C
- Status
A
AHapka
Guest
No, aspawloski4th is correct. Many things are illegal that are not misdemeanor or felony crimes. They are called civil forfeitures in Wisconsin. I’m sure other states may name them other things, but the concept is the same. Some examples (and I’ve thrown in a few weird laws we have here just for fun):
Underage drinking;
Bringing alcohol into Wisconsin unless a licensed distributor (seriously, driving into this state with a can of beer legally purchased in another is illegal here);
Municipal ordiance disorderly conduct;
Municipal ordinance possession of marijuana;
Municipal ordinance trespassing;
Scalping tickets at a sporting event;
Failure to license dog/cat;
First offense OWI (only 2nd+ are crimes, we are the only stat in the union this way);
Fraud on gas station;
Person <18 misrepresents age to purchase tobacco;
Activating false fire alarms on UW property;
Operate ATV on frozen public waters within 100 feet of fishing shanty in excess of 10mph;
Load or discharge a firearm or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or crossbow in or from a vehicle (without a highway hunting permit)($203.40 for that one);
Littering;
Absolute sobriety violations <19 years of age for snowmobile or ATV (though it’s <21 for other motor vehicles);
Driving wild animals with a snowmobile
And many, many others…some most people don’t even know are out there
C
CWBetts
Guest
I don’t care what you call it, a crime is anything that is in violation of the law.
A
AHapka
Guest
About 90% of the time I know within the first 10 seconds or so of talking to the person the route the traffic stop is going to take.
Our supervisors would very heavily frown upon us searching a car without some clear indicators of a violation. There are certain indicators we look for to detect possible drug runners. If they are not there, most (can’t speak for everyone) of us won’t even take it any farther. It’s not worth wasting my time or the citizen’s time on something very likely to go nowhere.
Which is why you might get stopped at bar time for not signalling a few lane changes that you wouldn’t get stopped for in the middle of the day. I think that’s pretty much common knowledge these days.
You may read about how elderly people are occasionally found smuggling drugs, or someone who you never would have guessed as transporting drugs and wonder “How did they even suspect him?” It’s because if the indicators are there, then we investigate further. The more indicators, the more likely it is that someone is transporting drugs.
A
AHapka
Guest
It’s my job to know what to call it and I do. Just because your opinion is different, doesn’t make you right. You are in fact, wrong. And it’s pretty well defined in my state statutes.
Wisconsin State Statute:
“939.12 Crime defined. A crime is conduct which is prohibited by state law and punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Conduct punishable only by a forfeiture is not a crime.”
C
CWBetts
Guest
Let me introduce you to a word: semantics. And speeding is punisable by fine
A
AHapka
Guest
In the interest of charity, I will accept what you said about semantics and not argue just to make technical points here.
I only am picky about it because if I make a mistake with the wrong wording, it can be a big headache for me in court with attorneys and such. For example, a juvenile in Wisconsin is never found guilty of a crime in juvenile court. The are “ajudicated delinquent.” Now, yes, we all know it means basically the same thing. But if I screw up and use the wrong wording in reports and documents, I’ll have a headache with supervisors, attorneys, etc. The reason this is done is so that they can truthfully answer “no” when asked if they have ever been convicted of a crime (since they were only adjudicated delinquent).
I sometimes forget not everyone works under the same constraints I do. And I was also trying to be informative and educational.
If I have offended you in any way, I am sorry.
P
pismopal
Guest
You accuse all police of being greedy. You seem to think Catholics have no responsibility to submit to legitimite authority. The radar detector was designed for one use and one use alone: to enable people to break the law. If submission to legitimite authority is “idolatry” then you have a misunderstanding of idolatry. I do not worship the government, I give it the respect and submission it is due. There are no unjust speeding laws. Please explain how they are unjust. A police officer monitoring traffic is in no way a violation of anyones rights. I am sick of the rediculous complex people have that “freedom” means being able to do whatever you want, and no one can say anything about it. I again assert that if you do not speed, as you suggest, but I do not believe, then you have no need for a device designed to assist in circumvebting the law. Furthermore by contesting that policwe have no right to survaillance, but privat individuals do makes no sense. You are giving individuals more authority than the government to which you are to submit. Police use of radar is not a violation of probable
My friend…I mean no disrespect but whatever the radar detector was intended to do…it is designed to detect radar frequency transmissions…period. To say that everone who uses a radar detector is doing so in order to break the law is inaccurate and unfair. For openers…my state, California has a prima facia speed limit which briefly means that any speed which can be shown to be unsafe is illegal. Conversely…the officer citing must be able to prove that in said prima facia speed zone your speed was in fact unsafe…regardless of your accused speed. The idea that a motorist would want to know that radar is being used in a particular area is not illegal immoral or fattening…IMO.
