Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hodar
I agree 100%. But, do you want to give this authority to a person over the age of 18 who has completed the manditory police training, to use 'at will' however they see fit? Ever get a ticket you thought was unfair? How about having your car 'seized' for daring to look the officer in the eyes. I saw nothing in this article about 'decibel measurements', the level of sound tolerance is left completely up to the whim of the officer. Would you give an angry Muslim this type of power over your life and your possessions? No? Why would you give this power to anyone?

Actually you have to be over 21 to become a law enforcement officer in my city, I think 21 is too young/immature, 25 seems to be an appropriate age. There used to be a time when young people had more respect for others and the police, when some rules could be enforced by a simple raising of the eyebrow or a stern look, not anymore. It seems to me many young people today cannot be discouraged from acting outside the set of social rules so you are going to see more laws like this enacted, its a sign of the times, the entitled generation is bringing it upon themselves. And by the way, if you drove by me with the tunes bumpin and made eye contact, you can bet your life I'm going to stop you, why would you feel you have to look an officer in the eyes while you are driving? Seems to me you were looking to be noticed. Where I'm from, if the police can hear the sound from 75 feet away they can impound your car, and there would be a hearing to determine liability, then a fine imposed. Police use discretion while enforcing laws every day of their careers, dont challenge the police because the pen is mightier than the sword.

51 posted on 02/01/2006 4:23:21 PM PST by dznutz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: dznutz

I believe you misunderstood me. Text is a very poor vehicle for innuendo.

Consider, a police man pulls you over for speeding. The driver shows disrespect in some form or another. The policeman knows that the radar provides evidence in a recorded, quantifiable and verifiable manner. But his ears produce none of the above.

So for reasons of demonstrating power (ego) he reports the car as being loud, and impounds the car. No evidence is required .... none, zip, nada. It's his word against yours. If he is black and doesn't like whites; impound the car. If he is white and doesn't like blacks; impound the car. If you remind him of someone he hates, he's in a foul mood, you have a nicer car than he does ... whatever.

No evidence, no witnesses, no record of the violation; you are giving TOTAL strangers the ability to stop you at will, effectively STEAL your car; thereby forcing you to stay in a hotel/motel and bail your car out of bondage ... and the distinct possibility exists that you did NOTHING at all.

Now I have known a few police officers in my day. Many are honorable, trustworthy, honest and upright citizens performing a Hero's job. But there are a great many High School 'Bullies' who cravely hide behind their badge, so they can abuse people while using the badge as a shield. There are also the craven lowlife who are unworthy of respect, so they take a job as an officer and use the badge to prove a point.

Now, you are saying that I should support giving any person with a badge the authority to impound my car, without the benefit of due process, witnesses or any kind of evidence, proof or recording instrument?

I wouldn't trust my mother with that sort of power.


56 posted on 02/02/2006 5:24:35 PM PST by Hodar (With Rights, come Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson