It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Case Dismissed" There is justice.

page: 2
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Pimpish
reply to post by greencmp
 


Sure. Falling down the stairs is exactly the same as being in a car accident. That's why the deaths from falling down stairs are so close to the deaths in motor vehicle accidents.

They probably need to make laws about tying shoes too because so many people die from tripping over their shoe laces.


Thank you, you are beginning to understand my point.




posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


No, actually, what I was engaging in is called sarcasm, I thought that was pretty obvious. What you're doing is called reductio ad absurdum.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I will not ride in a car where the driver hasn't buckled their seat belt. I will not drive a car with someone in it who won't use the seat belt. It's fine for the OP to not use the belt, that's their choice, but to allow her husband to drive with her without his belt on errs on the side of something other than concern for his rights.

Many years ago I started buckling up seat belts each and every time after I'd gotten into a car with a high-ranking elected offical, someone in charge of international affairs in their legislative body. He buckled up immediately, and I realized then and there that he valued his life, his place in society, and the potential of the work he would be doing in the future enough to assure his safety. From that time on I've never not worn a seat-belt in a car. The OP may have won in court, but not in the realm of common sense, imnho.
edit on 28-3-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Pimpish

I suppose you could get rid of the law, which does get a lot of people to wear their seat belts who might not otherwise, and then just every time someone is in a fatal accident due to not wearing their seat belt we could just go ahead and give them a Darwin award.




OR

Having the insurance made nul and void for any vehicle where the driver and

passenger were not wearing their seat belts?? . . . . If this is not already the case!?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Pimpish
reply to post by greencmp
 


Sure. Falling down the stairs is exactly the same as being in a car accident. That's why the deaths from falling down stairs are so close to the deaths in motor vehicle accidents.

They probably need to make laws about tying shoes too because so many people die from tripping over their shoe laces.


If statistical deaths are the measure then not eating wholesome food should certainly be criminalized since the vast majority of deaths are the direct result of poor diets.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Pimpish
reply to post by greencmp
 


Don't think I would disagree with you, despite my belief that everyone should wear their seatbelt. People should be smart enough to wear their seat belt without being forced to. They're not though. The problem is the ones left behind after a fatal accident are the ones that suffer.

I suppose you could get rid of the law, which does get a lot of people to wear their seat belts who might not otherwise, and then just every time someone is in a fatal accident due to not wearing their seat belt we could just go ahead and give them a Darwin award.

It is not the responsibility of the government to mandate that an individual protect themselves from danger. It is the government's responsibility to mandate that a bus driver does what is necessary to provide safety for his passengers, and it is the responsibility of the government to mandate that children are protected by their parents when they are in a motor vehicle.

But let's get right down to the reason that seat belt laws exist.

Do you believe that someone sitting in the capitol building in your state gives a fiddler's damn whether you are killed in a car accident tomorrow?
If you do, you are deluded.
Seat belt laws were written and purchased by lobbyists for the auto insurance companies.
Those companies are the ones that are concerned... they aren't concerned about your health necessarily, they are concerned about the costs.
$$ Money $$
That is the driver here.

If you have enough money, you can buy any law that you want.
edit on b000000312014-03-28T10:07:35-05:0010America/ChicagoFri, 28 Mar 2014 10:07:35 -05001000000014 by butcherguy because: to add



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Pimpish
reply to post by greencmp
 


No, actually, what I was engaging in is called sarcasm, I thought that was pretty obvious. What you're doing is called reductio ad absurdum.


I am simply taking your logic to its ultimate conclusion. And yes, it is absurd.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Bullseye! States enacted seatbelt laws at the behest of insurance companies seeking to reduce their payouts. If government was really concerned about your safety there wouldn't be no-knock warrants where swat teams burst into people's homes and gun them down.

I've been a staunch supporter of seat belts since I began driving and before they were mandatory. It's just common sense to take advantage of every safety precaution available. But from the government and insurance company's point of view, it's just a matter of dollars: the government in what they can get from fines and the insurance companies in reduced payouts. They don't make these laws to protect anyone except their own bottom lines.

The way I see it, if someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt, it should be their choice. That's what natural selection is all about. People should have the right to be stupid as long as they only hurt themselves.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by diggindirt
 


I had this happen to me as well.

