My DUI Charges Dropped! A Great Argument

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article >, Kent Wills wrote:
> > As I understand it, on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:06:06 GMT, Arif Khokar
> > wrote:
>
> >>Kent Wills wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have yet to see a traffic law (one such law started this
> >>> thread) that doesn't make sense.
> >>
> >>How about a law making it illegal to exceed 55 mph on a road with a
> >>design speed of 70 mph, and a pace speed ranging from 65 to 75 mph with
> >>an 85th percentile speed of 74 mph.
>
> > I see. Diffusion of responsibility. Everyone else is doing
> > it so I can too. It didn't work for my son when he was four. It works
> > even less for you, someone who is old enough to drive.
>
> Nobody said anything of the sort. What was mentioned was defining normal,
> reasonable, common behavior as a violation of the law.

So because it is "common" it must be legal?

> What if a law to
> fight CO2 based global warming was passed against breathing? Would you
> stop breathing? Sure, it's going to the absurd to make a point, but it's
> no different in theme than what government already does to create
> violators.

Wow, Kent's right. You've lost touch with reality if you think a speed
limit is the same as the government taking your life.

And its not even that you are against speed limits, you just think
they're set too low. This is a political issue, not a legal one. And
political issues are, by definition, addressed by elected officials.

In article >,
Kent Wills > wrote:

> As I understand it, on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:44:37 GMT, Larry >
> wrote:
>
> >> "Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris.
> >> We WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's
> >> not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against.... We're after power
> >> and we mean it .... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only
> >> power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
> >> Well, when there aren't enough criminals one MAKES them. One
> >> declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible
> >> for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law
> >> abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass
> >> the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or
> >> objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--
> >> and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon,
> >> that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier
> >> to deal with." --Ayn Rand\
> >
> >There are enough real criminals out there. There's really no need for
> >the government to make more.
>
> FYI: Brent is quoting a work of fiction from Ayn Rand titled
> Atlas Shrugged. It's a good book, IMO, but since it's fiction, it
> does NOTHING to support Brent's claim.

Oh, I knew that. Never read the book, but I've heard of it.

Maybe we should cite some Curious George or something back to him.

Kent Wills wrote:
> As I understand it, on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:08:42 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>>

<snip>

>
>>PS. Even the founder MADD left the group because of the way things have
>>gone. From reducing drunk driving to prohibitionist. I would throw in
>>police-state as well.
>
>
> I know I'll get a quote from a work of fiction (if I'm lucky),
> but can you offer a cite for Candy Lightner having left MADD because
> it went from reducing drunk driving to advocating prohibition?
> She did leave because of changing goals in the organization,
> but I've not come across anything about her leaving because of
> prohibitionist attitudes. Admittedly, her life isn't something I pay
> much attention to.
>

http://music.houstonpress.com/2002-1...ice-for-some/2

quote from article:

"There is not wide agreement on the exact direction and scope for the
movement. Many of the original activists are retired. Others no longer
feel a part of what they created. Lightener, for example, has testified
against MADD in hearings about lowering intoxication levels for DUI
offenses."

took all of 10 seconds to DAGS.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

As I understand it, on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:01:33 -0400, Nate Nagel
> wrote:

>Larry wrote:
>> In article >,
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, Kent Wills wrote:
>>>
>
><snip>
>
>>>> I have yet to see a traffic law (one such law started this
>>>>thread) that doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>>45mph interstate speed limits where traffic flows at 70+mph. People
>>>voted with their right foot.
>>
>>
>> I don't buy that. Most people acknowledge they are violating the law in
>> those circumstances and pay the ticket if they're caught. They don't
>> claim they were doing something legal or that the law shouldn't apply
>> because its a stupid law.
>
>so... what do you suggest?
>
>1) be safe, but break the law, and accept that you may have to pay a
>fine, vastly increased insurance costs over the next 5+ years, and maybe
>even lose your job.
>

If you elect to break the law, you risk getting caught and
punished. If you don't want to take that risk, don't break the law.

>2) obey the law and vastly increase your risk of a collision

I've obeyed the speed limits pretty much every day since I've
learned to drive. Only once have I *intentionally* broke it, and that
was to get someone to the emergency room. I'm told that in such a
case, Iowa law allows the speeding to occur.
In hind sight, I should have called for an ambulance, but I
didn't.
And I've had NO accidents. Those few people I personally know
who have were intentionally exceeding the speed limited all but one
time (one guy when through a red light).

>
>3) don't use roads with underposted speed limits (might prove very
>difficult in many areas.)

How does one under post the limit? Put it on a sign only five
inches tall? Honestly, you lost me on this one.

>
>those are the three options. What do you do?
>

Try obeying the speed limit. In over 20 years of driving,
it's worked wonderfully for me and everyone else I personally know.

--
Kent
Recuerdo del Fin Del Mundo!

In article >, Kent Wills wrote:

>>Most people break the law everyday, because the law is constructed such
>>that ordinary life requires it's violation.