Now…speaking as a person who has issued thousands of citations with a clear conscience…I can say that most of them were not for speeding. I consider speed violations, although numerous, are the least dangerous of the major moving violations. The issue is simply that there are so many people going faster than “the sign says” …speeding is the easiest violation to detect and cite and hence the violation of choice for municipalities looking for revenue.
The motorist who can monitor his detector and his own speed is an aware savvy driver who will be the safer driver even though he may be at times exceeding the posted limit. I will take the savvy driver for safety any day over the unaware drone driver who doesn’t go over the speed limit simply because he has no confidence (justifiably so) in his or her own driving ability. We are talking safe driving or should be… the idea that everyone who exceeds the speed limit is a lawbreaker or criminal because they use a radar detector is unfair and inaccurate.
My bona fides are available on request
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I accuse governments of being greedy. They in turn push their police to be revenue agents.
Do you not know of civil forfeiture laws where people lose their money and property and never are charged with a crime? A man who ran a flower shop goes to mexico with $9000 cash to buy flowers for his shop gets pulled over for a traffic stop. His money gets seized yet he is never charged with anything (not even a traffic ticket). The money is charged civilly with being polluted by a possible crime and can be seized. These laws are unjust.
fear.org/
Even if we don’t go that far, towns and municipalities are notorious for using ticket revenue for funding their budgets - and why not have their police write bogus tickets to out of towners who cannot drive 500 miles to fight a ticket?
Then there are towns that just write tickets because they can. Schaumburg, IL is notorious for this. DUI’d a lawyer driving with a BAC of 0.00 (lawsuit settled for $1million), writing tickets for 1MPH over the limit (that’s within the error threshhold of speedometers).
Such abuses do happen and are very frequent.
I have never said this, this is a blatant lie and yet another ad-hominem.
Incorrect. The radar detector was designed to detect the presence of radar. By itself, it is morally neutral. Yes, many use it to break the law. But owning one or operating one is not illegal (except in 2 places in the USA)
Let’s take your line of reasoning to an another thing - the surgeon’s scalpel. Using your line of reasoning, it is designed to cut people. Therefore it is a weapon and enables people to break the law (assault & battery, attempted murder) Of course I would argue that it is morally neutral and can be used for moral reasons.
Respect and submission to the government does not impose a moral duty for me or anyone to reward the government for being greedy. It does not give me a moral duty to put myself in a situation where I will be obtaining a bogus ticket or having my vacation money seized - things that DO happen without me breaking the law.
Sorry, I refuse to commit idolatry by closing my eyes to these facts about governmental greed and thinking the government is all nice and holy.
What are the purpose of speeding laws? For safety reasons. Or so they say.
Interstate highways, for example, are built by FEDERAL law to be safe at 70MPH. Why is there a 55MPH limit? Cant’ be safety, that is not the reason for that.
Now, if someone gets a ticket for doing 56 in a 55 zone, was that safety? Or Revenue?
And if the government keeps up the “safety” line in defending such strict enforcement, is that not called lying?
If the local government broke the federal law and built a highway unsafe for 70MPH, and puts up a 55MPH out of “safety reasons” - is that just? I don’t think it is just for people to do something illegal and ask other innocent people to cover for them.
And if it is not lying or greed, things we should not be aiding and abetting?
Also, with bogus tickets being written on people who did not break the law, that’s unjust enforcement of laws.
The device is not designed to circumvent the law. It simply detects radar.
And I do have a need for it - I want to know when I’m being monitored. I want to know when Big Brother is watching me.
Are you arguing that one does not have a MORAL RIGHT to know if one is being monitored by the government?
Please show me where I said that? Putting words in my mouth = uncharitable. I merely said that if I’m being monitored, I have a moral right to know. I’ve repeated this several times.
