America - The Official Thread

[Dennisch]

We do as far as I know.

So manslaughter would be right in the case of the fedex guy. If it's true that it was unintentionally.

 

[Blood Eagle]

So manslaughter would be right in the case of the fedex guy. If it's true that it was unintentionally.

I'm sure they had enough evidence to prove negligence if he got 7 years.

 

[McLaren]

Here in California we have DUI Checkpoints. You wait in a line that can take quite a while sometimes, they get right in your face and ask if you have been drinking. You can lie but they can smell it on you if you have. Now, it seems like a good idea in theory but it's actually a direct violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Many states do not conduct these DUI Checkpoints because of that very reason. California has it's own Constitution and since driving is a privilege and not a right, they can get around the 4th Amendment. These types of things have nothing to do with privacy, it's more of a Civil Rights issue. If you are happy with sacrificing your own rights and being unreasonable searched by police with no probable cause or a warrant than good for you. It has little to do with public safety but more for revenue generation. Traffic violations are that same way. 5 mph above the speed limit does not pose any kind of significant risk to anyone but the $350 fine you would have to pay makes the city money. There is not enough real crime to keep the city in business so you getting caught on small infractions like that make the City millions of dollars annually. It's a racket.

Then you make a petition to remove DUI checkpoints. Keef's ideology is just to legalize drunk driving altogether; his poor attempt at "cutting off the head" of the issue.

Don't start acting like Keef & not presenting all the details to your claims. If you feel this is unjust, you are given the option to fight it & it's not hard to convince a judge that a 5mph ticket should be a warning and waived offense.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Then you make a petition to remove DUI checkpoints. Keef's ideology is just to legalize drunk driving altogether; his poor attempt at "cutting off the head" of the issue.

Don't start acting like Keef & not presenting all the details to your claims. If you feel this is unjust, you are given the option to fight it & it's not hard to convince a judge that a 5mph ticket should be a warning and waived offense.

No, I stated my piece and provided my reasons. Don't really need to post pics of graphs or anything like that. Your opinions are yours. It's not my job to attempt to change them. It is fun to get people's take on the U.S. Constitution who don't even live in the U.S. though.

Even the Police will admit that they can't do a whole lot on account ot the 4th Amendment. If you have 6 minutes to kill.

[video]

 

[McLaren]

No, I stated my piece and provided my reasons.

So you want to complain about how DUI checkpoints are against the 4th Amendment, but you don't want to start a petition or actually do anything about changing them?

Don't really need to post pics of graphs or anything like that. Your opinions are yours. It's not my job to attempt to change them.

It's not an opinion that you are granted a right to fight a ticket you find unjust.

It is fun to get people's take on the U.S. Constitution who don't even live in the U.S. though.

What difference does it make if Dennisch lives here or not? It's not like it's guarded secret only Americans are entitled to.

 

[Blood Eagle]

So you want to complain about how DUI checkpoints are against the 4th Amendment, but you don't want to start a petition or actually do anything about changing them?

It's my right as an American Citizen to complain about something I feel is Unconstitutional. We're beyond petitions here. DUI Checkpoints have been determined to be legal under an administrative check like an airport screening. California is one of those states where people are dumb enough to not know the 4th Amendment exists. Also dumb enough to vote for higher taxes as a solution to debt, compound that with small revenue generating violations like traffic infractions. It's a financial game. Can you fight tickets? Yes. Does that mean they get dismissed? No. The legal status of a DUI checkpoint is that it's a slippery slope. California conducts them. More constitutionally friendly states like Texas, for example, have determined them to be illegal under the 4A. What good is a petition when the Supreme Court decided it was legal to not uphold the Constitution in certain states that are notoriously full of dumb people who believe that it's ok to waive civil liberties. You still need probable cause to conduct a DUI investigation. Well, that vid I posted the Police didn't have probable cause but conducted a search anyways because it was at the Officer's discretion. They even admitted they had nothing on him due to that pesky U.S. Constitution.

 

[McLaren]

It's my right as an American Citizen to complain about something I feel is Unconstitutional.

It's also your right to act upon it. No movement in America was achieved through complaining on the couch.

