Police to Seattle protest supporters: Honk if you'd like a ticket

page: 5
36
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 



Nothing better than the voice of reason and a great analytical mind to show the police apologist that they are in the wrong with facts.

No police apology necessary. The police were not responsible for passing the law. In fact, they had nothing to do with it whatsoever. If you want an apology you should speak to the state legislature for passing the law. But, based on previous conversations, you are a resident of Puerto Rico so Washington State Law has absolutely no effect on you. So complaining is pointless. Unless you visit the state of Washington.

Based on our previous conversation, you may remember the one about welfare, I was under the impression that you were a little more "level headed" then you show in this thread. Please do not prove me wrong.




posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by Julie Washington
 



Okay, what ordinances was he violating?



The driver of a motor vehicle shall when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation give audible warning with his or her horn but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway.

RCW46.37.380
Copied right from the Washigton State Law. All it took was a little research.

So yes, because the guy used his horn for a purpose other than to give audible warning that is reasonably necessary, the driver was in violation of the traffic law. If you violate the law you can be stopped and written a citation.

Car horns - exempted.
Was it "unreasonable"? NO
Was it "frequent and continuous"? NO
Was it "repetitive"? NO
Was it "between 12 AM - 5AM? NO

Motor vehicles are exempted from the noise ordinance but not from the traffic law stated above.

Case dismissed.

Guilty. Pay the fine. Especially if you are the guy's defense attorney.



WRONG. No where in this RCW says it's against the law to honk a horn for other reasons. It just says when reasonably necessary to use a horn, but not on a highway.

It doesn't say it is unlawful to honk a horn for any other purpose other than to give audible warning.

So no, your wrong.

Also, he was cited for breaking the "Noise Ordinance", which is a whole other matter.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 



WRONG. No where in this RCW says it's against the law to honk a horn for other reasons. It just says when reasonably necessary to use a horn, but not on a highway.

Read what I copied straight from the text. Visit the website if you dont believe me.

First paragraph, words 56 through 88. What are you not understanding? I posted the link from the Washington State Legislature website.


It doesn't say it is unlawful to honk a horn for any other purpose other than to give audible warning.

Allow me to break this down for you and put it in more simple terms.

The driver of a motor vehicle...

Meaning the person driving. Meaning the person operating the car. Meaning YOU if you were driving in Washington State.

...shall when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation give audible warning with his or her horn...

...may blow your horn to give someone a warning to ensure safety...

...but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway.

...but not for any other reason.
So now all together.

You may blow your horn to give someone a warning to ensure safety but not for any other reason.

Its pretty clear.

So no, your wrong.

So no, you are wrong.

Also, he was cited for breaking the "Noise Ordinance", which is a whole other matter.

No where in the original article did it say he was cited for noise ordinance. That was the assumption that people were having who were commenting in this thread.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
RCW 46.37.380
Horns, warning devices, and theft alarms.

(1) Every motor vehicle when operated upon a highway shall be equipped with a horn in good working order and capable of emitting sound audible under normal conditions from a distance of not less than two hundred feet, but no horn or other warning device may emit an unreasonably loud or harsh sound or a whistle. The driver of a motor vehicle shall when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation give audible warning with his or her horn but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway. (2) No vehicle may be equipped with nor may any person use upon a vehicle any siren, whistle, or bell, except as otherwise permitted in this section.

(3) It is permissible for any vehicle to be equipped with a theft alarm signal device so long as it is so arranged that it cannot be used by the driver as an ordinary warning signal. Such a theft alarm signal device may use a whistle, bell, horn, or other audible signal but shall not use a siren.

(4) Any authorized emergency vehicle may be equipped with a siren, whistle, or bell capable of emitting sound audible under normal conditions from a distance of not less than five hundred feet and of a type conforming to rules adopted by the state patrol, but the siren shall not be used except when the vehicle is operated in response to an emergency call or in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, in which latter events the driver of the vehicle shall sound the siren when reasonably necessary to warn pedestrians and other drivers of its approach.


Well I've highlighted words 56 through 88 for you.

Can you please point to me the section that says "but not for any other reason". I can't seem to find it.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 



Can you please point to me the section that says "but not for any other reason". I can't seem to find it.


...but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway.

I cannot think of any other definition for this statement. Am I missing something or are you?



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by Julie Washington
 



Can you please point to me the section that says "but not for any other reason". I can't seem to find it.


...but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway.

I cannot think of any other definition for this statement. Am I missing something or are you?


I interpret that to mean "not for use on a "highway". Such as a "freeway".

This clearly does not say "but not for any other reason".



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 



I interpret that to mean "not for use on a "highway". Such as a "freeway".

Ok now I see part of the problem. In traffic law, the term "highway" refers to any street, road, avenue or interstate. Pretty much any public roadway is referred to as a "highway" when the laws are codified.

Here is the definition found in the Washington State Legislature website.

Highway means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

Definition of Highway when pertaining to Washington State Law


This clearly does not say "but not for any other reason".

I am sorry. I cannot make it any more clear than I have made it. You are just going to have to trust me on this one.

Anyone else care to clarify it in a way that may be more understandable?
edit on 10-10-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: edit to delete



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


Based on this local news report, the citation was issued based on a noise complaint.

But unless we see what the "official violation" cited on the ticket, no sense arguing about law.


In the days that have passed, Seattle police have been silent on their Westlake Park noise enforcement efforts. The Seattle Police Department initially agreed to discuss the matter with KIRO 7, then turned down our request and referred us to McGinn.

At a Q and A session with reporters, McGinn said the tickets were written based on complaints from neighbors, although he didn't say how many complaints police received or if they're still writing tickets. McGinn also couldn't say whether the city would consider lowering the $124 fines on tickets that had already been issued. He said that was a matter for the courts.

Some near demonstration not bothered by noise

KIRO 7's Chris Egert talked to several people in the area of the demonstration about the noise.

"If there's any nuisance, it's the (Ride the) Ducks (tour buses) and their blazing of music every day, all summer long," said Natt Duffy of Seattle. "That's more a nuisance than any sort of noise I've heard from the Occupy folks."

Most people Egert spoke with said that of all the noises during all times of the day, the Occupy Seattle honks of support are fairly insignificant..


Full Story



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 



Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Ok. I can respect that.

In your article, the police state that they received complaints from neighbors. And this is the root of the misconception. The protesters want to do what they want while the people living near the demonstration that are not participating just want to live in peace.

The rights of the protesters end when they start to infringe on the rights of people living near the demonstration.

The police are NOT trying to silence the message of the protest. The police are caught in the middle and are just trying to protect the rights of those that want to live in their homes without the sound of car horns all night. People's frustration needs to be directed towards who is at the root of the problem OWS is against, not the police.





new topics
top topics
 
36
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join