Don't like someone? Have the police take their car.

On Apr 10, 9:30 am, "N8N" > wrote:
>
>
> Obviously, the concept has spread from one country to another, and I
> haven't even tried to list all the places that either or both are
> used.

Sure. But Saudi Arabia cuts off the hands of thieves. I guess we can
worry about that in the near future?

The logical fallacy of the slippery slope applies here.

E.P.

In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Apr 10, 9:03 am, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > On Apr 10, 7:27 am, (Brent P)
>> > wrote:
>> >> In article om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >> > On Apr 10, 5:35 am, (Brent P)
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> >> >> > (Brent P) said in
>> >> >> > rec.autos.driving:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>"Residents of the state of Victoria, Australia can now settle scores by
>> >> >> >>>>calling the police and ordering the seizure of someone's car.
>>
>> >> >> >>> The problem is you cannot make such reports anonymously - you actually
>> >> >> >>> have to swear out a complaint. Which means the riceboy punk has your
>> >> >> >>> name and address, and knows exactly where to go if he wants to
>> >> >> >>> retaliate. This should keep the number of such complaints VERY low.
>>
>> >> >> >>You assume that people will only use it against 'rice boy punks' and
>> >> >> >>truthfully instead of making stuff up against that guy with the yellow
>> >> >> >>corvette who drives around with a video camera in his car.
>>
>> >> >> > a) The video tape will show that there was no drifting or
>> >> >> > doughnut-making going on.
>>
>> >> >> No trial for you to show it at.
>>
>> >> > Then you take it to CIVIL court. Duh.
>>
>> >> good luck with that.
>>
>> > So are you denying that someone *could* actually take it to court?
>>
>> That's an amazing jump you're taking. Once again doing what you complain
>> about.
>
> You said "no trial to show it at." So, no civil trial? Where's the
> huge leap there, Brent?

No trial to prevent them taking your car, wether the government calls it
civil or criminal is irrelevant in the current system.

If you want to sue the government in civil court later, good luck with
that.

But you're just doing your argumentive routine, the one you protest
when it's done back to you.

>> >> >> > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to
>> >> >> > worry about this particular issue.
>>
>> >> >> The concept may come to you
>> >> > Cite?
>>
>> >> because ideas like RLCs and speed cameras and other things haven't spread
>> >> from nation to nation.... yeah right.
>> > Cite where this is happening in the U.S.
>
> [no cite provided]
>
> Yup, just as I thought.

It's not required to show it's happening in the USA. It's happening
somewhere and this is a time where national boarders do not constrain
ideas and one where even the supreme court of the USA considers foreign
law in making judgements. Hell, just look at the report-your-neighbor
crap that has been done in the name of the war on terror if you really
need a clear step in the USA.

In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Apr 10, 9:30 am, "N8N" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Obviously, the concept has spread from one country to another, and I
>> haven't even tried to list all the places that either or both are
>> used.

> Sure. But Saudi Arabia cuts off the hands of thieves. I guess we can
> worry about that in the near future?

Read the current adminstration's memos on torture.... It's probably not
as absurd as you believe it to be.

> The logical fallacy of the slippery slope applies here.

We just live in a nation who's federal government tortures prisoners
either with its own employees or outsourced to foreign governments that's
all.

But anyway, your off topic slide into governments punishing crime aside...
When it comes to driving, the same sort of schemes and laws do tend to cross
borders in the english speaking world quite easily and examples should be
known to you from this group.

On Apr 10, 4:18 pm, "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 9:30 am, "N8N" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Obviously, the concept has spread from one country to another, and I
> > haven't even tried to list all the places that either or both are
> > used.
>
> Sure. But Saudi Arabia cuts off the hands of thieves. I guess we can
> worry about that in the near future?
>
> The logical fallacy of the slippery slope applies here.
>
> E.P.

The slippery slope that we're obviously already falling down here. We
already have unconstitutional RLCs and speed cameras set up with
"civil" not "criminal" penalties so the state can fine you without a
real trial. We already have laws in place that allow civil forfeiture
of assets, vehicles, and even houses without a criminal trial if you
are involved in "drug related" activity - even if you are not charged
with a crime! If your assets are seized in this manner it is YOUR
responsibility to prove that you are innocent and that your property
should be returned to you. Yes, the concept of forfeiting your
vehicle without due process due to citizen complaints is
unconstitutional and should not be tolerated, but we already have
similar practices codified into law here, unconstitutional though they
may be. This is nowhere near as far fetched an idea as that of
cutting off people's hands, although I'm surprised some jackass hasn't
already responded with "hey, that's a good idea."