We're beyond petitions here. DUI Checkpoints have been determined to be legal under an administrative check like an airport screening. California is one of those states where people are dumb enough to not know the 4th Amendment exists. Also dumb enough to vote for higher taxes as a solution to debt, compound that with small revenue generating violations like traffic infractions. It's a financial game.

They were determined legal as "necessary means of protection" against drunk motorists. But, in your eyes, people are dumb if they agree with it & you've already stated you won't back it up with any evidence, so you're a brick wall there.

Can you fight tickets? Yes. Does that mean they get dismissed? No.

Uh, that's a yes and no. A person fighting a 5mph ticket has a reasonably good chance at dismissing it.

The legal status of a DUI checkpoint is that it's a slippery slope. California conducts them. More constitutionally friendly states like Texas, for example, have determined them to be illegal under the 4A. What good is a petition when the Supreme Court decided it was legal to not uphold the Constitution in certain states that are notoriously full of dumb people who believe that it's ok to waive civil liberties. You still need probable cause to conduct a DUI investigation.

And again, you have the liberty in America to voice this concern & bring attention back to it if you gain support. Laws can be changed.

Well, that vid I posted the Police didn't have probable cause but conducted a search anyways because it was at the Officer's discretion. They even admitted they had nothing on him due to that pesky U.S. Constitution.

I don't watch those videos. It only shows that everyone has a law degree & there's no easier to rile up a cop than to play lawyer with him.

People complain about injustice in these situations but forget they have a right to bring up the charges later & file complaints. Live today, fight tomorrow. But, people just like to bitch.

 

[Blood Eagle]

What have you done for civil rights in your respective country?

 

[McLaren]

What have you done for civil rights in your respective country?

Sorry, that isn't how a debate works. You're the one proposing the claims, it's your job to back them up, not turn the spotlight on me. Try again.

Oh, and maybe you should read back a few posts. It might give you an idea of which state I live in, genius.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I'm just saying, you seem to know a lot about starting movements. Teach me your ways. I had you pegged as a Red Coat.

 

[McLaren]

I'm just saying, you seem to know a lot about starting movements. Teach me your ways. I had you pegged as a Red Coat.

Looks like someone ran out of ammunition in his argument.

 

[Blood Eagle]

1 internet for you.

But seriously though, it's pretty self important to demand debate. If you want to beat a subject to death, post your opinion in the America Thread. Novels posted by one guy who is never wrong. Beating it to death relentlessly. I have a differing opinion. So do you. No biggie. I went through this with teenagers in the cool wall threads. It makes no difference to me how anyone feels about an issue. It's not my place to demand you see my point of view. It's not yours either. I don't like how we have it in my state. That's the end of it. I may have to wait until an unarmed black teenager gets killed by police at a DUI Checkpoint for it to change. A DUI in CA is approximately $12,000 for a first time offence and goes up from there. It's a full blown business and it's all at the....... wait for it...... Officer's discretion

 

[Sanji Himura]

It's also your right to act upon it. No movement in America was achieved through complaining on the couch.

They were determined legal as "necessary means of protection" against drunk motorists. But, in your eyes, people are dumb if they agree with it & you've already stated you won't back it up with any evidence, so you're a brick wall there.

Uh, that's a yes and no. A person fighting a 5mph ticket has a reasonably good chance at dismissing it.

And again, you have the liberty in America to voice this concern & bring attention back to it if you gain support. Laws can be changed.

I don't watch those videos. It only shows that everyone has a law degree & there's no easier to rile up a cop than to play lawyer with him.

People complain about injustice in these situations but forget they have a right to bring up the charges later & file complaints. Live today, fight tomorrow. But, people just like to bitch.

Actually, you lost the debate right there. I am from Texas, and I can tell you that you always have the right to an attorney at any point during a police interrogation, which at the point where the officer, without probable cause, searched the vehicle.

It's a lot like saying to a younger sibling, "what do you have in that box," and they say, "nothing," and you don't believe them and search the box anyways.

However, in Texas, and I'm sure in other states as well, there is something called No Refusal. In certain weekends of the year, if you get pulled over for suspected DWI, and you refuse the sobriety tests, they cuff you, take you to jail and under medical supervision, draw blood for your BAC.

