$300 speeding ticket

[Ming]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So, speaking from a "right and wrong" perspective, should people fighting for civil rights have been punished for violating the law? Should Rosa Parks have been prosecuted, for example?

Or, should people have been prosecuted for drinking during Prohibition?

Both are situations where the actions were clearly illegal, but the laws were clearly wrong.

Yes... Rosa Parks should have been prosecuted, as she was... But then, as what happened, the legal system was challenged, and the laws were changed... all in a correct and proper manner.

And yes... people should have been prosecuted during prohibition... In your first example, the law was clearly immoral and wrong. but prohibition is no different than current laws against drugs. While you may disagree with the law, and think the government has no right to make such laws, there is nothing immoral about them.

And I'll throw the same old tired argument back at you...
If you didn't believe that killing somebody was against the law, does that give you the right to go out and kill somebody...

The laws are in place for a reason. If you don't like the laws... fight them legally... just like Rosa Parks did. She won...

[DeepO]

You Americans sure are funny... call it a cultural thing, but this thread has made me laughing out loud for 10 minutes straight... now my collegaes are having a laugh as well

Let me explain: in Belgium, speeding has to be the national hobby, and you have a quite good chance of getting caught. I agree, if you are speeding, you're breaking the law, and so you can expect to be fined heavily for it. Most discussions around here don't revolve around being fined, but about the speed limits on certain roads being ridiculous, and there are some valuable arguments there (50kph on a 4 lane road is ridiculous in any country). But, how ridiculous the situation might be, if there is a sign that says 50 kph, you are commiting a crime the moment you're going 51, and you can be fined when you are driving over 60. No-one will discuss those limits, they are written into the law.

What is good here is that cops can say whatever they like, but if they don't have a picture of your car with a calibrated radar speed in the same picture (or on video), it won't count. No measurements timing from the air, and certainly no 'I was going 50, and the offender passed me at least 30 kph faster', this is just not possible. Further, the fines are regulated by law, when you go over 10kph too fast, you get a 135 euro fine, going over 25 kph too fast will get you a 180 euro fine, going over 40 pkh too fast on a highway will mean you will lose your license for two weeks, etc.

As a result, all fines are done automatically, and there is no way you can talk your way out of it by being nice to the cop... the thought alone is too funny If you are stopped for speeding, it means you were going 40 kph too fast, and no matter how nice you are, you are going to leave your car behind and call a taxi (plus get a huge fine, I don't know the exact rate but it will be in the thousands depending on the situation like proximity to a school). The only exceptions here is when there certain things beyond your control like you have your wife in the back who needs to get to the hospital to deliver her baby, at which time you most likely will get a police escort.... and even then cops will ask why you didn't call an ambulance instead of risking your life.

So how come that in a country that seems to be so obsessed with following the rules, Ming only has a 25% chance of actually getting a ticket because he's polite to cops? In Belgium, if you're calling the cops pig, you risk sitting a night in jail for contempt... they won't augment the fine for you, that is in the hands of a judge. And even then, he will fine you for the second crime you committed, speeding is always the same. So, Ming, next time you get pulled over, maybe your good-citizen-mind can just lead to ask to the cops: "Please, officer, can I have a ticket? Because I'l feel all squeezy if you let me off the hook"

DeepO

BTW neither France nor Italy are the worst when it comes to roadkills in Europe, at the first place is Portugal, second Belgium. And a distance from that France, Italy and Spain IIRC

[Ming]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Specifically, let's say I am participating in some sort of anti-government protest, which is within my rights to do, but some of the people in the protest begin to act illegally and violently. The police, who are already there, basically come in with riot gear and tear gas, and use it against everyone. Shouldn't I, who has done nothing illegal, be able to fight back against these actions, which are basically assault against me?

Once people start acting illegally and violently in a "MOB", what do you expect the police to do. You know as well as I do how those king of situations errupt into total chaos. It is impossible to stop just the individuals who are breaking the law (even though if it's just one or two people, the cops try to do just that)

The right of free speach and the right to protest is based on NON VIOLENT actions... once that line is crossed by the protesters, the police then have a right and duty to act.