I have a 70 dodge charger, was driving one day, some CHP (california hwy patrol) pulls me over.

Why he didn't see a seat belt, It had lapbelts.


He ticketed me because he said it needed shoulder restraints as well,

He was completely talking out his ass, went to court with all the laws printed up, dismissed as no ticket should of been issued.

HUGE waste of time that if I didn't fight would of had to pay, and it shouldn't of happened in the first place.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
New Hampshire is the only state in the USA that does not require wearing a seat belt by law. A block of democrats campaigned to end New Hampshire's unique status, but a counter-effort lead by Free State Project participants has kept New Hampshire as the hold-out. I think that the FSP is the most valuable political effort out there to stop things like this.

Democrats say "my body, my choice" but they seem to mean, "your body, my choice". Not that Republicans are any better when they think they have the right to chose what food and drugs you cannot grow and consume on your own property, especially substances that change people's thinking a bit.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I know the feeling well! When it's working (which isn't often), I drive a 1977 MGB. Under KY's law, seatbelts aren't required due to it's age (pre-1981) & since I'd rather be tossed out of the car than have my head dragged along the pavement if the car flipped, I don't wear them. My husband & I have been pulled over several times but, so far, the officers who have pulled us over have been appeased by the copy of the law that we keep in my glove box. It also helps that there's a large antique car club based here in town & main street shuts down at least once a month for car shows, in addition to almost weekly "cruise in's" at Dairy Queen, Sonic, the local park, etc. so "antique cars" are seen on the roads here pretty much every day!


Anyway, in a "normal" car, I wear my seatbelt religiously, having walked away from two severe accidents thanks to having it on at the time. But in my LBC ("little British car"), it's safer not to wear it!
edit on 28-3-2014 by bwick because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
To me bring into the public record a Judge and the word 'wink' is not very bright. The first thing I thought of was LBJ and Air Force One.
All you had to do was say 'my state' instead of identifying to the entire free world this case, a courtroom and the word wink.

Now that you have thrown yours and the Judges privacy rights right down the toilet by bring something into public sphere that is supposed to be secret, out for everyone to see.

Judges make a lot of enemy's-actually traffic court and DUI judges get more threats that criminal court judges. If you recall Charles Harrelson father of Woody is serving a life sentence for killing a judge-the whole thing started out with a parking ticket.

You see it doesn't matter the circumstances, however innocent they may be, an enemy of this judge could bring this all out in the open. While they are at it the case, your name, the judges name, the prosecutor's name are all fair game-remember YOU are the one that brought this up-no body forced you or dug this up-you provided it.

This is dirty business-I should know-you should do the right thing and find your friend the judge and show him word for word what you showed the world about his courtroom-and how he settles cases.

He is going to be livid-and the word 'wink' that is so awful so bad he is going to cringe when he sees that. God that is just terrible.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
People who don't wear seat belts are idiots. The car being so old makes it worse. The thing probably handles horribly, brakes even worse, doesn't have safety glass, doesn't have airbags, and is built without crumple zones. Almost anything built in the 70's is already a death trap, why risk it?





Getting ejected form a moving vehicle rarely ends well. Ever see that picture of the roll over in an SUV where the guy wasn't wearing his seatbelt and gets ejected through the sun roof? Well, really just his head. Looks like a water melon got squished under the roof.

I'm all for fighting tickets that aren't justified, but I'm also all for seat belts.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 

Why do people drive a car without seat belts?

Hmmm.

Why do people ride motorcycles?

Many states do not require motorcyclists to wear helmets, but the same states mandate that a person inside a steel shell automobile (with airbags) wear seat belts.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
In a country like the US where we are told we have freedom, we still have to wear seatbelt. When the seatbelt laws were first passed they promised that those laws would NEVER be used to pull someone over for simply not wearing a seatbelt. As expected with money making laws, this is not the case anymore and my home state of Florida routinely has campaigns to pull as many people as possible for not wearing a seatbelt.

I support the law requiring minors to wear a seatbelt, but to force so called free men and women to wear is a clear indication that we have become a nanny state. I'm glad to hear you were able to beat it.

I had a run in with the law back in December, spent the night in jail over frivolous charges and had to go to court. Since this wasn't my first rodeo I knew what to do. All I did was show up and plea No Guilty and because there was no evidence against me the prosecutor had no choice but to abandon/drop the charges. I'll still have to pay if I want the arrest record expunged.