 

[FoolKiller]

And with your plan those drivers will be drunk too.

Did you just argue that when you make it legal everyone says, "LET'S DRINK SOME BEERS AND DRIVE!"

I find a legitimate debate turns ridiculous when your argument becomes based around no one having a moral code. It's the political equivalent of "what stops you from raping and killing if you don't believe in God?"

This chart shows otherwise.

Granted a reduction of 5,000 isn't huge over a 22 year period, but it's still 5,000 people that will be able to see their loved ones again.

Where is the part where it shows a connection to laws? You showed a decrease in drunk driving fatalities, but have no event tied to the decrease. Why isn't it just a case of awareness? Hell, it doesn't show a decrease in drunk driving, just fatalities. It could be the rise in safety features in cars for all this tells us.

Have your rights violated today, spend lots of money to prove it tomorrow. But, people just like to bitch.

FTFY

 

[McLaren]

^This guy.

Actually, you lost the debate right there. I am from Texas, and I can tell you that you always have the right to an attorney at any point during a police interrogation, which at the point where the officer, without probable cause, searched the vehicle.

Actually, you should try reading what I wrote. You have the right to an attorney. That doesn't automatically make you the attorney which is what everyone in these videos apparently are.

 

[BobK]

I agree with @Keef in principle but not in practice. Something I think is being overlooked is that he's saying punishment should be much harsher if you do cause harm and drunken driving is a contributing factor. Summary execution, for instance, would ensure that the offender wouldn't offend again.

Uh, that's a yes and no. A person fighting a 5mph ticket has a reasonably good chance at dismissing it.

Reminds me of something that happened to me a while back: I received a parking ticket in the mail from a nearby city. Not having been in that neighborhood for a period of months on either side of the infraction date, I went to court to fight the ticket. The judge dismissed the case and the twenty five dollar fine, then ordered me to pay twenty five dollars court costs to the court clerk.

 

[Keef]

Reminds me of something that happened to me a while back: I received a parking ticket in the mail from a nearby city. Not having been in that neighborhood for a period of months on either side of the infraction date, I went to court to fight the ticket. The judge dismissed the case and the twenty five dollar fine, then ordered me to pay twenty five dollars court costs to the court clerk.

The fact this happens ($75 court costs for dismissing a $75 ticket, really?) goes to show that public safety has absolutely nothing to do with public safety. The laws are completely arbitrary and have no rational basis. They simply exist to generate revenue.

Example: Sitting at a red light at 2 in the morning with not a single car in sight. We've all done it and we've been frustrate as hell, know that the very second we roll through it a cop will show up and ticket us. And you will definitely get a ticket if he sees you do it - you just ran a red light! My question is, why? @McLaren

 

[Blood Eagle]

We have traffic cameras here that take pictures of you if you run a red light then they mail you the citation. Florida does too and they got busted for shortening the length of yellow lights when the cameras went up. They did not make that public. In my own hometown there was recently controversy about the breathalyzers the police were using for DUIs were misreporting results and only in the Police's favor. The city extorts it's own citizens. 'Murica

 

[Dennisch]

Most of our traffic lights get turned off after 10-11pm. Because there is little traffic on the road, the junction become one where one side has right of way and the other part essentially turns into a stopsign road. (I have no clue how to explain it any other way in English.)

 

[nobuffalo]

@McLaren Are you serious? Someone expresses their opinion and you insinuate they're lazy and essentially tell them to stop bitching and do something about it... And you say you're trying to debate? Is this a tactic? I'll make sure I already have a petition going before I comment on anything else in this thread.

^This guy.

^Looks like someone ran out of ammunition for his argument.

 

[Liquid]

@McLaren Are you serious? Someone expresses their opinion and you insinuate they're lazy and essentially tell them to stop bitching and do something about it.

Well, his comments towards Keef, at least, were geared towards Keef's usual eye for detail, links and statistics when debating but not in this case. As for Blood Eagle, he is a newcomer in terms of 'regular' GTP debates.

This caught my attention;

Most of our traffic lights get turned off after 10-11pm. Because there is little traffic on the road, the junction become one where one side has right of way and the other part essentially turns into a stopsign road. (I have no clue how to explain it any other way in English.)

