The Bible Says...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It doesn’t work like that. Any of the charges would be thrown out of court based on reference to precent, existing laws that nullify them and on grounds of unconstitutionality. [/quote]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Let’s say a man with mustache kisses a woman in Eureka, Nevada(? I think that was the given town), and a police officer sees it. The police officer, who otherwise had no reason to either place the man in custody or search him, now has a legitimate reason to do both. The police officer then finds a small amount of dope on the guy and charges him for it. The man goes to court and can either fight both charges or plead to the drug charge to at least get the other dropped. He pleads guilty, because being punished for one is better than being punished for both. An all-encompassing web of laws merely provides an easy path around limits on the invasion of personal property.

Hardly anybody would approve of a state that openly declared a right to invade the property of any citizen it chooses, at any time it wants; however, if that state masks its intentions behind laws that seem to serve the public, few will have a problem with it.

If you don’t believe that’s how petty laws work, then things are obviously very different in Australia.

82

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It doesn’t work like that. Any of the charges would be thrown out of court based on reference to precent, existing laws that nullify them and on grounds of unconstitutionality. [/quote]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Let’s say a man with mustache kisses a woman in Eureka, Nevada(? I think that was the given town), and a police officer sees it. The police officer, who otherwise had no reason to either place the man in custody or search him, now has a legitimate reason to do both. The police officer then finds a small amount of dope on the guy and charges him for it. The man goes to court and can either fight both charges or plead to the drug charge to at least get the other dropped. He pleads guilty, because being punished for one is better than being punished for both. An all-encompassing web of laws merely provides an easy path around limits on the invasion of personal property.

Hardly anybody would approve of a state that openly declared a right to invade the property of any citizen it chooses, at any time it wants; however, if that state masks its intentions behind laws that seem to serve the public, few will have a problem with it.[/quote]

You really are utterly devoid from reality. Seriously, I don’t know where to start with this fantasy scenario.

83

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Anti sodomy laws for example. Did you know that in Virginia it’s against the law to have sex with anyone other than your wife in ANY OTHER POSITION besides missionary? THAT concerns me… When religious zealots inflict THEIR RELIGION onto other people by passing laws that marginalize people that don’t subscribe to that belief.

So until you get your bullshit religion out of MY STATE POLITICS AND LAWS, I’ll continue to attack YOUR religion. BECAUSE IT DOES CONCERN ME.[/quote]

Lol, come on man, I know you can do better than this.

If you’re going to use shitty blue laws that were written decades ago and go unenforced you have to actually site the last time someone was punished for it.

Otherwise it is akin to hating America because it once allowed slavery, ignoring the fact the founders wrote in the foundation for getting rid of it when politically possible, and we fought ourselves in a fucking war to do it.

84

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It doesn’t work like that. Any of the charges would be thrown out of court based on reference to precent, existing laws that nullify them and on grounds of unconstitutionality. [/quote]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Let’s say a man with mustache kisses a woman in Eureka, Nevada(? I think that was the given town), and a police officer sees it. The police officer, who otherwise had no reason to either place the man in custody or search him, now has a legitimate reason to do both. The police officer then finds a small amount of dope on the guy and charges him for it. The man goes to court and can either fight both charges or plead to the drug charge to at least get the other dropped. He pleads guilty, because being punished for one is better than being punished for both. An all-encompassing web of laws merely provides an easy path around limits on the invasion of personal property.

Hardly anybody would approve of a state that openly declared a right to invade the property of any citizen it chooses, at any time it wants; however, if that state masks its intentions behind laws that seem to serve the public, few will have a problem with it.

If you don’t believe that’s how petty laws work, then things are obviously very different in Australia.[/quote]

I tend to agree with SM here in his assessment of your hypothetical. However I agree with your over all point. But the hard truth of the matter is most times LEO don’t even need the shitty “petty laws”. They just make shit up and it sticks…

85

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You really are utterly devoid from reality. Seriously, I don’t know where to start with this fantasy scenario.[/quote]

Start anywhere that you please. I can then bring up the fact that police officers routinely and legally stop motorists for having a defective tag light. Those stops sometimes turn into vehicle searches and arrests, neither of which would have been possible without a ridiculous rule.

86

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You really are utterly devoid from reality. Seriously, I don’t know where to start with this fantasy scenario.[/quote]

Start anywhere that you please. I can then bring up the fact that police officers routinely and legally stop motorists for having a defective tag light. Those stops sometimes turn into vehicle searches and arrests, neither of which would have been possible without a ridiculous rule. [/quote]

Here’s the distinction: the judiciary except defective tag lights as a legitimate offence. That’s why the police use it as a pretext. They’re not going to use “kissing with a girl with mustachios” as a pretext because it would be laughed out of court.

