Just because the system passes a law doesnt mean it’s right. Kinda like seat belt laws….don’t need one on a bus or a motorcycle. …just sayin.
I hope you're not suggesting that being "thrown clear" of a car after impact and/or rollover is preferred over being held firmly in place. I haven't heard anyone argue that since about 1968.
Jury’s can absolutely nullify a law…period. Just because the system passes a law doesnt mean it’s right. Kinda like seat belt laws….don’t need one on a bus or a motorcycle. …just sayin.
No. A jury has not authority to nullify a law. That would be insane. Have millions of people vote for representatives to create laws and then just let 12 random people with no authority change it???
There is a document called the Constitution that explains who has authority to create or change laws in this country. And it says nothing about any jury nullification.
WTF kind of system would that produce? Now one would be able to follow any law because they would have no idea what the law was.
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-05-2023).]
BUT THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS AFRAID OF CITIZEN SUPERVISION AND FORBIDS IT
I have no idea what this even means. Citizens elect representatives that pass laws. If we don't like the laws we elect different people. That is how citizens "supervise" the system.
Having a random group of just 12 people change laws is insane. How can 12 random people have more authority than representatives elected by millions of people?
Unfortunate incidents, but also proof that our system works. Neither of these men were convicted of anything. IN the first case the District attorney would not even prosecute.
Police make bad arrests all the time. We will never have perfect police, but as long as the mistakes are corrected by the system then the system still works.
NO THE SYSTEM DOES NOT ''WORK''
as there is no balance in go to jail but get let go the next day or week
no cop problem just do it again no stop no correction no limits jail who ever for any BS made up charge and do it over and over once in a while they catch something more or steal your cash for no real reason just maybe a crime somewhere
we do not hold the law to any real standards they can lie to your face that is legal if you lie to them that is not no cop goes to jail for a bad arrest ever or lost a dime of pay or had the car impounded but the citizen can and will most often no sorry no free tow or even bus fare when not charged just move along quickly
as there is no balance in go to jail but get let go the next day or week
no cop problem just do it again no stop no correction no limits jail who ever for any BS made up charge and do it over and over once in a while they catch something more or steal your cash for no real reason just maybe a crime somewhere
we do not hold the law to any real standards they can lie to your face that is legal if you lie to them that is not no cop goes to jail for a bad arrest ever or lost a dime of pay or had the car impounded but the citizen can and will most often no sorry no free tow or even bus fare when not charged just move along quickly
Sorry, but I can not really understand what you are trying to say.
How would YOU make the criminal justice system work? Include exact details.
No. A jury has not authority to nullify a law. That would be insane. Have millions of people vote for representatives to create laws and then just let 12 random people with no authority change it???
There is a document called the Constitution that explains who has authority to create or change laws in this country. And it says nothing about any jury nullification.
WTF kind of system would that produce? Now one would be able to follow any law because they would have no idea what the law was.
BS THE LAWS CAN BE AN A$$
the citizen on the jury is the fuse link
other wise there is regulated terror like the avg HOA and just as arbitrary and asinine if not in the correct click/cult
the avg citizen will support just reasonable laws just when the crazy pigs try to steal your money under the current laws with no proof of any crime then claim immunity from the law for theft that it needs fixen yesterday
and hell no the law is whatever the local prejudices dictate fair and just is a happy accident if it happens
Sorry, but I can not really understand what you are trying to say.
How would YOU make the criminal justice system work? Include exact details.
no you do NOT want to there is a BIG difference
no immunity for any illegal acts for all officials same as the citizen not knowing is no excuse ever
end the war on my religion I am a 67 hippy I believe in sex and drugs and rock&roll legal drugs reduces crime
stop illegal stealing peoples money on a maybe whim ie traffic or travel with cash is not a crime a huge reason for traffic stops search for cash
tell the jury if the law is an ass act on that fact ie allow people to know they can nullify bad use of laws
cut way down on plea deals by no extra added time lots more judges and lawdogs with way less BS in the system make the system work for people not for the system
stop the petty 90% of paper BS worry far more about is it just and fair then ''the law''
I hope you're not suggesting that being "thrown clear" of a car after impact and/or rollover is preferred over being held firmly in place. I haven't heard anyone argue that since about 1968.
Not suggesting it at all, belts are a good idea. But I don’t need protection from myself…
Not suggesting it at all, belts are a good idea. But I don’t need protection from myself…
Not everyone is smart enough to buckle up... and those are the people that these laws were enacted for. It saves the rest of us from having to shovel them off the blacktop.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 08-06-2023).]
