UPDATE x2: Could someone show me why I'm wrong?

Recommended Videos

dwightsteel

New member
Feb 7, 2007
962
0
0
Kwil said:
dwightsteel said:
I didn't mean to imply that a lack of seatbelt would warrant a full car search. I merely meant to imply it gives them cause to pull you over. Once you're on the side of the road, the cop can and will get away with whatever he wants. If you think I'm being overly paranoid, then I can refer you to me. I can think of three different times, in three different cities, where I was pulled over for random variances (ironically, none of them having anything to do with my lack of seatbelt) and in each of those instances, the police claimed they smelled marijuana in the car or alcohol on my breath, and not on any of those occasions were any of those claims true. As a matter of fact, the single time they made the alcohol claim, they didn't even bother to do a field sobriety test. He merely used it as an excuse to search my car. I fully believe that the biggest part of the reason that this has become law was to help circumvent the 4th amendment. You're absolutely right, I don't like the idea that this law get abused, and believe me, it does. But the fact still remains that with the safety standards on new model cars increasing with the rapidity they are, this law is an 80 year-too-late solution to a problem of self control.
If something keeps happening, you should look for the common factor.
Different officers. Different cities. Different times. Common factor = you.

How badly do you drive?
My friend, the first time I was pulled over was for not stopping at a stop sign for 3 seconds. The state I was in, clearly stated in it's statutes that the vehicle was to "come to a complete stop".
The second time was because a police officer told me that I was going 37 mph in a 35mph zone. The third was because while I was turning a corner, my wheel went maybe an inch over the hard yellow line.

There wasn't a legitimate stop in anyone of those incidents, and I was searched all three times. They had no grounds to even giving me a ticket, because had they, I would have sued for harassment.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Having been in a car crash: even with the seatbelt on, my glasses were flung from my face to land beneath the other's seat, I was knocked unconscious from the blow and had whiplash for 2 months.

Had I not been wearing the seatbelt, my internal organs would have been minced by my ribcage folding in as I struck the bonnet.

Like a number of things, you give up a little freedom to have the freedom to live.
 

runtheplacered

New member
Oct 31, 2007
1,472
0
0
dwightsteel said:
Kwil said:
dwightsteel said:
I didn't mean to imply that a lack of seatbelt would warrant a full car search. I merely meant to imply it gives them cause to pull you over. Once you're on the side of the road, the cop can and will get away with whatever he wants. If you think I'm being overly paranoid, then I can refer you to me. I can think of three different times, in three different cities, where I was pulled over for random variances (ironically, none of them having anything to do with my lack of seatbelt) and in each of those instances, the police claimed they smelled marijuana in the car or alcohol on my breath, and not on any of those occasions were any of those claims true. As a matter of fact, the single time they made the alcohol claim, they didn't even bother to do a field sobriety test. He merely used it as an excuse to search my car. I fully believe that the biggest part of the reason that this has become law was to help circumvent the 4th amendment. You're absolutely right, I don't like the idea that this law get abused, and believe me, it does. But the fact still remains that with the safety standards on new model cars increasing with the rapidity they are, this law is an 80 year-too-late solution to a problem of self control.
If something keeps happening, you should look for the common factor.
Different officers. Different cities. Different times. Common factor = you.

How badly do you drive?
My friend, the first time I was pulled over was for not stopping at a stop sign for 3 seconds. The state I was in, clearly stated in it's statutes that the vehicle was to "come to a complete stop".
The second time was because a police officer told me that I was going 37 mph in a 35mph zone. The third was because while I was turning a corner, my wheel went maybe an inch over the hard yellow line.

There wasn't a legitimate stop in anyone of those incidents, and I was searched all three times. They had no grounds to even giving me a ticket, because had they, I would have sued for harassment.
Actually, the guy you're replying to has a good point that you somehow dodged with some anecdote which turns out to be a little hard to believe. There's so many factors in your story that you could be misremembering, exaggerating, or completely leaving out. It definitely proves nothing. The guy you're replying to makes complete sense to me. There has to be some reason why you are getting pulled over for stupid reasons.
 

Xbowhyena

New member
Jan 26, 2009
335
0
0
If you don't put on your seat belt before you start the car, you're very unintelligent. If you don't put in on in morning commuting in a large town where you will ALWAYS have at least 15 minutes sitting at red lights, you're retarded. Two seconds guys.... 2 seconds....
 

Simalacrum

Resident Juggler
Apr 17, 2008
5,204
0
0
one's safety should come before individual safety.

therefore, losing all our human rights to protect us from terrorism is perfectly reasonable!

yes ^^
 

Dele

New member
Oct 25, 2008
552
0
0
Kwil said:
Now, let's get to the heart of your question, which is really the old libertarian thing of "Why can society dictate what I do." The answer is because society is a package deal. You like the protections, services, and capabilities that being in a civilized society provides you, you have to undertake some of the restrictions. It's called compromise.

Don't like it? Move to somewhere where there aren't laws or restrictions. Emigration is still allowed, and there are places, such as remote regions of Africa, or certain areas of Afghanistan, where there isn't a recognized rule of law to restrict you. Funnily enough, these places usually suck.
So it's a deal now? Something shoved down your throat through blackmailing and coercion doesn't sound a lot like the definition I have for deals. You are correct that we lucky ones have our ability to choose our society, yet we cannot choose to not be part of it. I would like to raise a similiar situation in Egypt, where you can choose what religion you belong to, BUT you cannot choose to not belong to any religion at all.
 

Spartan Bannana

New member
Apr 27, 2008
3,032
0
0
Agayek said:
Spartan Bannana said:
The Rockerfly said:
Spartan Bannana said:
Well if you stop enforcing a law there, where does it end?
Isn't murder a personal choice as well? And rape? Everything is personal choice, friend, because we have free will.
I think getting rid of seatbelts is a long way from murder or rape and those things are affecting other people, while wearing a seatbelt isn't. Also you don't need that many commas in your post.
No matter how far off murder and rape are from seatbelts, it's still personal choice.
Also, 3 commas in my post, all used correctly; not that many.
The difference between them, in the context of this argument, is that one harms only the self, while the others harm others. The entire crux of the argument as presented here is that the government should not be protecting stupid people from doing stupid things and getting themselves killed.
As I read it, the OP's main argument seemed to be that it was personal choice to do either wear or not wear your seatbelt.