So your junctions become regular T-junctions and the four way junctions are like roundabouts without the uh... "round"about part. Right? Interesting that the traffic lights are actually switched off.

 

[Dennisch]

So your junctions become regular T-junctions and the four way junctions are like roundabouts without the uh... "round"about part. Right? Interesting that the traffic lights are actually switched off.

Yes. And yes.

 

[Blood Eagle]

@McLaren Are you serious? Someone expresses their opinion and you insinuate they're lazy and essentially tell them to stop bitching and do something about it... And you say you're trying to debate? Is this a tactic? I'll make sure I already have a petition going before I comment on anything else in this thread.



^Looks like someone ran out of ammunition for his argument.

Apparently he is a Texan who doesn't even have to deal with this sort of thing. I am a Texan too and I live in California. I truly miss living in a free state. It's ok that he expects me to drop whatever I am doing and debate him. I'm really not going to go out of my way to convince anyone of anything. I have my personal feelings on the issue. Since I do, that automatically means I am a drunk driver sympathiser. I am 32, never had a DUI and haven't gotten a moving violation in over 10 years. Me getting in trouble is not an issue. I can compare living in CA to TX and I'm here to tell you that CA will bend over backwards to find a reason to make you pay for something. I don't think it's right.

@Liquid - Newcomer, yes. Make no mistake though, I owe you nothing. I can state an opinion and if you demand debate I am free to carry on with my day and not get sucked into a neverending vortex of internet argument until everyone's typing fingers are bleeding. It's a little counterproductive.

 

[GTsail]

****
Example: Sitting at a red light at 2 in the morning with not a single car in sight. We've all done it and we've been frustrate as hell, know that the very second we roll through it a cop will show up and ticket us. And you will definitely get a ticket if he sees you do it - you just ran a red light! My question is, why? @McLaren

Because the traffic traveling thru the intersection perpendicular to your direction has a green light, and they are justified in assuming that a green light gives him/her the right to travel thru the intersection without hinderance by any cross-traffic (such as red-light running motorists in a hurry to get home to check out the latest GT6 Seasonal Time Trial).

My solution:

All traffic lights should have sensors in the road that can detect the car's traveling in both directions.

For example, lets say that the intersection has a "standard" timed signal of 90 seconds for "thru" traffic and 30 seconds for "cross-traffic", and then the timed sequence repeats. (a study was done, and it was determined that 75% of the intersection's traffic was "thru" traffic and 25% of the traffic was "cross" traffic).

Then lets say that a motorist (Keef) stops at the cross-traffic red light.

The cross-traffic signal sensor detects Keef's car which prompts the thru-signal to check the "thru" road for thru-traffic.

1) If the thru-signal sensor doesn't detect any thru-traffic for 7 seconds, it interupts the "standard" timed signal of 90sec/30sec, and turns the thru-signal light yellow, and then after another 7 seconds, the thru-signal light is turned red. And then the "cross-traffic" signal is prompted to turn green. After the standard 30 seconds for the "cross-traffic" the intersection's signals continue on with the 90sec/30sec sequence.

2) If the thru-signal sensor detects thru-traffic, then no change is made to the 90sec/30sec standard timed signal sequence. The signal should continue to check every 15 seconds for thru-traffic during the rest of the standard 90 second signal sequence.

So cross-traffic would wait no more than about 15 seconds if there were no cars traveling thru the intersection.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Swagger897]

Because the traffic traveling thru the intersection perpendicular to your direction has a green light, and they are justified in assuming that a green light gives him/her the right to travel thru the intersection without hinderance by any cross-traffic (such as red-light running motorists in a hurry to get home to check out the latest GT6 Seasonal Time Trial).

My solution:

All traffic lights should have sensors in the road that can detect the car's traveling in both directions.

For example, lets say that the intersection has a "standard" timed signal of 90 seconds for "thru" traffic and 30 seconds for "cross-traffic", and then the timed sequence repeats. (a study was done, and it was determined that 75% of the intersection's traffic was "thru" traffic and 25% of the traffic was "cross" traffic).