Not everyone is smart enough to buckle up... and those are the people that these laws were enacted for. It saves the rest of us from having to shovel them off the blacktop.
No, I very much understand his argument. I knew a lot of people growing up that refused to wear their seat belts, and they were geniuses. Just because you're smart though, does not mean you always make good decisions. And just because you make bad decisions, does not mean you're not intelligent. If I had to compare it to Dungeons & Dragons... there is a difference between Intelligence, and Wisdom. Two totally different stats.
But, while I always wear my seat belt, and my daughter always does too... there is something to be said for a person having the right to make their own decisions about their own lives, without the Government making the decision for them. Case in point, you drive a motorcycle, you are freely accepting the fact that if anything happens on your bike, you could die (or get seriously hurt). There's no seat belt (not that one would help in that case).
I could be persuaded that the government can impose seat belt requirements for minors... but I don't really see any right that the government has to mandate it. I don't think anyone cares enough, but I'm willing to bet that (in the U.S.) if it made it to the Supreme Court, such a law could be overturned. The "promote the general welfare" clause gets used for a lot of things... and that's the only thing I can think of. Title 49, Statute 579 still makes sense, imposing these safety standards (to a degree) so manufacturers have to offer it. But forcing people to wear them, feels a little bit like restricting freedom.
BOTH OUR CLAIMED TO BE LAWDOGS DO NOT WANT JURY'S TO NULLIFY
WHAT IS THE CURE FOR BAD LAWS THEN ?
AND WHY EVEN MAKE A JURY HEAR THE CASE ?
I SAY THE ONLY REAL REASON FOR A JURY IS TO NULLIFY to insure the law is just and fair to act as a fuse for bad laws to limit gov power to reasonable actions no star chambers or kangaroo courts
and ever person should know they can NULLIFY IF NEEDED
WHY DO THE COURT FEAR THE PEOPLES POWER ? so try to outlaw not just the act of nullification but the knowledge of it's existence that is WRONG
BOTH OUR CLAIMED TO BE LAWDOGS DO NOT WANT JURY'S TO NULLIFY
WHAT IS THE CURE FOR BAD LAWS THEN ?
It would be insane to let 12 random people change laws they don't like.
Badf laws are corrected through elections. If a law is passed that people don't like they elect people to change it. And the votes of millions of people should not be overturned by 12 random people who have no expertise in public policy or the legal impact of laws.
I SAY THE ONLY REAL REASON FOR A JURY IS TO NULLIFY
If the jury does not make the findings of fact then who would? Who would decide which witnesses are telling the truth and which ones are lying? In our system that is all the jury does. They make the findings of fact and plug those findings into the law. They are not qualified to make or change laws.
Who would make the findings of fact in your system if the jury doesn't?
Originally posted by ray b: WHY DO THE COURT FEAR THE PEOPLES POWER ?
The court does not fear the peoples power. That is why trial judges are ELECTED BY POPULAR VOTE. That is why laws are made by people ELECTED BY POPULAR VOTE.
What the court fears is 12 random people who know nothing about public policy or the impact of laws over ruling the votes of millions of citizens.
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-09-2023).]
Case in point, you drive a motorcycle, you are freely accepting the fact that if anything happens on your bike, you could die (or get seriously hurt)..
But if you die with no life insurance you could leave a wife and children with no support, then the taxpayers have to take care of it.
Or if you get seriously injured with no health insurance (or not enough) you could stick a hospital with millions of dollars of bills that will never get paid. Then other people see their health care costs rise to cover these costs.
Or you could survive, but be permanently disabled and unable to work. Again, if you don't have disability insurance (and most people don't) then the tax payers have to step up to pay for your stupidity.
The damage from any popular dangerous activity effects the entire society.
But if you die with no life insurance you could leave a wife and children with no support, then the taxpayers have to take care of it.
Or if you get seriously injured with no health insurance (or not enough) you could stick a hospital with millions of dollars of bills that will never get paid. Then other people see their health care costs rise to cover these costs.
Or you could survive, but be permanently disabled and unable to work. Again, if you don't have disability insurance (and most people don't) then the tax payers have to step up to pay for your stupidity.
The damage from any popular dangerous activity effects the entire society.
So then why mandate people wear seat belts, but allow people to ride motorcycles?
Originally posted by fredtoast: The court does not fear the peoples power. That is why trial judges are ELECTED BY POPULAR VOTE. That is why laws are made by people ELECTED BY POPULAR VOTE.