> Nothing in my life requires I violate any laws.

That's only because you don't know all the laws.

>>This gives the government far
>>greater power, because any time it wishes, it can crack down on someone
>>who causes it trouble.

> Do you think DC is going to send the FBI after someone who
> stays a few minutes over the meter?

They have a parking enforcement contractor for that sort of thing and
more.

> All this time I thought you were playing the part of someone
> with some mental issues. Now I'm not so sure you're acting.

It's not my fault you are ignorant of history and how tyranny works.
Doesn't matter, americans are just starting to get a lesson in it. For
instance, speak out too loudly against Bush's government and you'll find
yourself on the no-fly list like many already have.

Too bad. This was such a nice country with so much promise to come to an
end like this.

> I've read Atlas Shrugged. It's a good book, but it's FICTION.
> Sadly, I don't think you understand the difference between reality and
> fiction.

I see your head is firmly burried in the sand. Try to think
conceptionally, the point the author was making using a work of
fiction.... ah forget your head would explode.

<rest snipped, unread. This is a waste of time>

As I understand it, on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:44:35 -0400, Nate Nagel
> wrote:

[...]

>> If we punished speeders with a week in jail per MPH over the limit
>> they were going, I bet we'd reduce the number of speeders
>> tremendously. I'm not saying I support this, but its the speeders
>> than put you at risk, not the law.
>
>No, the law puts me at risk because the "speeders" aren't doing anything
>but driving normally. The speed limits are obviously not set per
>accepted guidelines if 95% plus of drivers are breaking them.

Please offer a verifiable cite that 95% plus of drivers are
breaking the speeding laws.

--
Kent
Take too many pictures, laugh too much, and love like you've never
been hurt because every sixty seconds you spend upset is a minute of
happiness you'll never get back

In article >,
Kent Wills > wrote:

> As I understand it, on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:01:33 -0400, Nate Nagel
> > wrote:
>
> >Larry wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> (Brent P) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >, Kent Wills wrote:
> >>>
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>>> I have yet to see a traffic law (one such law started this
> >>>>thread) that doesn't make sense.
> >>>
> >>>45mph interstate speed limits where traffic flows at 70+mph. People
> >>>voted with their right foot.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't buy that. Most people acknowledge they are violating the law in
> >> those circumstances and pay the ticket if they're caught. They don't
> >> claim they were doing something legal or that the law shouldn't apply
> >> because its a stupid law.
> >
> >so... what do you suggest?
> >
> >1) be safe, but break the law, and accept that you may have to pay a
> >fine, vastly increased insurance costs over the next 5+ years, and maybe
> >even lose your job.
> >
>
> If you elect to break the law, you risk getting caught and
> punished. If you don't want to take that risk, don't break the law.
>
> >2) obey the law and vastly increase your risk of a collision
>
> I've obeyed the speed limits pretty much every day since I've
> learned to drive. Only once have I *intentionally* broke it, and that
> was to get someone to the emergency room. I'm told that in such a
> case, Iowa law allows the speeding to occur.
> In hind sight, I should have called for an ambulance, but I
> didn't.
> And I've had NO accidents. Those few people I personally know
> who have were intentionally exceeding the speed limited all but one
> time (one guy when through a red light).
>
> >
> >3) don't use roads with underposted speed limits (might prove very
> >difficult in many areas.)
>
> How does one under post the limit? Put it on a sign only five
> inches tall? Honestly, you lost me on this one.

He meant "don't use roads with speed limits lower than what you think
the limit for that road should be"

In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Kent Wills wrote:
>> As I understand it, on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:08:42 -0500,
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>>PS. Even the founder MADD left the group because of the way things have
>>>gone. From reducing drunk driving to prohibitionist. I would throw in
>>>police-state as well.
>>
>>
>> I know I'll get a quote from a work of fiction (if I'm lucky),
>> but can you offer a cite for Candy Lightner having left MADD because
>> it went from reducing drunk driving to advocating prohibition?
>> She did leave because of changing goals in the organization,
>> but I've not come across anything about her leaving because of
>> prohibitionist attitudes. Admittedly, her life isn't something I pay
>> much attention to.
>>
>
> http://music.houstonpress.com/2002-1...ice-for-some/2
>
> quote from article:
>
> "There is not wide agreement on the exact direction and scope for the
> movement. Many of the original activists are retired. Others no longer
> feel a part of what they created. Lightener, for example, has testified
> against MADD in hearings about lowering intoxication levels for DUI
> offenses."
>
> took all of 10 seconds to DAGS.

Of course it did, there is a better quote however:

"It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or
envisioned," said MADD's founder. "I didn't start MADD to deal with
alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."
-The founder of MADD, Candy Lightner

I'm just a crazy person for knowing this stuff... it's not reality TV
tells people like Kent what reality is.