You are implying that it in this situation, you should be able to pick up rocks, bottles, and that it would be OK to start throwing them at the cops...

When I was in that situation in my youth... I just got the hell away as fast as I could... a prudent course of action. The minute you start throwing things, you are subject to arrest and probable physical harm in return.

[David Floyd]

Yes... Rosa Parks should have been prosecuted, as she was... But then, as what happened, the legal system was challenged, and the laws were changed... all in a correct and proper manner.

OK, but let's assume for a moment she didn't win, and was put in prison. She still would have broken the law, and been legally convicted - should she be serving prison time?

And yes... people should have been prosecuted during prohibition... In your first example, the law was clearly immoral and wrong. but prohibition is no different than current laws against drugs. While you may disagree with the law, and think the government has no right to make such laws, there is nothing immoral about them.

There is nothing immoral about telling adults they can't drink in the privacy of their own homes? I think most people would disagree with you on that one.

And I'll throw the same old tired argument back at you...
If you didn't believe that killing somebody was against the law, does that give you the right to go out and kill somebody...

You're right - that is a tired old argument. Easily answered by the point that rights can't extend to violating someone else's rights. Drinking alcohol or sitting on a bus doesn't violate anyone else's rights, and thus shouldn't be illegal. Killing someone obviously does, and should.

[David Floyd]

You know as well as I do how those king of situations errupt into total chaos. It is impossible to stop just the individuals who are breaking the law

Not my problem. No one said cops had an easy job, that isn't part of the job description. If they can't handle NOT abusing innocent people, perhaps they should be in another profession.

The right of free speach and the right to protest is based on NON VIOLENT actions... once that line is crossed by the protesters, the police then have a right and duty to act.

Certainly, but a)only against those violating the law, and b)only in a justified manner, not using excessive force.

You are implying that it in this situation, you should be able to pick up rocks, bottles, and that it would be OK to start throwing them at the cops...

Only once they came after me. I'm implying that if a cop comes up and hits or swings at me with his nightstick (whatever those things are called) I should be able to stop that action from happening. I'm also implying that it would be OK for me to pull out a gun if I felt my life was in danger, same as in any other situation.

The minute you start throwing things, you are subject to arrest and probable physical harm in return.

OK, but saying this is OK is sorta like claiming self defense if you assault someone, and they fight back, so you bash them over the head with a rock.

[Ming]

Originally posted by David Floyd
OK, but let's assume for a moment she didn't win, and was put in prison. She still would have broken the law, and been legally convicted - should she be serving prison time?

Unfortunately, I have to say yes. While I personally find it disgusting and immorale... it doesn't change the basic facts.

There is nothing immoral about telling adults they can't drink in the privacy of their own homes? I think most people would disagree with you on that one.

At that time in this countries history, many people would be disagree with you... Many thought it's use was immoral.

You're right - that is a tired old argument. Easily answered by the point that rights can't extend to violating someone else's rights.

And a tired old response as well... You are using that same old argument that you should be allowed to do anything you want as long as it doesn't violate somebodies elses right. While I happen to agree with you on that... it's only our opinion, and has no basis of fact within the law.

[David Floyd]

Unfortunately, I have to say yes. While I personally find it disgusting and immorale... it doesn't change the basic facts.

OK, you are actually agreeing with me. You are saying it would have been immoral for her to serve a prison term. That's my basic point - regardless of the law, punishing her for breaking it was immoral.

At that time in this countries history, many people would be disagree with you... Many thought it's use was immoral.

Very true. This is what happens when people allow religion to affect their political beliefs, especially in the realm of laws they want to pass to restrict the freedom of others.

Further, some people may have thought it was immoral, but that doesn't change the basic fact that both you and I agree drinking alcohol is NOT immoral.

And a tired old response as well... You are using that same old argument that you should be allowed to do anything you want as long as it doesn't violate somebodies elses right. While I happen to agree with you on that... it's only our opinion, and has no basis of fact within the law.