What the court fears is 12 random people who know nothing about public policy or the impact of laws over ruling the votes of millions of citizens.
o BS the ability to change civil rights had few locals in election support required fed troops or FBI agents and more then 10 years
we get few fed court votes like NEVER for a judge or prostituting att ...[spelling very intentional ] most state court judges are semi appointed or somehow never fair elections with ghimmic to the max
so no not millions of citizens but millions of dollars funneled thru lobbyists to make bad laws for special interests paid to rep's who have reelections as job one two three ect screw the voters if it don't make a buck esp if in the Gop
people know fair and just and far better then the political hacks who get into office and do anything to stay there
you need a real world not high school view or who buys the law and the costs
we do have the largest prison population and a legal system that is screwed up way beyond saving and lawdogs who do not understand how screwed up it is because they gain from it
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: So then why mandate people wear seat belts, but allow people to ride motorcycles?
Good question. One argument against outlawing motorcycles completely would be the fact that some poor people can afford a motorcycle but not a car, but I would say the real reason is that judges try to do a balancing act and only limit rights as much as they have to. So allowing motorcycles but requiring helmets is a sort of compromise.
The big thing that courts looked at regarding seat belt laws is that it does not really limit a persons "freedom" in any way to require them to wear a seatbelt. So when they do the "balancing test" there is almost nothing on the side of "limiting freedom" and that makes it easier t justify the law.
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-09-2023).]
If the jury does not make the findings of fact then who would? Who would decide which witnesses are telling the truth and which ones are lying? In our system that is all the jury does. They make the findings of fact and plug those findings into the law. They are not qualified to make or change laws.
Who would make the findings of fact in your system if the jury doesn't?
facts like actual innocents seldom matter in plea bargaining as no facts there at all AND NEVER A JURY what % of cases get to a jury 1% or less in criminal trials
YES THE JURY SAYING NO TO THE STATE IS VERY IMPORTANT
ONE FIX WOULD BE LET A JURY REVIEW EVERY PLEA BARGAIN
THE FACTS AS TO THE LAW ARE THE JUDGES CALL in fact many a case is about the judge banning facts and saying that defense is not allowed something I find evil mostly in a power struggle tilted hard in the state/pigs favor from the gitgo
problem now is even with a bad law used to bad intent the jury is not allowed to know they can nullify a person telling them to nullify will be jailed for doing so any lawdog who hinted at a nullification will be disbarred
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I could be persuaded that the government can impose seat belt requirements for minors... but I don't really see any right that the government has to mandate it. I don't think anyone cares enough, but I'm willing to bet that (in the U.S.) if it made it to the Supreme Court, such a law could be overturned. The "promote the general welfare" clause gets used for a lot of things... and that's the only thing I can think of. Title 49, Statute 579 still makes sense, imposing these safety standards (to a degree) so manufacturers have to offer it. But forcing people to wear them, feels a little bit like restricting freedom.
I would argue that requiring seat belts and shoulder harnesses for the driver and all passengers is for the safety of everyone on the road, including pedestrians and people in other vehicles. Seat belts and shoulder harnesses for the driver and all passengers mitigate against the possibility that a driver could lose all control of the vehicle by preventing his body from being displaced by gravity and acceleration, or by bodily impact from the displacement of an unrestrained passenger during a skid or other sudden change in speed or direction of the vehicle that could be intentional—a sudden evasive maneuver—or unintentional, because of an external impact upon the vehicle or other road conditions, such as hydroplaning.
As far as air bags, I would argue in another way: That the General Welfare requires the installation of air bags to mitigate against the burdens that are imposed upon the general public when people suffer fatalities and injuries in vehicle accidents that would otherwise have been prevented or made less severe (injuries) by the action of air bags. Even though air bags themselves can present a hazard when inexpertly serviced, and even though there have been air bag safety recalls, I would argue the accident statistics remaining in favor of air bags.
What are the burdens imposed upon the general public? The public expenses represented by first responders, of medical evacuations and ambulance services, the otherwise avoidable requirements for hospitalizations and medical treatment, the loss of worker productivity which could impact a business and its other employees and customers in negative ways when "Joe" cannot be working his job because he's in hospital or convalescing (or dead.) And the impacts on the insurance industry, which would otherwise have to cover the damages that could have been mitigated by air bags, by charging higher premiums for the general public.
Even the public burden of traffic slowdowns after vehicle accidents, which would be predictably mitigated to a certain extent when air bag activation mitigates against the severity of the injuries that first responders have to contend with at the scene of an accident.