Now this is an interesting thing. If police were to monitor someone’s house with equipment designed to hear every conversation in the house, I’m sure there would be some court order or probable cause needed for this. After all, they’re out on public streets. But if the government can monitor you without even probable cause on public streets under this situation (radar), why not there under another situation? Or under another circumstance? What stops the slippery slope into totalitarianism?
Sorry, I refuse to commit idolatry by closing my eyes to these facts about governmental greed and thinking the government is all nice and holy.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Your post uses may words to say one thing: Big Brother paranoia. Stoop accusing me of idolatry. Probable cuase exists for radar use EVERY DRIVER at onetime or aqnother speeds. YOU ARE SIMPLY MAKING EXCUSES! If the government is greedy for collecting revenue, are you not also greedy for not wanting to contibute to the system you yourself use? I have NEVER been issued a ticket I did not deserve. You site a COUPLE of examples from the MILLIONS of tickets written EVERY DAY to “prove” the government is greedy and corrupt. Not convincing. And I would suggest you not call police “revenue agents” to do so is insulting to people who risk their lives to keep you safe.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
How do you know they’re bogus? Why do you automatically presume the police/government guilty until proven innocent, when you yourself have reminded us that the law of the land is innocent until proven guilty?
I agree that abuses happen, but I disagree that they’re very frequent. The reason they make the news is because they are infrequent. The abuses are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule!
Technically you’re correct. Radar detector was designed to detect the presence of radar. However, I think they were initially designed as a military asset - used to detect enemy radar (radar scramblers as well, they’re illegal everywhere to my knowledge for civilian use). This is actually a morally positive use IMO. However, when they are marketed today, they are marketed as a means not just of monitoring police, but of allowing you to escape detection of speeding/radar. Although you say you don’t use yours for this purpose, I think previously you have admitted that most people do use them for this purpose. That purpose (the most common one) is morally wrong IMO. If you don’t want to do the time, don’t do the crime…
Again, what’s with the guilty until proven innocent? You automatically assume the government is greedy/guilty. That’s not very charitable IMO. Your duty as a citizen/Catholic is to obey the law to the best of your ability.
Again w/ the government is guilty until proven innocent.
On average interstate highways are meant to be limited access. In areas where there are lots of exit ramps and/or entrance ramps or other possible hazards it is prudent to lower the speed limit to 65-55 mph. It is for safety. Cars entering & exiting the interstate cannot acheive 70 mph on the short ramps in these congested areas (usually where interstates pass through towns and/or cross other major roads. They must be able to safely merge in with traffic. Catapulting along at 70 mph when traffic is entering & exiting is not safe for any. Again, it is more difficult to stop a vehicle going 70 mph than one going 55 mph. Decisions must be made more quickly going 70 mph than going 55 mph. Reaction times are much shorter going 70 mph than 55 mph. That’s why sometimes it is prudent for the state/city to lower speed limits on some interstates.
I’m going to have to say that depends on the circumstances behind the stop.
Again w/ the government is guilty until proven innocent… Geez.
The most common use for a radar detector is to evade traffic tickets. The way they are marketed is as a means of avoiding traffic tickets.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
What’s the big deal w/ your speed being monitored? Since you’re on a public road (unless you’re in your driveway or a private parking lot) none of your rights are even vaguely being violated. Its not like the radar is monitoring your cell phone conversation or your thoughts. On public roads you are bound by public laws. One of these laws is speed limit observance. If you don’t want to be monitored, I suggest you not drive on public roadways. That’s really the only way to avoid it. Although, I still don’t see why having your speed monitored is so horrible in your opinion.
See above. Your conversation in your own home are technically yours - you have a right to privacy on private property. However, when you’re in the public domain, your privacy doesn’t encompass the speed of your car. Your privacy doesn’t surpass that of the public’s right to safety/protection through the law. When your rights begin infringing on someone else’s (speeding can & does violate others rights when there is a speed-related accident), there’s a problem. If you’re on the public side-walk having a conversation that is clearly indicative of a crime being committed and a policeman overhears (or even a civilian) you can be brought in for questioning and sometimes probable cause is found to further monitor you. Policemen are members of Public Safety. Their main objective is just that - public safety. If someone feels you are a threat to public safety, they have every right (and sometimes obligation) to further investigate by some means.