As I understand it, on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:58:18 -0400, Nate Nagel
> wrote:

>Kent Wills wrote:
>> As I understand it, on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:24:08 -0500,
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, Kent Wills wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You really can't figure it out? By defining everyone as a lawbreaker it
>>>>>creates an end run around much of the bill of rights.
>>>>
>>>> How so?
>>>
>>>You can't be this dumb. Once everyone is defined as a law breaker, it
>>>allows the government all sorts of power over individuals.
>>
>>
>> You're really grasping here.
>> The simple fact is, every adult has broken at least one law in
>> their life. The majority will be very minor. Maybe something as
>> minor as staying a few minutes in a parking space after the meter has
>> expired. Certainly not a major violation, but it would still be
>> breaking the law.
>> If you drive, I would bet, if I were a betting man, that
>> you've exceeded the speed limit a time or two. Maybe only a mile or
>> two above the limit, but that's still breaking the law.
>> Going one or two miles isn't likely to gain the attention of
>> any law enforcement officer, so it's unlikely you'll get cited for it.
>>
>
>However, you can be.

Most definitely. It is a violation of the law.

>I have been. (I think it was 3 over, actually.)

It's rare, but I didn't stated it couldn't happen.

>
>>
>>>>>Another authoritarian heard from. You want things to come from
>>>>>authority. I should beg and bribe authority to change things to my
>>>>>liking.
>>>
>>>> People lobby to get laws changed nearly every day that a
>>>>legislative body is in session.
>>>
>>>Regular people don't get **** unless they have the funds and resources
>>>to get huge numbers of people behind them. Then it takes many years if
>>>not decades.
>>
>>
>> There are many grass root organizations that are formed to
>> lobby for changes. This doesn't mean there will be any change, but
>> they are trying to get the changes they feel are needed. It's a part
>> of the democratic process.
>
>your point?

My point is that, at always, Brent is wrong.

>There are certainly grass roots organizations lobbying for
>speed limit and other traffic law reform. I support one of them and I
>suspect many of the other readers of this post do as well.

Good. You may not enjoy any success, but you're trying to get
a change to believe is needed.

>
>>
>>
>>>Corporations with lots of money often get the laws they want quite
>>>swiftly by comparison and don't have to have masses of people
>>>supporting those laws and regulations.
>>
>>
>> If people aren't supporting them, how are they managing to
>> remain?
>
>You can't really be serious, can you? The same way we are still in
>Iraq, to name but one example - the people *in power* want things to
>remain the way they are. You can vote whichever way you want, but both
>major parties support the status quo on a lot of things that should be
>changed, thanks to massive lobbying dollars from various industries.

This may come as a shock to you, but the federal government
doesn't set speed limits. Nor does it set drunk driving laws (the
topic that started this thread).


>The only way to force a change is to spend MORE than the IIHS or MADD -
>or else just keep talking loud enough and long enough to anyone that'll
>listen until the word gets out and people start thinking about your issue.

Then do it. You alone may not have the money needed to get
your message out, but a bunch of like minded people, pooling their
money together could.

--
Kent
The irony of life is that, by the time
you're old enough to know your way
around, you're not going anywhere.

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article >, Kent Wills wrote:
>
> >>Most people break the law everyday, because the law is constructed such
> >>that ordinary life requires it's violation.
>
> > Nothing in my life requires I violate any laws.
>
> That's only because you don't know all the laws.

I'm a prosecutor, so I dare say I know all the laws, or if not all,
almost all (and far more than the average citizen). There is nothing in
my life that requires I violate any laws, and there is nothing in the
average person;'s life that requires he/she violate any laws.

Oh, and most states actually have an affirmative defense that allows you
to break a law when it is the least-objectionable of all courses of
action that you face. So if you are truly in a situation (not of your
own making, of course) that you cannot help but break a law, you will
not be found guilty for it.


> >>This gives the government far
> >>greater power, because any time it wishes, it can crack down on someone
> >>who causes it trouble.
>
> > Do you think DC is going to send the FBI after someone who
> > stays a few minutes over the meter?
>
> They have a parking enforcement contractor for that sort of thing and
> more.
>
> > All this time I thought you were playing the part of someone
> > with some mental issues. Now I'm not so sure you're acting.
>
> It's not my fault you are ignorant of history and how tyranny works.


Setting speed limits lower than you think they should be set is tyranny?


> Doesn't matter, americans are just starting to get a lesson in it. For
> instance, speak out too loudly against Bush's government and you'll find
> yourself on the no-fly list like many already have.
>
> Too bad. This was such a nice country with so much promise to come to an
> end like this.
>
> > I've read Atlas Shrugged. It's a good book, but it's FICTION.
> > Sadly, I don't think you understand the difference between reality and
> > fiction.
>
> I see your head is firmly burried in the sand. Try to think
> conceptionally, the point the author was making using a work of
> fiction.... ah forget your head would explode.
>
> <rest snipped, unread. This is a waste of time>

Debating with you certainly is turning into one, between your cites to
fictional literature and your repetitiveness.