Arlington bans texting and driving today.

[Geor!]

Uh, are you high? It's VERY intrusive. You're smart, are you too stupid to see it, or too biased? Which is it???????

Ask CJ.

Are the children and family members not victims? You will not will this fight, I promise. If you do want to continue it I will run it into the ground for all to see. You forgot to address the other two examples in that sentence.

Sure they are victims, just not the ultimate victims. You will run my argument into the ground in your mind, as well as others. But you will not do so in mine.

How about drunk driving? Are you also pro-drunk driving? Everyone should be tanked behind the wheels of cars?

[bcoop]

How about drunk driving? Are you also pro-drunk driving? Everyone should be tanked behind the wheels of cars?

Fuck yes. If you're too drunk to walk, drive! That's what I always say.


That argument is weak as fuck as well. DWI is nothing more than a money grab. If they really cared about safety, and not money, penalties would far more harsh than they are now.

[KBScobravert]

Time to go drive through Arlington with my cell phone in my hand waiting to get pulled over and handed a ticket. "Your Honor if you will watch this short little video clip from my on board Go Pro camera set up you will see the stop was unwarranted"

[Geor!]

Fuck yes. If you're too drunk to walk, drive! That's what I always say.


That argument is weak as fuck as well. DWI is nothing more than a money grab. If they really cared about safety, and not money, penalties would far more harsh than they are now.

I think they're pretty harsh, as is. I'm guilty of driving drunk, but I wouldn't bitch about the fuckin' man infringing on my rights if I got busted either. Seems with CJ's train of thought, he would.

[Matt]

Glad I'm in Arlington every 6 months.

[Steve]

Fuck yes. If you're too drunk to walk, drive! That's what I always say.


That argument is weak as fuck as well. DWI is nothing more than a money grab. If they really cared about safety, and not money, penalties would far more harsh than they are now.

Now you're taking your arguement too far. The penalities for DUI aren't stiff enough. There should be automatic jail time on the FIRST offense, and much longer terms on multiple convictions.

If you are going to drink in public, find another way home, have a designated driver. There is NO EXUSE for drinking under the influence. It's complete irresponsible behavior upon the drivers part for not planning ahead. If you drink and drive - go to jail.

[bcoop]

I think they're pretty harsh, as is. I'm guilty of driving drunk, but I wouldn't bitch about the fuckin' man infringing on my rights if I got busted either. Seems with CJ's train of thought, he would.

They are harsh, in that they cost you a lot of money. It's a revenue center. If it was safety driven, you'd do prison time and lose your license for life. Zero tolerance. Instead, you have people, ahem, who shall remain nameless, that are still on the streets with four DWIs.

[CJ]

Ask CJ.



Sure they are victims, just not the ultimate victims. You will run my argument into the ground in your mind, as well as others. But you will not do so in mine.

How about drunk driving? Are you also pro-drunk driving? Everyone should be tanked behind the wheels of cars?

You forgot to address those other two points again. So what you're saying is the victims are just not the "ultimate" victims. You're grouping victims into categories which are more, or less important. So you're deciding which people should have retribution, and which should not? Which people are entitled to compensation, and which are not? Does that sound about right? Do you see how this shit gets out of control?

The reason why your drunk driving comment is completely irrelevant, is you forget that to enter into a decision or contract - legal or otherwise, the law requires you be in a competent frame of mind, and able to understand the consequences. When you are drunk, you are unable to do this. This falls into it's own legal category, much as driving when stoned, or driving without your glasses, or operating equipment, or even walking down the street. All of this is illegal not because driving or walking itself is a dangerous act, but because the individual is not in a competent frame of mind. I could stab your entire family in the face and kill them, but if I can prove I was not in a competent frame of mind (see: insanity) then I can get off scott free.

The thing a lot of people do not understand is case law and how it's used. And more importantly - how it's exploited. The law itself comes up as a specific defined situation. But, unbeknownst to most voters it carries a more dangerous part to it. Case law generally is used to reference not a specific situation, but the idea - and more importantly - the motivation behind the law. So, the idea of banning texting on cell phones sounds great. However, in case law it would be incorporated to include the motivation behind the law - distraction. The law itself is representing as banning cell phones, but the case law will be used to prosecute against distraction. And, this leaves the door open for people to be prosecuted for talking to someone in the car, looking at a billboard, etc. etc. etc. This is the dangerous slippery slope of judicial interpretation. Ever heard of people protesting "legislating from the bench?" Essentially, a judge cannot 'create' a law himself. But, he can use an existing law of similar mind and 'interpret' to apply via case law. That's how tyranny grows in a free and open society - regulation. You still with me Geof? This is the kind of thought and knowledge required to not be taken advantage of by whimsical regulation. It's pretty easy to just vote for something that "makes you feel good." Ask people from England.