I rest my case.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-09-2023).]
o BS the ability to change civil rights had few locals in election support required fed troops or FBI agents and more then 10 years
The ONLY way civil rights were protected was through elected officials making laws and courts enforcing them. There were no independent citizens groups that enforced civil rights without the laws or court systems.
quote
Originally posted by ray b: we get few fed court votes like NEVER for a judge or prostituting att
Federal judges are appointed by people elected by popular vote.
quote
Originally posted by ray b: people know fair and just and far better then the political hacks who get into office and do anything to stay there
No they don't. Lots of individuals believe doctors that perform abortions should be charged with murder. Some people think all drugs should be legal while some think you should go to prison a long time for possessing a small amount of marijuana. Some people think people should go to jail for cross dressing. Some people think 13 is the proper age for a girl to legally consent to have sex with an adult. Some people think it is okay for poor people to steal. Some people think all Muslims are a threat America. This country is not only full of clueless people, but these clueless people often do not agree with each other. That is what makes it insane to think that we should let 12 random people change the law. No one would have any idea of how to follow the law because no one would know what the law was.
quote
Originally posted by ray b: we do have the largest prison population and a legal system that is screwed up way beyond saving and lawdogs who do not understand how screwed up it is because they gain from it
Criminal defense organizations are some of the ones fighting hardest for prison reform.
facts like actual innocents seldom matter in plea bargaining as no facts there at all AND NEVER A JURY what % of cases get to a jury 1% or less in criminal trials
No one can be convicted of a felony unless a grand jury hears the states evidence and issues an indictment.
No plea is entered before the defendant is given a chance to review all the evidence the state is going to use against him.
Over 90% of cases end in a plea for 2 reasons
1. The State is forced to dismiss cases where they have no evidence.
2. A defendant gets a lighter sentence if he takes a plea deal than if he goes to trial. The theory is that he is given credit for admitting his guilt and taking responsibilities for his actions. It is like punishing your kids. If they admit they were wrong they get punished lighter than if they try to lie their way out of it.
So after a defendant gets to see all the evidence against him he decides if it is worth the risk of a lot more jail time to try and win at trial. It usually isn't, but there are still quite a few jury trials. Even in the small counties where i work the trial dockets are booked for months. In July I set a case for trial in February.
''Federal judges are appointed by people elected by popular vote.'' NO the rump lost the popular vote by 3 million still got to pack the court with nut con fools sorry but that did just happen
and 95% of the rump picks were nuts who will be a threat for years to come and WILL NEED NULLIFICATION OFTEN IN THE FUTURE
So then why mandate people wear seat belts, but allow people to ride motorcycles?
So you'd like even more government control then? Why stop there? Ban bicycles while you're at it. And stairs, ban stairs! More people probably hurt themselves falling down stairs than riding a motorcycle!
No, I'm not looking for a response to the above.
Being mandated to wear seat belts does nothing to impair one's ability to own and/or drive a car. It does not restrict one's "freedom" (except for flying through the windshield or being catapulted from the vehicle), yet it saves society from having to pick up the pieces... financially as well as literally.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
Not everyone is smart enough to buckle up... and those are the people that these laws were enacted for. It saves the rest of us from having to shovel them off the blacktop.
Originally posted by fredtoast: No one can be convicted of a felony unless a grand jury hears the states evidence and issues an indictment.
No plea is entered before the defendant is given a chance to review all the evidence the state is going to use against him.
Over 90% of cases end in a plea for 2 reasons
1. The State is forced to dismiss cases where they have no evidence.
2. A defendant gets a lighter sentence if he takes a plea deal than if he goes to trial. The theory is that he is given credit for admitting his guilt and taking responsibilities for his actions. It is like punishing your kids. If they admit they were wrong they get punished lighter than if they try to lie their way out of it.
So after a defendant gets to see all the evidence against him he decides if it is worth the risk of a lot more jail time to try and win at trial. It usually isn't, but there are still quite a few jury trials. Even in the small counties where i work the trial dockets are booked for months. In July I set a case for trial in February.
