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

Skip to comments.

WI Poll: Should police in Wisconsin be able to ticket just for seatbelt violations?
WEAU TV 13 ^ | 11/30/2004 | WEAU TV 13

Posted on 11/30/2004 5:20:33 PM PST by quietolong

Should police in Wisconsin be able to ticket just for seatbelt violations?

NO
yes

Click on excerpt link to go to poll

(Excerpt) Read more at weau.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; US: Wisconsin; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: nannygoverment; nannystate; seatbeltlaw; unconstitutionallaw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last
NO!

One more unconstitutional Nanny ( we Think we know what’s best for you ) Government law. Which we were told would never be used to stop you with.

What they don’t tell you. And is suppressed big time. Is all the deaths and injures seatbelts cause!

“clicking” on you seatbelt on is a 50-50 proposition 50% chance it will save you 50% chance it will kill you.

As with the helmet laws. Let those who drive deside.
( maybe there needs to be a helmet law for cars too)/s

1 posted on 11/30/2004 5:20:33 PM PST by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: quietolong

The coppers can do it here south of the WI border in IL. It sucks. I wear my belt all the time anyway, but ticketing someone who is stupid enough not to wear it is just plain annoying.


2 posted on 11/30/2004 5:22:02 PM PST by metalmanx2j (Thank the Good Lord for George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quietolong

No. I think they should also be able to ticket anyone who owns property since the whole world now knows that all the land on the planet belongs to Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe, since he is the closest living relative of Lucy.


3 posted on 11/30/2004 5:23:59 PM PST by Cornpone ((Aging Warrior))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metalmanx2j

Heck even in MA, they can't stop you for it. They can however stop you for anything else, and ticket you for not wearing a seatbelt.


4 posted on 11/30/2004 5:24:55 PM PST by gidget7 (God Bless America, and our President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: quietolong

Seatbelts actually make people better drivers. An individual is better able to control his vehicle when he's not swaying and being pushed about his seat with the acceleration, or turning of the Vehicle. Ineritia
So there are less accidents


5 posted on 11/30/2004 5:27:37 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell (See and decide for yourself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metalmanx2j

They ticket us here in Indiana for no seatbelts, too.


6 posted on 11/30/2004 5:30:19 PM PST by Lovergirl (Proud member of the Pajama Brigade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

yaaa. but what about when you go tru da ice while
fishin for da carp? (sarcasm)

They can't (yet) pull you over for no seat belt in MN, but
seeing how the feds will withhold highway funding if states
don't play ball, it's only a matter of time. Besides, any cop with a year on the force can figure out another reason/ excuse to pull you over to justify cause.


7 posted on 11/30/2004 5:31:10 PM PST by Rakkasan1 (Justice of the Piece: Hope IS on the way...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
While I agree with the points made in your post, I do not agree that the government should, in essence, put a GUN to your head to force you to wear one.

Just as JHVH supposedly left us the free will to "sin", so should our government honor our Right to be Free, but stupid.

8 posted on 11/30/2004 5:32:07 PM PST by Dead Corpse (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: quietolong

No. If they can't even ask you if you're an illegal alien, they shouldn't be able to make you wear a seat belt.


9 posted on 11/30/2004 5:38:40 PM PST by Lijahsbubbe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
Heck even in MA, they can't stop you for it.

Even though that is the way it was voted in as a law in MA, the police are now pulling over people without any other cause.
10 posted on 11/30/2004 5:39:49 PM PST by ProudVet77 (Just say NO to blue states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
" Seatbelts actually make people better drivers. An individual is better able to control his vehicle when he's not swaying and being pushed about his seat with the acceleration, or turning of the Vehicle. Ineritia So there are less accidents"

Amazing!

11 posted on 11/30/2004 5:41:58 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: quietolong
Florida you get ticketed if you don't wear a seatbelt.
12 posted on 11/30/2004 5:42:00 PM PST by Ginifer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quietolong

I wear my belt all the time because if I am in an accident without it, the auto insurance companies can dispute paying for injuries.


13 posted on 11/30/2004 5:45:24 PM PST by Old Phone Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

You don't have to be sarcastic and you wouldn't be if you read the first post by quietolong, who claims seatbelts kill as many people as they save.


14 posted on 11/30/2004 5:45:48 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell (See and decide for yourself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: quietolong

Nanny govm't. That's what all the clowns want.