87

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I tend to agree with SM here in his assessment of your hypothetical. However I agree with your over all point. But the hard truth of the matter is most times LEO don’t even need the shitty “petty laws”. They just make shit up and it sticks… [/quote]

Yep, some guy making $40,000 a year is the real bogeyman. The truth is that police officers don’t have to make anything up most of the time, there are laws that allow them nearly-free rein. A defective tag light, insufficient tire tread depth, kissing a woman while mustached, etc. all provide probable cause to stop and detain(dig for probable cause to do more digging) a person.

Most people just believe that a significant number of police officers go around just making shit up because they don’t realize how absurd, in number and spirit, the laws are in this country.

88

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Here’s the distinction: the judiciary except defective tag lights as a legitimate offence. That’s why the police use it as a pretext. They’re not going to use “kissing with a girl with mustachios” as a pretext because it would be laughed out of court.[/quote]

No, it would not. If the police officer brings only that charge to court, then it most likely would be laughed out of court. If the police officer charges 19-year old Oliver with that, then finds some dope on him, the judge is NOT going to dismiss the dope charge because the TOTALLY VALID probable cause is a silly law.

Any judge I’ve ever seen is going to drop a tag light charge, too.

89

[quote]NickViar wrote:

No, it would not. If the police officer brings only that charge to court, then it most likely would be laughed out of court. If the police officer charges 19-year old Oliver with that, then finds some dope on him, the judge is NOT going to dismiss the dope charge because the TOTALLY VALID probable cause is a silly law.

Any judge I’ve ever seen is going to drop a tag light charge, too.[/quote]

You’ve misunderstood me. If the prosecution says we found weed on this guy after we searched him - we had probable cause because he had a defective tag light: bingo. The guy is convicted.

But if the prosecution says, we found weed on this guy after searching him - we had probable cause because he was kissing his wife with his mustachios - then the court is going to dismiss the charges. I can’t believe I need to explain this stuff.

90

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You’ve misunderstood me. If the prosecution says we found weed on this guy after we searched him - we had probable cause because he had a defective tag light: bingo. The guy is convicted.

But if the prosecution says, we found weed on this guy after searching him - we had probable cause because he was kissing his wife with his mustachios - then the court is going to dismiss the charges. I can’t believe I need to explain this stuff.[/quote]

That’s exactly how I understood you. If a vast majority of judges in your country would dismiss a charge like that, then consider yourself lucky. It is not that way here. In fact, my guess is that the number of judges in this country who would dismiss a drug charge because of silly(but LEGAL) probable cause is small enough to be statistically insignificant.

91

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You’ve misunderstood me. If the prosecution says we found weed on this guy after we searched him - we had probable cause because he had a defective tag light: bingo. The guy is convicted.

But if the prosecution says, we found weed on this guy after searching him - we had probable cause because he was kissing his wife with his mustachios - then the court is going to dismiss the charges. I can’t believe I need to explain this stuff.[/quote]

That’s exactly how I understood you. If a vast majority of judges in your country would dismiss a charge like that, then consider yourself lucky. It is not that way here.[/quote]

So. Can you point me to a case where the prosecution has used “kissing with mustachios” or something like that as probable cause? You’re off the planet. You don’t know how the law works. Every country on the planet has crazy laws like these on the books. They’re not the means to tyranny. They’re a byproduct of centuries of substantive law. It’s normal. It’s got nothing to do with theocracy or the war on drugs.

92

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
So. Can you point me to a case where the prosecution has used “kissing with mustachios” or something like that as probable cause? You’re off the planet. You don’t know how the law works. Every country on the planet has crazy laws like these on the books. They’re not the means to tyranny. They’re a byproduct of centuries of substantive law. It’s normal. It’s got nothing to do with theocracy or the war on drugs.[/quote]

First, provide me the code section of the law in question. If there’s no code section for it, then there’s no point in discussing it, since it’s obviously an internet hoax and not a law. I would prefer to argue using the ridiculous tag light probable cause, since I know that is an actual law.

93

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Yep, some guy making $40,000 a year is the real bogeyman. [/quote]

You are missing the forest for the trees.

Anyone who is going to use the minor infractions to jam you up, for the sole purpose of jamming you up, which is what you alluded to, is going to do that irrelevant if the minor laws you don’t like are on the books or not.

Get this, you are talking about people corrupted by the power they have, and abusing laws to jam up otherwise general innocents. Normal, everyday cops don’t do this shit. They don’t go around looking to ruin people’s lives for the sake of it. Assholes do that, and assholes don’t need an excuse.

SO now you’re contradicting your first sentence?

Yes, and you should be pulled over for this, ticketed and forced to get it fixed. Because if someone rear ends me, and drives off in the evening I’d like to be able to get his plate so his stupid ass can pay for the damage he did.

Because blow outs on the highway in a car doing 80 never result in accidents, and accidents never result in death.

[quote]

Most people just believe that a significant number of police officers go around just making shit up because they don’t realize how absurd, in number and spirit, the laws are in this country. [/quote]

Dude, we agree on a fair amount in general principle but this ancap vein you run along is just as much a fairytale as collectivism.

