I went to high school with a girl who had Porphyria, who got dispensation for a completely tinted vehicle, special tint was added on windows of all classrooms she was in, and special filters over the lights in the ceiling. She wore long pants and long sleeves all the time, gloves, hat, had to do everything possible to minimize sunlight exposure.
Post From Vermillion Parish S. O.
- Thread starter JBP55
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
GunRelated
Well-Known Member
If you insist.
The truth of the matter is that "preventive policing", such as traffic violations, is nothing more than another tax on and means of control over the working and lower class. If you have enough money, these violations, or any other laws for that matter, mean nothing.
So, what I mean when I say, no harm, no foul, is just that.
You ask who decides what is or is not harmful. This is a question that is answered not by "whom", but by the actions and resulting effects, if any. It's a fairly simple concept.
It seems as though most people have been conditioned into believing that we must be ruled over, instead of ruling ourselves. I am not one of these people. I believe that there are mostly good people, and still yet a lot of bad people, and a lot of dumbasses. While these people may cause harm to others with or without "preventive policing", it is only with preventive policing that big daddy G gains a major advantage over its citizens.
Now, would this work? Maybe, maybe not. Yet, I would personally still choose this over the current system, with many other vast changes.
My daddy is dead. I miss him very much. However, I do not need another daddy, especially one that I know 100% does not hold my best interest at heart and is willing to treat others differently based on their financial, or situational value.
DWI laws fit under your "preventive policing" definition. Having the law in place does not force someone to not drive under the influence. Are you against that preventive police law? Do you believe that the DWI laws should be removed and people who drive under the influence should only be punished if they hurt or kill someone? There are plenty of people why drive drunk and make it home so surely that law shouldn't be there because of "no harm, no foul," right?
GunRelated
Well-Known Member
Yes. That is what I believe. Why? Because I believe the harm out weighs the good. Like all other laws, DUI laws are not applied equally. Got money? Free to DUI. Know someone? Free to DUI. Got dirt on someone? Free to DUI.
Does that mean I think everyone should be free to drive while intoxicated? No. But I do believe that the current system is not designed to save lives and is rather designed to further ruin lives and profit in the process.
GunRelated
Well-Known Member
Long story short, the system is beyond broken. I would rather wild wild West this life and live free than further pursue a broken system that is never about the rights and well-being of the individual. We make laws guised as "for your safety"; rarely, if ever, is that the truth. Parasitic in nature.
Last edited:
I believe people should be legally deterred from driving under the influence in order to attempt to minimize the loss of life. You prefer to only punish people after someone has been killed. I think we will have to agree to disagree as I don't think we will find much common ground on which to continue this conversation.
GunRelated
Well-Known Member
10-4.
Your view is excellent, in a perfect world, void of corruption. That may never be the case, but I understand why it is attractive and I understand why most people do not see things the way I do.
If this country truly cared about preventing DWI, they would be fighting to put a system in place to prevent it. There is no such system and the only “system” in place only catches you in the act.
As for the Carolina Squat, the extreme is just crazy looking, but if you can’t see over the hood, you shouldn’t be allowed to operate it.
As for tint, the police exception is simply written into the law and there is no logical reasoning for it.
As for the Carolina Squat, the extreme is just crazy looking, but if you can’t see over the hood, you shouldn’t be allowed to operate it.
As for tint, the police exception is simply written into the law and there is no logical reasoning for it.
GunRelated
Well-Known Member
That is because the system you speak of is not profitable.
Do YOU ride around at work with a vehicle that has dark tinted windows? Yes, yes you do. You have no legit reason to write a window tint ticket. I bought my vehicle stock, and put 5% all the way around EXcluding the windshield. I didn't touch the windshield so i can see at night. As far. As inspection stickers, that is just another revenue source. Stop being a hypocrite dude... So, what is the window tint situation on YOUR personal vehicle like?
As said in Sentence #1 of my previous post .. How about your unit. We both know damn well the tint on that thing is dark is fu**.... going by your previous posts, and the fact that a retired LEO has already called you out as, "that guy", you are the reason I purposely act as a dickhead when you're obviously looking for reasons to write tickets because it, what did you say? Puts icing on your cake.... YOU are the reason I'll respect the position, not the person.
hdfinder47
Ed
I do like to see the driver to determine if he / she is paying attention. But I have made eye contact with another driver and had them pull out in front of me. Was especially exciting ion the Road King!
Wow. Your anti-police bias is shining bright today. Most cops I know would prefer to give a warning over write a ticket. In most cases, if the driver shows that they realize a mistake was made and they make it seem as if they won't make the same mistake again, the purpose of the traffic stop has been satisfied and a warning is all that is needed. Now, on the other hand, it's the ones that act like, as you put it, a dickhead that are the more likely to complain. In those cases, a ticket will be written to act as a receipt for the probable cause for the traffic stop.
Perhaps you misread the post you were replying to but he never said, nor implied, he was "obviously looking for reasons to write tickets." When interacting with a driver on a traffic stop, the cop will usually be at the driver's window. That corner of the windshield is where the brake tag is located. If it's expired then it's expired. If it's fake then it's fake. The cop isn't making those things up. He's just observing things in an are where he would naturally be. If he were walking all around the car checking the tread depth of each tire, sure, he's now looking for things. But to notice something that the driver makes plainly obvious is not looking for things.
I have no doubt you will claim you are not anti-police and you will use your last line as proof. After all, if you typed it, it must be true. But the rest of your post suggests otherwise. Unless you have had interactions with that cop before, then you don't know if that cop is "that guy" or not. So to act like a "dickhead" before you do know means you do not respect the person or the position.
GunRelated
Well-Known Member
No chance would I be on a bike around town these days with all the distracted drivers. Even on back roads, you'd be taking a relatively much riskier chance every time you take a ride.
As I've said before though, visual contact with a driver is not what I personally rely on. I watch the vehicle. The driver cannot harm me, the vehicle can. Also, the driver may give a signal but in the end, it's what that vehicle does that matters. I pretend the driver does not exist because I too have had a close call trying to read another driver. I've also had drivers trying to be considerate, that will try to let me out on a 4 lane, signaling me to move, not realizing that the other lanes are not clear.
The only time a driver exists to me is when it's someone I know and I'm flipping them off to get a reaction, or just to laugh at or shake my head at the stupid things I see people doing because they choose to ride around in a fish bowl while picking their nose or something. I pick my nose right in front of people and they never know the difference.
hdfinder47
Ed
I hear ya', that was when I used to ride. Gave it up due to distracted drivers and old age - don't heal as fast as I used to. 
GunRelated
Well-Known Member
This is something I think a lot of people take issue with, I know I do for sure. There is at least one Durango in Walker that is unmarked that I see quite often handing out traffic violations. If you have to hide to do your job, you probably shouldn't be doing it at all.
I also take issue with the inspection sticker / seatbelt revenue funnels just as much as I take issue with the DUI checkpoints.
While the DUI checkpoints are flat out a 4th amendment violation in my opinion, the sticker / seatbelt checks are just tacky and very obviously a revenue stream.
The easy counter to this would be why do you have to know the police are around in order to do right?
Does it matter? The police shouldn't have to hide... This is the ONLY country, and I've been to several, where Law Enforcement actually hides from the public vs making their presence blatantly obvious.
Latest posts
-
-
WTS: Hellcat Pro Threaded Barrel + Strike Micro Threaded Comp- Latest: MichaelPopulus
-
WTS: Advantage Arms 22 Conversion kit for Glock 19 G4 with optic+ammo
- Latest: MichaelPopulus
-
-
-
