choose the rights that we are willing to loose and those we are not.
But, I think this is the consequence of living in a civilized society. unfortunately this system seems to work in the favor of some and not others. What about all those mothers who lost their children to texting drivers. It seems that their voice was not heard until the incidence with the police and a texting driver.

SO, until the right person (a person in a position of power) suffers from another's negligence, nothing will be done

Just some thoughts. I am learning a lot from this discussion

 

[soonerwings]

I sure hope so.
Someone's gonna be bringing my victim out, any minute now....

You know, in Probate Law there's something called the "best evidence" principle that is somewhat of a misnomer. The gist is that the person that had the best evidence of the decedent's intent is now dead.

YOU would be the person with the best evidence of your victim, but if you're intentionally paying attention to a glowing screen and pushing buttons on it, then your eyes and awareness aren't on the road. The person with the best evidence (YOU) can't even be certain that there wasn't a victim. If someone had to brake, swerve, or speed up to avoid you, you may not know.

If you don't even know whether there was a victim or not, it seems unfair to ask people who weren't on the scene to find one.

 

[donner]

I am not against this law. I was merely saying that i understand the logic of Ted and Henschmen.
understanding does not mean i believe in it now.
I think there are certain rights that may be infringed on like the right to text and drive.

In this society we have to pick and choose the rights that we are willing to loose and those we are not.

i didn't think driving was considered a right, though. Is it?

 

[soonerwings]

With arguements like this, I bet this thread hits 30 pages soon, if not more....

It's certainly more fun than the health law studying that I'm supposed to be focused on. God Bless lawyers like JB that handle PI and Tort type cases. I detest that crap, but I see the need for it.

 

[Eagle Eye]

i didn't think driving was considered a right, though. Is it?

It is a right granted to those of a certain age with the mental and physical capabilities of performing the task.

 

[farmerbyron]

Well, if you want the technical answer, it's that the CRIME is killing the kid. "Violations" (of "public welfare/safety" statutes) don't meet the definition of CRIME as there is no mens rea required for guilt. They don't rise to the level of a misdemeanor or felony.

However, that wasn't the point of my post. The point of my sarcasm directed at sh00ter was that he's an ardent opponent of preventive laws...right up to the point that he finds one he likes. If you're going to take a stand on principle that all preventive laws are bad for liberty, then that stand should apply to all laws, and not just the ones you don't like.

So you support firearms confiscation? I mean the absence of firearms would certainly reduce firearm deaths. Look around the world and see how few firearms deaths occur in countries with little firearms ownership.

What, you support preventative laws until you find one you disagree with?