Again w/ the government is guilty until proven innocent. I think I see a theme here. You don’t like being monitored (its a wonder you can survive here on the bulletin boards since we have moderators and rules). You think the government is out to get the average ‘innocent’ citizen just to generate money. It must be hard for you to live in society as it is now since there are so many rules in public places, work places, internet places, etc.
I’ll concede the point that if you’re not using the radar detector to evade detection while you’re speeding (or doing other non-law abiding actions), then its probably morally neutral. However, I think most incidences of radar detector use fall into the morally wrong category b/c they’re used to evade legitimate law.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
First I don’t anyone determining “what I need” Second I’m a very private person in some rspects ,having a plice badge doesn’t make me trust a stranger going through my stuff anymore than anyone else . My time is very valuable to me Ill gladly trade a little of what you call saftey for punctuality…
C
CWBetts
Guest
Time can be an idol too…
J
jmcrae
Guest
The reason is to save on fuel consumption, so that less American money goes overseas to feed OPEC. I thought everyone knew that.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
You are making excuses for the government to do whatever it darn well pleases. I brought up issues which you cannot answer. Police enforcing unjust laws for government profit. But instead of railing against that, you rail against me.
I already do contribute to the system I use. I pay gas taxes, license plates, registration fees, and a whole bevy of taxes. Are you advocating I hand over everything to the government? Sorry, I won’t do that.
And if federal law requires interstates to be safe at 70mph and local governments make under 70 speed limits because they didn’t follow the law, that’s a serious safety issue, which you ignore.
A couple? There are thousands upon thousands of people who’ve had their property confiscated and they were never charged with a crime.
isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html
fear.org/
codemonkeyramblings.com/2008/09/yet-another-reason-why-civil-asset-forfeiture-laws-are-terrible/
sovereignsociety.com/Default/ToServeandProtect/tabid/1494/Default.aspx
cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-179.html
edmontonjournal.com/news/Derailing+government+gravy+train+civil+forfeiture/1369349/story.html
I could go on. There is not a “couple” of things - there are a lot. So go on, feel free to ignore that.
If they are being used as revenue agents, the government doesn’t care about keeping anyone safe.
codemonkeyramblings.com/2008/09/yet-another-reason-why-civil-asset-forfeiture-laws-are-terrible/
edmontonjournal.com/news/Derailing+government+gravy+train+civil+forfeiture/1369349/story.html
No one should be forced to give up property to the state without being convicted of a crime.
I agree with that. Why don’t you agree with that?
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Not of we drill our own oil!
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
So can personal saftey!
N
Nick_in_MB
Guest
I wouldn’t say they’re bogus, but the fines on them are high for only the reason that out-of-towners won’t be able to return to the area to get the fine lowered in court.
A speeding ticket has a set fine. Ideally, you pay that fine, and the consequences (points) attached to it. Except, the cop issuing the ticket tells you, most times, to go to court “It’ll get lowered.”
My father just got a ticket because some yard waste fell out of his truck. Fine is $230. The cop told him to go to court, it’ll get lowered.
Well, why have it higher in the first place? Revenue.
Granted, the cop can’t decide the price. But a family that drove from Ontario to Myrtle Beach (it happens a lot) isn’t going to return in two months to go to court to have a speeding ticket lowered, he’ll probably spend more than he’ll save on the ticket in accomodations on the return trip. And the price for the lawyer will cost more than the ticket (they advertise to help tourists out). So, they pay the higher cost, while locals are able to make it to court to get the fine lowered.
That’s not always possible. There are always distractions; swerving car in front of you, biker riding on the white dashed line between lanes. What’s wrong with having a third level, a device, to let you know an emergency vehicle is there? And, most times it detects such vehicles a lot further than you can see and hear the siren.
I have no problem with that. If they suspect me, or anybody, of something during a traffic stop, then fine, check the car. It’s when the traffic stop is illegal, as in the public wasn’t made aware of the checkpoint. As silly as that sounds, that’s the law here. Along with a cop that’s hiding behind a tree to pull people over. According to the very laws they are enforcing, they have to be out in the open in order to pull anybody over. Anything else is illegal on their part. If they are hiding, and a speeder passes them, it would be illegal for them to pull them over. I suppose they could radio in the description of the car and the road to let other cops know of the speeder, but they can’t pull them over. Here. In NJ it’s different.
- Status