nate

On Apr 10, 4:16 pm, "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 9:03 am, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 7:27 am, (Brent P)
> > > wrote:
> > >> In article om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > >> > On Apr 10, 5:35 am, (Brent P)
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> > >> >> > (Brent P) said in
> > >> >> > rec.autos.driving:
>
> > >> >> >>>>"Residents of the state of Victoria, Australia can now settle scores by
> > >> >> >>>>calling the police and ordering the seizure of someone's car.
>
> > >> >> >>> The problem is you cannot make such reports anonymously - you actually
> > >> >> >>> have to swear out a complaint. Which means the riceboy punk has your
> > >> >> >>> name and address, and knows exactly where to go if he wants to
> > >> >> >>> retaliate. This should keep the number of such complaints VERY low.
>
> > >> >> >>You assume that people will only use it against 'rice boy punks' and
> > >> >> >>truthfully instead of making stuff up against that guy with the yellow
> > >> >> >>corvette who drives around with a video camera in his car.
>
> > >> >> > a) The video tape will show that there was no drifting or
> > >> >> > doughnut-making going on.
>
> > >> >> No trial for you to show it at.
>
> > >> > Then you take it to CIVIL court. Duh.
>
> > >> good luck with that.
>
> > > So are you denying that someone *could* actually take it to court?
>
> > That's an amazing jump you're taking. Once again doing what you complain
> > about.
>
> You said "no trial to show it at." So, no civil trial? Where's the
> huge leap there, Brent?

A civil trial is not a criminal trial. Evidence "beyond a reasonable
doubt" is required to convict in a criminal trial, a "preponderance of
evidence" is all that is required to convict in a civil case. I know
which I'd prefer if it were my vehicle being seized (esp. when by the
nature of the setup, it would be one citizen's word against another,
and therefore by definition the case would be decided by whoever the
judge thought was more believable, absent any unusual evidence like
video that just happened to be taken of the alleged incident that
happened to be saved and happened to be available to you.) Besides,
how are you going to *get* to the ****in' courthouse while your
vehicle is in the impound lot?

Above and beyond this, what right does the government have to
confiscate my property without convicting me of a crime in a criminal
court? I thought so.

>
> > >> >> > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to
> > >> >> > worry about this particular issue.
>
> > >> >> The concept may come to you
> > >> > Cite?
>
> > >> because ideas like RLCs and speed cameras and other things haven't spread
> > >> from nation to nation.... yeah right.
> > > Cite where this is happening in the U.S.
>
> [no cite provided]

Cite was provided. You just chose to ignore it.

nate

On Apr 10, 2:26 pm, "N8N" > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:16 pm, "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 9:03 am, (Brent P)
> > wrote:
>
> > > In article om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > > > On Apr 10, 7:27 am, (Brent P)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> In article om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > > >> > On Apr 10, 5:35 am, (Brent P)
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >> In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> > > >> >> > (Brent P) said in
> > > >> >> > rec.autos.driving:
>
> > > >> >> >>>>"Residents of the state of Victoria, Australia can now settle scores by
> > > >> >> >>>>calling the police and ordering the seizure of someone's car.
>
> > > >> >> >>> The problem is you cannot make such reports anonymously - you actually
> > > >> >> >>> have to swear out a complaint. Which means the riceboy punk has your
> > > >> >> >>> name and address, and knows exactly where to go if he wants to
> > > >> >> >>> retaliate. This should keep the number of such complaints VERY low.
>
> > > >> >> >>You assume that people will only use it against 'rice boy punks' and
> > > >> >> >>truthfully instead of making stuff up against that guy with the yellow
> > > >> >> >>corvette who drives around with a video camera in his car.
>
> > > >> >> > a) The video tape will show that there was no drifting or
> > > >> >> > doughnut-making going on.
>
> > > >> >> No trial for you to show it at.
>
> > > >> > Then you take it to CIVIL court. Duh.
>
> > > >> good luck with that.
>
> > > > So are you denying that someone *could* actually take it to court?
>
> > > That's an amazing jump you're taking. Once again doing what you complain
> > > about.
>
> > You said "no trial to show it at." So, no civil trial? Where's the
> > huge leap there, Brent?
>
> A civil trial is not a criminal trial.

Brent said "no trial."

> Above and beyond this, what right does the government have to
> confiscate my property without convicting me of a crime in a criminal
> court? I thought so.

That's sorta the point. It's hard to get around the search and
seizure stuff in the USC.

> > > >> >> > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to
> > > >> >> > worry about this particular issue.
>
> > > >> >> The concept may come to you
> > > >> > Cite?
>
> > > >> because ideas like RLCs and speed cameras and other things haven't spread
> > > >> from nation to nation.... yeah right.
> > > > Cite where this is happening in the U.S.
>
> > [no cite provided]
>
> Cite was provided.

Where this car confiscation stuff is happening in the U.S.? No, one
was *not* provided.

E.P.