Yes we have traffic laws, if you don’t like them, don’t drive a car. Or write your rep… Either way, thinking anything remotely close to “ancap” is ever going to happen outside of a small island community of 35 people is waste of your time.

And I have $1000 on that community ending up more like Lord of the Flies than anything you envision.

94

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
So. Can you point me to a case where the prosecution has used “kissing with mustachios” or something like that as probable cause? You’re off the planet. You don’t know how the law works. Every country on the planet has crazy laws like these on the books. They’re not the means to tyranny. They’re a byproduct of centuries of substantive law. It’s normal. It’s got nothing to do with theocracy or the war on drugs.[/quote]

First, provide me the code section of the law in question. If there’s no code section for it, then there’s no point in discussing it, since it’s obviously an internet hoax and not a law. I would prefer to argue using the ridiculous tag light probable cause, since I know that is an actual law.[/quote]

What do you mean you’d prefer to argue about the tag light? What’s any of this got to do with the thread?

95

Why are these old, ridiculous laws hardly ever abolished? Is it just a legislative pain in the ass? All we do is create more useless laws and never erase or replace old BS ones.

96

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
waste of your time.
[/quote]

As are all political discussions between those who are not in the ruling class and are not willing to revolt. When all you have is bread and circuses, you might as well enjoy them.

97

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Why are these old, ridiculous laws hardly ever abolished? Is it just a legislative pain in the ass? All we do is create more useless laws and never erase or replace old BS ones. [/quote]

They don’t deal with a need. The only laws that would be opposed by a majority(comprised, in large part, of completely ignorant citizens) are those that attempt to punish a NEED. The vast majority will support any law that doesn’t personally affect them. That’s what makes democracy so glorious.

98

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
waste of your time.
[/quote]

As are all political discussions between those who are not in the ruling class and are not willing to revolt. When all you have is bread and circuses, you might as well enjoy them.[/quote]

lol… This is such a lazy attempt at being clever.

Either respond to the valid reasons for the laws you dislike with logical reasons why we shouldn’t have them, or don’t, I don’t care.

But much like the gun debate, you don’t “win” any anti’s to your side using hyperbole, quoting the founders out of context or any other shit that works for “rah-rah rally the troops” speeches for those that agree.

If you think political discussion isn’t valuable outside of the “ruling class” then, welp, I’m sorry for you, but your ancap dreams are fully dashed by your own notions.

99

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Either respond to the valid reasons for the laws you dislike with logical reasons why we shouldn’t have them, or don’t, I don’t care.
[/quote]

If the punishment for the violation of a law costs a man $1, and the violation of that law did not cost another man $1, it is obviously unjust. If the violation of that law DID cost another man $1, then the violator can be forced to pay the victim $1(and possibly some interest, if that’s what it takes to make the victim “whole” again). That is just.

What is not just is claiming that Man A’s blowing of a bubble could conceivably cause him to do something that could conceivably cost Man B $1, so Man A should pay the state $2.

“Society” is not a victim. Victims are individuals.

I tend to believe that the vast majority agree with these concepts but are hoodwinked into believing otherwise.

Of course, it can be pretty convincingly argued that ethics and morals are just social constructs, so anything goes, so long as the superior force desires it.

I actually believe that society will always move towards the latter(tyranny), until collapsing under its own weight. I see no reason to continually attempt to reset society to the middle(somewhat, kinda limited government) instead of starting from scratch after the collapse.

Since we are no longer even remotely on the original topic, and it is as much or more my fault than anyone’s, this will be my last post about this here.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes, and you should be pulled over for this, ticketed and forced to get it fixed. Because if someone rear ends me, and drives off in the evening I’d like to be able to get his plate so his stupid ass can pay for the damage he did.
[/quote]
I forgot to hit on this earlier, but just think how easy it would be to get your damage paid for if we were all forced to have a government-issued GPS system in our vehicles. Better still: public transportation. That would pretty much eliminate the risk of our vehicles being damaged. Where does the, “The government should force people to X, because it will cut down on life’s risks” train of thought end?

Registration of, and attachment of GPS devices to, all guns? After all, who wouldn’t like to see his wife’s killer quickly tracked down and punished? It would be much more efficient for the government to just check its GPS system, find which gun was near the victim at the time of her death, then find its owner, right?

Certainly we can agree that if the first situation is justifiable in case someone taps the bumper of your car, then the second is definitely justifiable just in case someone is murdered.

When do we say enough is enough?

100

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Yes, and you should be pulled over for this, ticketed and forced to get it fixed. Because if someone rear ends me, and drives off in the evening I’d like to be able to get his plate so his stupid ass can pay for the damage he did.
[/quote]

Yep. To illustrate this point, a local well known poacher and alleged meth dealer had a toggle switch that he could flip his tag light on and off so that if someone got after him when he shot a deer out of their yard they couldn’t read his tag. The tag thing is an issue.