A GRAND JURY / STAR CHAMBER has no balance as a totally state power show and can and has been use to indict and convict a ham sandwich
btw the grand jury can investigate and it has subpoena powers. Under Florida law, a grand jury indictment is only necessary for someone to be tried for a capital offense. Otherwise a state prosecutor may file what's known as an information.
just an other way to cheat for the pig
one person vs the state totally fair ? or explains why we have so many in prisons
why the balance is needed why nullification is needed but not known or used in most cases
A GRAND JURY / STAR CHAMBER has no balance as a totally state power show and can and has been use to indict and convict a ham sandwich
This is not true. I personally have had multiple cases returned "no true bill" by the Grand Jury when the state could not get their witnesses to appear. The Grand Jury is a very easy hurdle for the state, but it is still a hurdle.
quote
Originally posted by ray b: Under Florida law, a grand jury indictment is only necessary for someone to be tried for a capital offense. Otherwise a state prosecutor may file what's known as an information.
Pretty sure the only way a case can get to Criminal (Felony level) Court by way of an "information" is by agreement between the State and the defendant. Plea deals are often worked out in lower level courts. When we do that we skip the Grand Jury and just go straight to entering the plea. It gets our clients to court faster.
quote
Originally posted by ray b: one person vs the state totally fair ?
The 12 member jury in a criminal case are not on either side. The State will tell you that they are on the side of the defendant because the defendant is not required to prove anything to them. The entire burden is on the State. And, of course, the defendant is guaranteed a lawyer.
How do you explain the fact that the state sometimes loses jury trials? In just the last three months I have won a jury trial (State v Darren Atkins) and had multiple felony offenses dismissed (State v Kevin Polson) in Union County Criminal Court.
You just don't undertsand how the system really works. I 100% agree with you that we have too many people in jail, but that is because that is what most US citizens want.
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-09-2023).]
You just don't undertsand how the system really works. I 100% agree with you that we have too many people in jail, but that is because that is what most US citizens want.
No YOU just dont seem inalienable rights TRUMP the "wants" and "likes" of the people.
IOW....A book titled
The rights of the one outweigh the wants of the many.
(Subtitled Fuk da People: An incitement for death camps for democrats and lynch mobs for liberals)
Quite clear to me you never really understood the true meaning of "individual freedom:. Here is a quick refresher course
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 08-10-2023).]
Seriously though, all through history there have been "hermits" and "loners" and "anti-socials" who lived on the fringes of it and only interacted for their own basic needs (commerce). They simply didnt like and wanted no part of "society". They had the room to do it. So did I at one time, in a way.
But thanks to population growth and housing crisis it has gotten harder and harder to do. Add to that a change in political attitudes in "society" that no-one escapes and it makes it even harder. I've know guys that have tried to go north and live alone in the bush to "escape" society. Know what happens every-singe-damn-time ? They get hauled back by force. 20 years ago it was possible to find isolated farmhouses at really-really good prices and keep hu-mons and their B.S. a reasonable distance away. The farmers wanted the land and would rent the house for a song just so it didnt dilapidate and kept some value. The deals were cheap rent and I look after any problems and just deduct the costs from the rent. At least here (S-W Ontario) most of those have either been sold to developers (or corporate farming not interested in renting) and sit abandoned or go for insanely high prices. My old one was $750 in 2004 when I moved in, and now goes over 5k. AND there are now 3 neighbors too close for comfort.
Thats the 2 best escape-from-society routes cut off. Escape off-shore ? WHERE ? It's the same situation all over the planet. There isnt one habitable square inch left to escape to.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 08-10-2023).]
...all through history there have been "hermits" and "loners" and "anti-socials" who lived on the fringes of it and only interacted for their own basic needs (commerce). They simply didnt like and wanted no part of "society". They had the room to do it. So did I at one time, in a way.
For a guy who wishes to escape "society", you sure choose to spend a lot of time connected to it online.
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: The rights of the one outweigh the wants of the many.
Which "one"?
The many are just a group of "ones". So how exactly do the desires of one "one" outweigh the desires of multiple "ones"? Can't you see how stupid that sounds?
It does not work. It has never worked. No "one" person gets to make the rules for the whole world. You live in a make believe fantasy world..
Originally posted by Patrick: So you'd like even more government control then? Why stop there? Ban bicycles while you're at it. And stairs, ban stairs! More people probably hurt themselves falling down stairs than riding a motorcycle!
Being mandated to wear seat belts does nothing to impair one's ability to own and/or drive a car. It does not restrict one's "freedom" (except for flying through the windshield or being catapulted from the vehicle), yet it saves society from having to pick up the pieces... financially as well as literally.
Hahah... Patrick, THAT is a strawman. Nowhere did I say I wanted more government control. I'm challenging the assertion that we can / should have seat belt laws by showing how the government allows one thing, but doesn't in a different case. I have thoughts on all of this... and my own belief on why things are the way they are, and I'll answer that when I respond (just below this) to what Rinse says.