Nope, only a basis of fact within common sense. And laws should be based on common sense, wouldn't you agree?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ming
The laws are in place for a reason. If you don't like the laws... fight them legally... just like Rosa Parks did. She won...

Rosa Parks did exactly what you said not to do, which was to violate the law to point out how unjust it was. It was her arrest over the situation and defiance of the law that sparked the successful movement to have it and other segregationist laws removed.

It is indeed appropriate to break an unjust law, and is often the best way to start a real movement to change such laws. Certainly that has been the case in matters of civil rights laws.

No one here is saying there should be a violent outburst against cops giving ridiculous fines. Categorizing people who voice complaint about things they deem unfair as "whining" is a cheap tactic.

[David Floyd]

No one here is saying there should be a violent outburst against cops giving ridiculous fines.

Right, not even I'm saying that. I'm simply saying we should have the ability to defend ourselves harm and loss of privacy and the like.

[Ming]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Not my problem. No one said cops had an easy job, that isn't part of the job description. If they can't handle NOT abusing innocent people, perhaps they should be in another profession.

But there aren't innocent people at that point. Once the demonstration turns violent... the demonstration becomes illegal and is violating the law. Anybody involved is participating in an illegal act. At that point, it is your responsiblity to get the hell out of their and not to continue to participate in an illegal action.

Only once they came after me. I'm implying that if a cop comes up and hits or swings at me with his nightstick (whatever those things are called) I should be able to stop that action from happening. I'm also implying that it would be OK for me to pull out a gun if I felt my life was in danger, same as in any other situation.

Wrong again... The second it turns violent, you leave or you are acting illegally...
So for you to pull out a gun in this situation is totally different than you pulling out a gun in a situation where it was truely an act of defense in response to an illegal attact against you... in the case of a demonstration, you are the one performing the illegal action, and are subject to arrest, and it is illegal for you to resist arrest or actions by the police.

[Boris Godunov]

So I guess the Tiananmen Square massacre was the just desserts for kids acting illegally against the Chinese government?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Rosa Parks did exactly what you said not to do, which was to violate the law to point out how unjust it was. It was her arrest over the situation and defiance of the law that sparked the successful movement to have it and other segregationist laws removed.

I never said to never violate the law... Heck, I do it all the time when I'm driving...

I just said that if you do, expect to be punished. And that if you don't like the law, work to get them changed...

[David Floyd]

But there aren't innocent people at that point. Once the demonstration turns violent... the demonstration becomes illegal and is violating the law. Anybody involved is participating in an illegal act. At that point, it is your responsiblity to get the hell out of their and not to continue to participate in an illegal action.

So you are basically saying I'm responsible - or at least equally guilty - for the actions of others. While this may be legally true in this instance, it is not REALLY true.
Yes, I can accept that I have a responsibility to leave. But, once the demonstration turns violent, don't you think it's likely that the police will come after and arrest individuals who are away from the crowd? If they see me leave, it's very possible I could be arrested anyway. That's the sort of abuse I should be able to defend myself against.

in the case of a demonstration, you are the one performing the illegal action, and are subject to arrest, and it is illegal for you to resist arrest or actions by the police.

Again, perhaps legally, but this doesn't make any sense. I should not be culpable for the actions of another. While I can accept the statement that I have a responsibility to disengage myself from illegal activity, once it turns illegal, I should still have the right to defend myself if I am attempting to get out of the situation. The police have no right to arrest or harrass me in any way, as long as I am not contributing to the violence.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So I guess the Tiananmen Square massacre was the just desserts for kids acting illegally against the Chinese government?

I'm not an expert on Chinese laws... so whether either sides actions were legal or not... I have no clue.

My personal opinion is that the actions of the Chineses government were totally wrong and immoral... but that's just my opinion... and not the law.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Rosa Parks did ...

If you are going to engage in civil disobedience, don't whine about the consequences. You knew about them going in.