Sometimes in court justice still prevails.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

TDawgRex
reply to post by diggindirt
 


Overall a great story. The Police do need to know the laws that they enforce.

But the fire phobia thing doesn't fly with me. I guess you're OK with numerous plastic surgeries, if you survive a collision though, right? But at least your clothes, though bloody as hell, won't be wrinkled when you show up in the emergency room.
And if I were to read a story were you were grievously injured in a accident where not much would have happened to you while wearing a seat belt, I know I would just think that as another idiot statistic (Darwin Award).

Oh well, your choice. Since you don't like seat belts, I also hope you don't text or talk on the cell phone while driving as well. After all, your phobias are oh so much more important than your family...right?

Nope, don't own a cell phone and haven't had any driving citations in over 30 years, haven't ever been involved in an accident that was in any way my fault.
Do you know what a phobia is? I assure you I would be far more distracted with a belt across my chest and having an anxiety attack because of it than without it.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
While seatbelts do prevent ejection and can save lives, the also can kill people. I know a trauma nurse who refuses to wear a seatbelt because of how many deaths he has seen as a result of a seatbelt.

The bottom line is seatbelt laws give the state a source of revenue and insurance companies a way to dodge liability. It all about the money.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

spooky24
I'm only a few miles south of the base and I will never believe that this exchange occurred in a court in session that is public record.

"The district attorney stated that was his reading of the statute as well and therefore his only choice was to dismiss the charge with prejudice. I smiled and thanked them both. The judge's comment was, "Well, I've learned something today. But you really should wear your seat belts." I smiled again and said nothing more.

You are telling me that David J. Hale had this exchange with you and a non mentioned judge over a seat belt violation in open court?.
" But you really should wear your seat belts" That could get your mystery judge impeached for misconduct as it is not up to the judge to decide how laws are enforced. Also, you charged that you were given 'special treatment' by the judge because you knew him? This stuff is public record.

You rant and rail at the system yet you do EXACTLY what you rant and rail about- You smiled at DA Hale and the judge and get off?

What in the Sam hill would the District Attorney be doing in traffic court?

Good job-the officer was trying to save your life.


Huh?
I live in Kentucky. The County Attorney is David Harrington. (Please read the post---never said District Attorney) The judge is Hon. Randy Hutchens. There were about 60 other people in court so yes, it is quite public. I never said I was given special treatment, only that the judge knows me, knows my background. All the folks at the courthouse know me because I've been quite active in local government and state government circles for many years. I don't sit back and whine about problems I try to find solutions and help to implement them.
I didn't "get off" because I smiled at the judge and the county attorney, the charge was dismissed because it was bogus---the law applies to vehicles "manufactured after 1981" (www.lrc.ky.gov...) and my car is of 1970s vintage. You appear to be as dense as the officer I encountered. My life is not likely to be ended driving 30 mph on a city street. How sad...



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by diggindirt
 




The district attorney stated that was his reading of the statute as well and therefore his only choice was to dismiss the charge with prejudice.

So you're telling me that the DA was presiding over a case in traffic court? Yeah...I'm not buying it.


edit on 28-3-2014 by LucidWarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


not all old cars =death traps in a collision. back in 2005 i was driving my 4 door postless 72 impala(old car only lap belts) and got rear ended by a geo metro(new car) at something like 65-70mph on an on ramp to highway 85 in the bay area the driver that hit me shattered both his legs and a bunch of ribs broken when he pancaked on my 285 pound chrome bumper now to be fair his car didnt have air bags but neither did mine but i walked away from the crash with no injuries and a fully functioning vehicle (well i was down a tail light ) where he left in the back of an ambulance with his car on a flat bed

but in general seat belts are handy and should be used in most cases


www.youtube.com... posting this to show it depends alot on the car and whos hitting who. as some of the more dangerious things on old cars(no head rests and gas tanks placed between rear axle and trunk (like in pinto video above) of note most crown victorias up to 2004 had the gas tank in the same location and is why you wont see that year police car ever ram things backwards www.palmbeachpost.com... and they were a new police car....so new does not automatically=safer

www.auto-accident-resource.com...
edit on 28-3-2014 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join