15 posted on 11/30/2004 5:45:51 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse; Old Phone Man
And when insurance refuses to pay the injuries bill, and if you can't afford it, guess who pays for it.

The government

and I think that If the government has got to pay for medical bills incurred because you didn't wear a seat belt , they ought to have the right to tell you to wear one
16 posted on 11/30/2004 5:50:38 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell (See and decide for yourself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: quietolong

When our seatbelt law in Michigan was enacted they swore up and down that they would never stop someone for a seatbelt violation alone. Today they can do exactly that.

Seatbelts are a top notch idea but a really bad law.


17 posted on 11/30/2004 5:50:38 PM PST by cripplecreek (I come swinging the olive branch of peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
I wasn't being sarcastic. You can beleive whatever you want, but you are wrong. They do not make for better drivers. The only thing that makes better for better drivers is focus on controlling the vehicle. Learning and understanding the machine and being able to control it, and keeping aware of the driving course is the only way to be a better driver. Maintaining control of the car is what it's all about, not loading up with features that compensate for deficiency. Seatbelts are a feature that compensates for deficiencies, they are not driving tools, or aids.

Seatbelts do kill some people and so do airbags. I hate both.

18 posted on 11/30/2004 5:55:45 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
"I think that If the government has got to pay for medical bills incurred because you didn't wear a seat belt , they ought to have the right to tell you to wear one"

Why not just rename the US- Mommy.gov and be done with it. To hell with Freedom. All we need is Mommy.gov.

19 posted on 11/30/2004 5:58:01 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: quietolong

No.


20 posted on 11/30/2004 5:58:06 PM PST by Ptarmigan (Proud rabbit hater and killer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quietolong

Voted NO. I am tired of all this statist nonsense.


21 posted on 11/30/2004 5:58:54 PM PST by NeoCaveman (http://route-82.blogspot.com (Now with 20% more stuned beebers))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Same here in Washington State - now it's "Click it or Ticket" to the tune of about $100 or so. It shouldn't be a law, nothing more than another "income stream" for the great state of liberal loons in which I live.

However, I will also say that having been in a few close calls wearing one, it certainly stabilizes and helps the driver controll the car during spins, swerves, slides, etc. I hit a large pool of water at night one time doing about 70 and hydroplaned sideways pretty violently - don't know if I could have controlled it without having the belt on.

22 posted on 11/30/2004 5:59:41 PM PST by michaelbfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

Whatever. Seatbelts keep you from going through the windshield if you are hit from behind. Good enough reason to wear one.


23 posted on 11/30/2004 6:01:01 PM PST by Old Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: quietolong
"One more unconstitutional Nanny ( we Think we know what’s best for you ) Government law."

What constitutional covenant would you be referring to?

All seat belt laws are STATE laws. (Granted the federales blackmail the states into passing such laws with the threat of withholding highway building funds.)

The closest covenant I could find in the Wisconsin State Constitution that could be used to declare the state seat belt law unconstitutional is:

Equality; inherent rights.

SECTION 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986]

All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982; 1983 J.R. 40, 1985 J.R. 21, vote April 1986]

The "inherent right...liberty" would imply each person shall decide whether to wear a seat belt or not.

The constitutional basis for stopping the federales at their blackmail maneuver is Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people.

The people have the retained right to decide to wear a seat belt or not.

24 posted on 11/30/2004 6:01:38 PM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: michaelbfree

I feel like I'm going to fall out of the car if I'm not wearing my seatbelt.


25 posted on 11/30/2004 6:02:08 PM PST by cripplecreek (I come swinging the olive branch of peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
Ah... so socialism is why we need more Nanny State control over our lives.

Thanks for playing...

26 posted on 11/30/2004 6:03:34 PM PST by Dead Corpse (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

50 bucks for the first time. Ask me, I know. Ho that trooper ever saw that I did not have it on is anyones guess. He was following traffic in the right hand lane of a 4 lane highway and the cars in front of him were turning. I took him and far as court and paid my fine. They asked me why I took it into court and then decided to pay and I told them that I wanted to make sure this cop was off the highway for that amount of time as he was not a safe driver. That one dang near got me another fine.


27 posted on 11/30/2004 6:04:10 PM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
"Seatbelts actually make people better drivers."

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1759

The closest covenant I could find in the Wisconsin State Constitution that could be used to declare the state seat belt law unconstitutional is:

Equality; inherent rights.