To be clear, I always wear my seat belt, and I feel naked if / when I'm NOT wearing one. It's something that I've driven in my child as well, so she's vehement about seat belts. My dad though, almost never puts his seat belt on... but will eventually put it on after I say... "DAD!!!" Even to this day, he still forgets and starts driving and the car makes all the dings and beeps that I've never heard before. He's old school, and that's just kind of how it was back then.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
I would argue that requiring seat belts and shoulder harnesses for the driver and all passengers is for the safety of everyone on the road, including pedestrians and people in other vehicles. Seat belts and shoulder harnesses for the driver and all passengers mitigate against the possibility that a driver could lose all control of the vehicle by preventing his body from being displaced by gravity and acceleration, or by bodily impact from the displacement of an unrestrained passenger during a skid or other sudden change in speed or direction of the vehicle that could be intentional—a sudden evasive maneuver—or unintentional, because of an external impact upon the vehicle or other road conditions, such as hydroplaning.
As far as air bags, I would argue in another way: That the General Welfare requires the installation of air bags to mitigate against the burdens that are imposed upon the general public when people suffer fatalities and injuries in vehicle accidents that would otherwise have been prevented or made less severe (injuries) by the action of air bags. Even though air bags themselves can present a hazard when inexpertly serviced, and even though there have been air bag safety recalls, I would argue the accident statistics remaining in favor of air bags.
What are the burdens imposed upon the general public? The public expenses represented by first responders, of medical evacuations and ambulance services, the otherwise avoidable requirements for hospitalizations and medical treatment, the loss of worker productivity which could impact a business and its other employees and customers in negative ways when "Joe" cannot be working his job because he's in hospital or convalescing (or dead.) And the impacts on the insurance industry, which would otherwise have to cover the damages that could have been mitigated by air bags, by charging higher premiums for the general public.
Even the public burden of traffic slowdowns after vehicle accidents, which would be predictably mitigated to a certain extent when air bag activation mitigates against the severity of the injuries that first responders have to contend with at the scene of an accident.
And you got it... "And the impacts on the insurance industry, which would otherwise have to cover the damages..."
But more apropos, you should be saying, the "insurance lobby." Almost every requirement within CFR 49 Statute 571 was put there as a result of the insurance lobby. This isn't a left/right thing... obviously, so no one should take it as such, but the reason why cars today have all of the safety requirements they have, is directly because of a cost/expense ... and far less to do with saving lives. Originally, someone came up with the idea of "x" ... because they thought it would make a difference. Companies sold "x" because they believed it would help their vehicles sell... like Volvo with the first 3-pointed seat belts, or Oldsmobile with the first air bag. Many of these things were adopted by other car companies because people came to expect it... but it was the insurance lobby that lobbied to make it mandatory.
Even things that we might attribute to say, the EPA... like, throttle by wire. We all believe it helps emissions (it does not, and has never been proven to), but... it helps the INSURANCE LOBBY which has to pay out for vehicle repairs at dealerships. So it was lobbied to implement this... and it helps prevent vehicle abuse which would have to be otherwise covered under warranty. Certainly, the insurance lobby uses the, "If we can save just one child" argument ... but it's predominantly because insurance companies want to mitigate the risk of having to make payouts.
Personally, I think people should wear seat belts because it just makes reasonable sense... so understand my argument here is merely devil's advocate, but the other part of me does question the extent to which the government needs / should be trying to protect us from our own actions. I'm more annoyed that we can no longer have cars that look like this:
My dad though, almost never puts his seat belt on... but will eventually put it on after I say... "DAD!!!" Even to this day, he still forgets and starts driving and the car makes all the dings and beeps that I've never heard before. He's old school, and that's just kind of how it was back then.
How old is your dad? He's probably younger than I am! Being "old-school" is no excuse. No disrespect to your dad, but it's because of people like him that seat belt laws needed to be implemented. It's the same issue with people using their damn cell phones while they're driving. Anyone with an ounce of sense would realize that this is dangerous behavior and not do it... yet cell phone laws have had to be enacted to try and stop this idiocy from occurring.
I bet even the biggest fighters for FREEDOM around here wear their seat belts,
But if you don't at least look at it this way. You owe it to the passengers in your car to wear a seatbelt because human bodies are the biggest objects flying around the passenger compartment during an accident. You are "free" to go beltless if you are driving alone, but when travelling with others your respect for their safety should outweigh the minimal restriction on "freedom" that a seat belt imposes.
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-10-2023).]
the "wants" and "likes" of the people.