Then lets say that a motorist (Keef) stops at the cross-traffic red light.

The cross-traffic signal sensor detects Keef's car which prompts the thru-signal to check the "thru" road for thru-traffic.

1) If the thru-signal sensor doesn't detect any thru-traffic for 7 seconds, it interupts the "standard" timed signal of 90sec/30sec, and turns the thru-signal light yellow, and then after another 7 seconds, the thru-signal light is turned red. And then the the "cross-traffic" signal is prompted to turn green. After the standard 30 seconds for the "cross-traffic" the intersection's signals continue on with the 90sec/30sec sequence.

2) If the thru-signal sensor detects thru-traffic, then no change is made to the 90sec/30sec standard timed signal sequence. The signal should continue to check every 15 seconds for thru-traffic during the rest of the standard 90 second signal sequence.

So cross-traffic would wait no more than about 15 seconds if there were no cars traveling thru the intersection.

Respectfully,
GTsail

That's how it works down here in GA, although, not all stoplights have the sensors (You can tell by looking at the road just before the stop line (which people don't know even exists) and see the tar filler when they placed the sensors under the road) which is a bit annoying..

Alternatively, if the light is in a rather built up area, not suburban (well maybe), you can look at the crosswalk timer. Generally as soon as I can read the numbers and if I have more than seven seconds left, and the limit is 45 mph, I can make it past the intersection, legally (although, depending on your eyesight and whether or not you are going the limit will vary your results).

 

[McLaren]

Example: Sitting at a red light at 2 in the morning with not a single car in sight. We've all done it and we've been frustrate as hell, know that the very second we roll through it a cop will show up and ticket us. And you will definitely get a ticket if he sees you do it - you just ran a red light! My question is, why? @McLaren

You want a serious answer or a stupid answer.

If I light up a joint by myself and I get stopped by a cop, why do you think he'll confiscate it?

@McLaren Are you serious? Someone expresses their opinion and you insinuate they're lazy and essentially tell them to stop bitching and do something about it... And you say you're trying to debate? Is this a tactic? I'll make sure I already have a petition going before I comment on anything else in this thread.

Ah, if only it had actually gone down that way.

I told him to start a petition or do something if he felt DUI checkpoints were wrong. He said no because the Supreme Court already ruled on it. Last I checked, we are given the right to fight these laws with enough support. Instead of responding, he detered the comment towards me.

You should read whole posts before attempting remarks. Your material might make some sense.

^Looks like someone ran out of ammunition for his argument.

Plenty to go if 95% of everyone's post wasn't cut to focus on 1 comment. Brownie points, though.

Keep the remarks going. I like having a good laugh to pass work by.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I see it as the Captain of the High School Debate Team demanding a debate for the sake of differing opinions. You seem to have life figured out. I'm not going to read 5,000 word essays. I don't actually care that much. Obviously you do. Run around the block and blow off some steam.

 

[Joel]

I see it as the Captain of the High School Debate Team demanding a debate for the sake of differing opinions. You seem to have life figured out. I'm not going to read 5,000 word essays.

I guess that leads me to wonder why you'd bother posting in an opinion discussion forum if you don't want to discuss your opinions. There's plenty of free blogging websites online if you don't feel like discussion.

I don't actually care that much. Obviously you do. Run around the block and blow off some steam.

I'm not about to talk politics with you people just thought it would be interesting to add to the thread.

1 internet for you. But seriously though, it's pretty self important to demand debate.

You seem to care a lot about showing how much you don't care.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I guess that leads me to wonder why you'd bother posting in an opinion discussion forum if you don't want to discuss your opinions. There's plenty of free blogging websites online if you don't feel like discussion.


You seem to care a lot about showing how much you don't care.

3rd quote is not even from this thread. If you feel the need to keep knit picking, take it to PM. Don't get offended when I disregard it though. I don't actually need to discuss anything. Discussion over.

 

[Carbonox]

3rd quote is not even from this thread. If you feel the need to keep knit picking, take it to PM. Don't get offended when I disregard it though. I don't actually need to discuss anything. Discussion over.

And I'm sure people here in the opinions forum don't need to put up with people with an attitude like yours.