SECTION 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986]

All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982; 1983 J.R. 40, 1985 J.R. 21, vote April 1986]

The "inherent right...liberty" would imply each person shall decide whether to wear a seat belt or not.

The constitutional basis for stopping the federales at their blackmail maneuver is Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people.

The people have the retained right to decide to wear a seat belt or not.

28 posted on 11/30/2004 6:04:56 PM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
"If the government has got to pay for medical bills incurred because you didn't wear a seat belt , they ought to have the right to tell you to wear one"

Just because the people make a stupid political decision, such as to pay "medical bills" for the citizens, does not mean that the citizens give up their constitutionally protected rights.

The closest covenant I could find in the Wisconsin State Constitution that could be used to declare the state seat belt law unconstitutional is:

Equality; inherent rights.

SECTION 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986]

All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982; 1983 J.R. 40, 1985 J.R. 21, vote April 1986]

The "inherent right...liberty" would imply each person shall decide whether to wear a seat belt or not.

The constitutional basis for stopping the federales at their blackmail maneuver is Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people.

The people have the retained right to decide to wear a seat belt or not.

29 posted on 11/30/2004 6:08:39 PM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Lets just do away with Breaks while we're at it, the government has no right to tell people to have breaks in their cars! Licenses too! And People have the right to not use signal lights and head lights! Driving on the right side of the road too, we should be able to drive on whatever side in whatever direction we want.

Is it asking too much of you to perhaps not have a few beers before you get on the road.
Is it to great of an imposition for you to wear a seat belt.

All I know is that when you smash your head through the windshield and EMT rushes you to a hospital where you lie in a coma for a year and a half that my dollar.

By the way- Airbags are dangerous to children thats why children aren't supposed to sit in the front seat.
30 posted on 11/30/2004 6:11:29 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell (See and decide for yourself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Old Lady
"Seatbelts keep you from going through the windshield if you are hit from behind."

I see you're a physics wiz.

"Good enough reason to wear one."

It's my decision, not anyone else's.

31 posted on 11/30/2004 6:12:04 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: crz

LOL. Ibe gotten two tickets for it. The first was way back when they first started giving out tickets for it (I was speeding so it was my fault) that one was 50 bucks. The second was just a few years ago. I was helping a neighbor move a couch from my house to his. We pulled out of one driveway and into the next with a cop following us. That one cost me 95 bucks.


32 posted on 11/30/2004 6:12:30 PM PST by cripplecreek (I come swinging the olive branch of peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

Nasty poster alert!


33 posted on 11/30/2004 6:14:23 PM PST by Old Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
Cars weren't invented when the Constitution was written.



Notice how there's no mention of an air force

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
34 posted on 11/30/2004 6:15:20 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell (See and decide for yourself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

Yes they do


35 posted on 11/30/2004 6:16:45 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell (See and decide for yourself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

I think it's my decision too when your flying carcass happens to hit me while I'm crossing the street.
And who cleans up the mess?

SEATBELTS SAVE LIVES


36 posted on 11/30/2004 6:18:33 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell (See and decide for yourself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
"government has no right to tell people to have breaks in their cars!"

The first cars were equipped with brakes regardless. Why, because they are essential to maintain control of the vehicle. Control of the vehicle, that's the name of the game. Brakes happen to be essential, same with headlights.

Turn signals are part of the rules of the road that facilitate smooth traffic flows.

" Is it to great of an imposition for you to wear a seat belt."

You better believe it.

" All I know is that when you smash your head through the windshield and EMT rushes you to a hospital where you lie in a coma for a year and a half that my dollar."

I don't want your money, nor your EMT. Keep them both. You would be safe betting your life on my never going through the windshield.

" By the way- Airbags are dangerous to children "

They're dangerous to me period, because they go off for whatever triggers were built in. Regardless of what they mean. They go off and then you can't see a thing. Can't see, can't drive. They're also dangerous, because they slam whatever is in front of them into your face.

37 posted on 11/30/2004 6:23:03 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
"I think it's my decision too

Butt out! Keep your money, EMTs and uniformed highwaymen to yourself.

" your flying carcass happens to hit me while I'm crossing the street."

The universe will vanish before anyone sees me crash. Besides that, would you rather be hit by the car when someone that can't control their vehicle loses it?

" And who cleans up the mess?"

I clean up my own mess, else just use a hose.