[Cooter]

I think it's funny that people actually think this is going to deter people from texting and driving

[HarrisonTX]

I bet you'd change your opinion if your wife/son/daughter were injured or killed by somebody texting and driving (not saying I've had a relative that has happened to).

Completely unrelated. Whether I HOPE it works, versus whether I THINK it will work is completely different. I never said I was for or against it. Sure I HOPE it will save lives, even one will be worth it. Do I actually think it will save a life? No.

[stevo]

Time to go drive through Arlington with my cell phone in my hand waiting to get pulled over and handed a ticket. "Your Honor if you will watch this short little video clip from my on board Go Pro camera set up you will see the stop was unwarranted"

The odds are the cop would find the camera and beat the shit out of you for filming him.

Stevo

[Geor!]

You failed to address one of my posts as well, for the record. Let me respond to this one first, then I'll go and see what you're referring to.

You forgot to address those other two points again. So what you're saying is the victims are just not the "ultimate" victims. You're grouping victims into categories which are more, or less important. So you're deciding which people should have retribution, and which should not? Which people are entitled to compensation, and which are not? Does that sound about right? Do you see how this shit gets out of control?

I'm not sure if I were grouping them according to importance, but with a fat ass who eats McDonald's every day and croaks of a coronary at age 45, the blame lies solely on him/her. Not McDonald's, or their various distributors. Also, could lie on his/her family members too, if you want to get nitpicky. They deserve no retribution. They are entitled to nothing but a life insurance policy, if they had one.

If someone's texting and not paying attention to the road and winds up killing somebody, the blame lies soley on THEM. Are you telling me that the blame should be on the victim? Sorry, jack, you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? The family of this victim IS entitled to some form of justice (retribution). They ARE entitled to some sort of compensation, in whatever form it comes in.

The police POLICING for an activity that could prevent all of that in the first place, should be welcomed and embraced.

The reason why your drunk driving comment is completely irrelevant, is you forget that to enter into a decision or contract - legal or otherwise, the law requires you be in a competent frame of mind, and able to understand the consequences. When you are drunk, you are unable to do this. This falls into it's own legal category, much as driving when stoned, or driving without your glasses, or operating equipment, or even walking down the street. All of this is illegal not because driving or walking itself is a dangerous act, but because the individual is not in a competent frame of mind.

If competency were the issue, then the police would hand down the same sentences for a public intoxication than they would for a DWI, right?



The bottom line is this, while our ideology, (I'm assuming) for the most part, is essentially same, we disagree on this front and neither one of us will budge from our stance.

[mikec]

I can't wait until they pass the law that would ticket people for picking their noses.

[Broncojohnny]

You forgot to address those other two points again. So what you're saying is the victims are just not the "ultimate" victims. You're grouping victims into categories which are more, or less important. So you're deciding which people should have retribution, and which should not? Which people are entitled to compensation, and which are not? Does that sound about right? Do you see how this shit gets out of control?

The reason why your drunk driving comment is completely irrelevant, is you forget that to enter into a decision or contract - legal or otherwise, the law requires you be in a competent frame of mind, and able to understand the consequences. When you are drunk, you are unable to do this. This falls into it's own legal category, much as driving when stoned, or driving without your glasses, or operating equipment, or even walking down the street. All of this is illegal not because driving or walking itself is a dangerous act, but because the individual is not in a competent frame of mind. I could stab your entire family in the face and kill them, but if I can prove I was not in a competent frame of mind (see: insanity) then I can get off scott free.

The thing a lot of people do not understand is case law and how it's used. And more importantly - how it's exploited. The law itself comes up as a specific defined situation. But, unbeknownst to most voters it carries a more dangerous part to it. Case law generally is used to reference not a specific situation, but the idea - and more importantly - the motivation behind the law. So, the idea of banning texting on cell phones sounds great. However, in case law it would be incorporated to include the motivation behind the law - distraction. The law itself is representing as banning cell phones, but the case law will be used to prosecute against distraction. And, this leaves the door open for people to be prosecuted for talking to someone in the car, looking at a billboard, etc. etc. etc. This is the dangerous slippery slope of judicial interpretation. Ever heard of people protesting "legislating from the bench?" Essentially, a judge cannot 'create' a law himself. But, he can use an existing law of similar mind and 'interpret' to apply via case law. That's how tyranny grows in a free and open society - regulation. You still with me Geof? This is the kind of thought and knowledge required to not be taken advantage of by whimsical regulation. It's pretty easy to just vote for something that "makes you feel good." Ask people from England.

Every law will be pushed to its absolute maximum logical and sometimes illogical interpretation. That is why you have cases where kids who were sexting are charged with distributing child pornography.

[Geor!]

Now you're comparing texting to talking to a passenger in your car?

Let's go ahead and ban birthing as well since toting kids around in cars is distracting to the parents. Now I'm starting to see the light!