On Apr 10, 2:20 pm, "N8N" > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:18 pm, "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 9:30 am, "N8N" > wrote:
>
> > > Obviously, the concept has spread from one country to another, and I
> > > haven't even tried to list all the places that either or both are
> > > used.
>
> > Sure. But Saudi Arabia cuts off the hands of thieves. I guess we can
> > worry about that in the near future?
>
> > The logical fallacy of the slippery slope applies here.
>
> > E.P.
>
> The slippery slope that we're obviously already falling down here.

No, obviously we are not. Restating a logical fallacy does not make
it less of a fallacy.

The slippery slope, at it's core, is an emotional appeal. It's an
attempt to connect a bunch of unconnected things to point toward some
conclusion. The animal rights folks do this all the time: 'a rat is
a dog is a boy'-type arguments.

E.P.

On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 9:30 am, "N8N" > wrote:
>
> >> Obviously, the concept has spread from one country to another, and I
> >> haven't even tried to list all the places that either or both are
> >> used.
> > Sure. But Saudi Arabia cuts off the hands of thieves. I guess we can
> > worry about that in the near future?
>
> Read the current adminstration's memos on torture.... It's probably not
> as absurd as you believe it to be.

So, you're saying that the feds are going to start cutting off our
hands soon? Interesting.

> > The logical fallacy of the slippery slope applies here.
>
> We just live in a nation who's federal government tortures prisoners
> either with its own employees or outsourced to foreign governments that's
> all.

Which, of course, implies that, soon, I'm next.

I see.

E.P.

On Apr 10, 1:33 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 9:03 am, (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> >> In article om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> > On Apr 10, 7:27 am, (Brent P)
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> In article om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> >> > On Apr 10, 5:35 am, (Brent P)
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> >> >> >> > (Brent P) said in
> >> >> >> > rec.autos.driving:
>
> >> >> >> >>>>"Residents of the state of Victoria, Australia can now settle scores by
> >> >> >> >>>>calling the police and ordering the seizure of someone's car.
>
> >> >> >> >>> The problem is you cannot make such reports anonymously - you actually
> >> >> >> >>> have to swear out a complaint. Which means the riceboy punk has your
> >> >> >> >>> name and address, and knows exactly where to go if he wants to
> >> >> >> >>> retaliate. This should keep the number of such complaints VERY low.
>
> >> >> >> >>You assume that people will only use it against 'rice boy punks' and
> >> >> >> >>truthfully instead of making stuff up against that guy with the yellow
> >> >> >> >>corvette who drives around with a video camera in his car.
>
> >> >> >> > a) The video tape will show that there was no drifting or
> >> >> >> > doughnut-making going on.
>
> >> >> >> No trial for you to show it at.
>
> >> >> > Then you take it to CIVIL court. Duh.
>
> >> >> good luck with that.
>
> >> > So are you denying that someone *could* actually take it to court?
>
> >> That's an amazing jump you're taking. Once again doing what you complain
> >> about.
>
> > You said "no trial to show it at." So, no civil trial? Where's the
> > huge leap there, Brent?
>
> No trial to prevent them taking your car, wether the government calls it
> civil or criminal is irrelevant in the current system.

That's not what you wrote.

IOW, I am correct - you *can* use a civil trial.

> >> >> >> > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to
> >> >> >> > worry about this particular issue.
>
> >> >> >> The concept may come to you
> >> >> > Cite?
>
> >> >> because ideas like RLCs and speed cameras and other things haven't spread
> >> >> from nation to nation.... yeah right.
> >> > Cite where this is happening in the U.S.
>
> > [no cite provided]
>
> > Yup, just as I thought.
>
> It's not required to show it's happening in the USA.

Sure it is. They don't have a U.S. Constitution there, so they can do
things differently if they so choose. Besides, I'm asking for a cite
as to where it's happening in the U.S., not how you use your
overactive imagination to make it so that it's going to happen in your
neighborhood next week.

It isn't. And until it is, there's really not much to do except shake
one's head.

E.P.

In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > On Apr 10, 9:30 am, "N8N" > wrote:
>>
>> >> Obviously, the concept has spread from one country to another, and I
>> >> haven't even tried to list all the places that either or both are
>> >> used.
>> > Sure. But Saudi Arabia cuts off the hands of thieves. I guess we can
>> > worry about that in the near future?
>>
>> Read the current adminstration's memos on torture.... It's probably not
>> as absurd as you believe it to be.
>
> So, you're saying that the feds are going to start cutting off our
> hands soon? Interesting.

Strawman....

>> > The logical fallacy of the slippery slope applies here.

>> We just live in a nation who's federal government tortures prisoners
>> either with its own employees or outsourced to foreign governments that's
>> all.
>
> Which, of course, implies that, soon, I'm next.
> I see.

Ed is just making stuff up....