38 posted on 11/30/2004 6:29:59 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
"SEATBELTS SAVE LIVES"

War is Peace. Freedom is slavery.

39 posted on 11/30/2004 6:30:57 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
"Cars weren't invented when the Constitution was written."

Neither were birth control pills. Griswold v Connecticutt 1965. A "family" has the retained right to control the size of their family through the use of birth control pills and the state cannot prohibit that action.

I think you are a woman. Would you not be rather upset if the state that you lived in passed a law saying you could not use birth control pills and that you had no constitutional right to those pills because birth control pills were not invented when the constitution was written?

I thought this was a "conservative" forum. Doesn't conservative imply to "conserve" something?

How about conserving the covenants of the Constitution.

If memory serves me right, the Air Force was originally the Army Air Corp, especially during WWII.

The Marines are part of the Navy.

Why don't free people have the retained right to choose for themselves whether to wear a seat belt or not?

40 posted on 11/30/2004 6:31:05 PM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: quietolong
What they don’t tell you. And is suppressed big time. Is all the deaths and injures seatbelts cause!

Sources, please?

41 posted on 11/30/2004 6:31:06 PM PST by Terabitten (Live as a bastion of freedom and democracy in the midst of the heart of darkness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
"Cars weren't invented when the Constitution was written."

They had horses and you would have attempted to tie the riders on. They in turn would have tarred and feathered you and sent you packin' on a rail.

42 posted on 11/30/2004 6:33:51 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
I could care less if you want to do handstands on the handlebars of your Harley at 100mph without wearing a helmet, just so long as I don't gave to pay for your next 50 years of nursing home care if and when you break your head (and neck).

But if I might have to pay for your errors in judgement, then by all means, I think that behavior should be discouraged.

43 posted on 11/30/2004 6:36:31 PM PST by Sooth2222
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: quietolong
Should police in Wisconsin be able to ticket just for seatbelt violations?

No. What good does it do to issue a citation? Why inconvenience the driver by demanding a court appearance when the same thing can be accomplished by just impounding the vehicle?

44 posted on 11/30/2004 6:42:04 PM PST by Scenic Sounds (Sí, estamos libres sonreír otra vez - ahora y siempre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
So you don't think the government has a right to tell you that you can't stick a heroin needle in your arm?
45 posted on 11/30/2004 6:48:06 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell (See and decide for yourself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
"the same thing can be accomplished by just impounding the vehicle?"

WHy not just shoot him in the head, send the bill to his mother and give the vehicle to the local nannies.

46 posted on 11/30/2004 6:50:12 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: quietolong

Absolutely not! Whether or not I wear seatbelts (and I absolutely religiously DO)is NOBODY'S business but mine. All it amounts to is a tax on automobiles. If these civil nannies were at all concerned, they'd get motorcycles the hell off the road for the simple reasons that there are no seatbelts, no air bags, no side impact standards, etc, etc, that the auto drivers are being drowned in.

I don't have anything against motorcycles whatsoever, but I resent them being totally immune to safety (not wearing seatbelts), air (no emission controls whatever), and noise standards (incredible amounts of noise from cycles that no car can duplicate) that the auto drivers are faced with.

Leave the motorcyclists and auto drivers ALONE. It's a TAX that the local and state governments are too cowardly to pass thru the voting booth.


47 posted on 11/30/2004 6:52:52 PM PST by laweeks (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quietolong

Yes, if the elected reps pass such a law. Remember what it says in every state driver's manual: "driving is a privilege, not a right." If we start confusing inconvenient restrictions with Constitutional liberties, then we make the same error the Left makes when they confuse the Second Ammendment with the driving privilege, or some other act of State or Federal government.


48 posted on 11/30/2004 6:53:01 PM PST by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
WHy not just shoot him in the head, send the bill to his mother and give the vehicle to the local nannies.

That seems a bit extreme to me, spunkets, but perhaps I'm missing something. Why do you think that the mother should have to pay any bill? What did she do wrong?

49 posted on 11/30/2004 6:55:38 PM PST by Scenic Sounds (Sí, estamos libres sonreír otra vez - ahora y siempre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ginifer

NO, I came from Missouri to florida, and they have the same law, you have to get a ticket for some other violation, before they can ticket you for a seat belt. Too much Government. Pretty soon there going to tell u when u can go to the bathroom.


50 posted on 11/30/2004 6:58:22 PM PST by forbushalltheway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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