Why not require VIOLENT CRIMINALS to "register" like sex offenders have to??

[aftermid 0]

To be perfectly frank, I don't give a fuck whether the guy next door is a child molester.

------------------------------------------------------------------


Because you're not a child. Adults are more apt to recoginize anti-social dangerous behavior and should be better able to protect themselves. I think we should treat child molesters far harsher than any other felon's and unfortunately you're more likely to spend significant time in jail for some drug related stuff than 'shoplifting the pampers.' Why don't you see how many of your violent fellons were molested as children, not a viable excuse for their crimes, but definitely a factor. People getting out of our rehabilitation shitsems have enough things stacked against them.

[Scoop 0]

What is wrong with a national DNA database!? Dont commit any crime and you wont get in trouble What malicious intent could they possibly have for obtaining DNA? Its not like you can generate DNA from scratch and plant it somewhere. Stop being so paranoid

[unformed 0]

You're absolutely right. I think we should also have a telescreen in everyone's room so the government can watch you and make sure you're not doing anything you're not supposed to.

Just don't commit any crime and you won't get in trouble. What mailicious intent could they possibly have for making sure the land is free of degenerates?

This ad space for sale.

[Scoop 0]

Its hardly monitoring your every move. If you choose to burgle someone, or commit rape, or assault someone. They have a good chance of knowing who the potential offender is.

Not that im a DNA expert, but Im pretty sure DNA is not like an IP address where you can find out what that person is up to by looking into a crystal ball.
I dont believe this nor registering criminals is an invasive abuse of human rights. It a preventative measure

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

What is wrong with a national DNA database!? Dont commit any crime and you wont get in trouble What malicious intent could they possibly have for obtaining DNA? Its not like you can generate DNA from scratch and plant it somewhere. Stop being so paranoid

Have you actually read "1984"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

You're absolutely right. I think we should also have a telescreen in everyone's room so the government can watch you and make sure you're not doing anything you're not supposed to.

The Brits, it has been said, do indeed seem to have taken 1984 as a guidebook rather than a warning. It would not surprise me one bit if they came out with a device alleged to be useful for the "social good" that they actually called a "telescreen."

They seem to be blindly, dumbly just plodding along utterly insensate to the fact that they are building the very foundation of 1984 within their society at this very moment.

It's a movement that is very much alive in the world, and it will establish its strongest foothold in the U.K., I am sure.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Not that im a DNA expert, but Im pretty sure DNA is not like an IP address where you can find out what that person is up to by looking into a crystal ball.
I dont believe this nor registering criminals is an invasive abuse of human rights. It a preventative measure

No, registering criminals might not be an invasive abuse of human rights. But once they get everyone not minding that, someone in the halls of government will quiety suggest that they do it even for those who are convicted of minor crimes -- misdemeanors, possibly traffic infractions and then suddenly EVERYONE is subject to it.

For me, the simple issue is this: the government does not own my fucking DNA -- I DO! And I refuse to let them have my DNA for the purpose of keeping a file on me. Yes, DNA falls off me every single day in every single place I go, but there is no implicit permission granted for anyone to put those random shed skin cells or hair shafts to use in creating a dossier on me.

What if someone came up with the ability to clone you from a few skin cells that you left behind on the straw you drank through at McDonald's? Would you say that they have the right to clone you?

-
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[unformed 0]

Quote

Quote

You're absolutely right. I think we should also have a telescreen in everyone's room so the government can watch you and make sure you're not doing anything you're not supposed to.

The Brits, it has been said, do indeed seem to have taken 1984 as a guidebook rather than a warning. It would not surprise me one bit if they came out with a device alleged to be useful for the "social good" that they actually called a "telescreen."

They seem to be blindly, dumbly just plodding along utterly insensate to the fact that they are building the very foundation of 1984 within their society at this very moment.

It's a movement that is very much alive in the world, and it will establish its strongest foothold in the U.K., I am sure.

-

It's not just the UK. Right here in our land of the free(tm), they're trying very hard to make the Patriot Act permanent.

This ad space for sale.

[mr2mk1g 10]

You realise of course that it is American states which require drivers with certain motoring offences to register and to put up signs on their cars warning people?

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

You realise of course that it is American states which require drivers with certain motoring offences to register and to put up signs on their cars warning people?

Speeding?

Or are you talking perhaps about much more serious crimes, like drunken driving?

And if you would, please link to some sort of proof of your assertion. I have not heard of having to put "signs" on a car. Some places may have toyed around with a red license plate that identifies a driver with a drunk driving conviction, but I don't even think that's stuck around. The notion of it may have been struck down in court. But you're the one making the assertion: prove it.

And anyway...
What the fuck does that have to do with what I was talking about, vis a vis telescreens and the surveillance-state under which you live?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Really?
What like those wee signs you see that says 'baby on board'.....Only something along the lines of 'dangerous paranoid ignorant fuckwit on-board'.....

Wouldn't it make much more sense to make them wear some sort of armband and tattoo a serial number on their forearms.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

please link to some sort of proof of your assertion

OK:
CLEARWATER --A Republican senator wants a law to require bright pink license plates on vehicles driven by people with restricted driving privileges due to convictions for driving under the influence.

Sen. Mike Fasano, of New Port Richey, filed a bill earlier this month that requires the first three characters on the plate to read "DUI."

"Maybe it will embarrass people and keep them from drinking and driving," Fasano said. "Maybe they'll think twice."

The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver."

Ohio and Michigan have similar laws in place. Other states have debated the issue, but failed to pass it due to privacy reasons.

"Pink plates would hold out individuals for punishment as well as ridicule. We are very opposed to it," said Larry Spalding, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida.

About 840,000 of Florida's 15 million licensed drivers have an active DUI sanction on their driving records, said Frank Penela, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles spokesman. A small percentage of those have limited driving privileges, such as permission to drive only to and from work, Penela said.

"It could take two years to get the support, but I think it's worth the effort," Fasano said. "If I can't get a House sponsor, then maybe I can get it passed in the Senate and attached to a larger transportation bill."

Quote

What the fuck does that have to do with what I was talking about

It has a hell of a lot to do with the subject of the thread: "Why not require VIOLENT CRIMINALS to "register" like sex offenders have to??".

Besides - the concept of not living under the specter of surveillance these days in ANY country is laughable when 1m resolution satellite imagery is available to private citizenry never mind governments and everyone's mobile phone can place them to within inches at any given time.

And really Jeffrey - do try to remain civil or you'll end up getting yourself banned AGAIN from this forum and then have to beg Sangiro AGAIN for him to let you back on.

Somehow I doubt he'd be so willing to let you back next time you get yourself banned given the relative peace that had descended on the forums since you were so heavily reprimanded and finally promised to behave.

What changed? Oh that's right - your 1 year ban you got for being disruptive and constantly attacking the UK with your vitriol ran out last month and guess what - within days of the ban running out here you are again, up to your old tricks again, attacking things that conflict with your own private agenda.

Are we to take bets on how long you will last this time before you actually get banned for good because you simply cannot be trusted?

[mr2mk1g 10]

nah - they're pink I think and start "DUI". Last I heard a bill had just been tabled to bring the law in to Jeffrey's home State... as I post above.

Not really much of an issue until you realise they give police instant probable cause to stop you without the need for any other grounds. Some would say that sounds a lot like a police state...

[PhreeZone 20]

Ohio has yellow and red licence plates for DUI drivers while the rest of the plates are white, blue and red.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Airman1270 0]

.....The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver."...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
They already do this. In my last radio news job I spent over four years reading police reports. They no longer restrict traffic stops to situations where they were just driving along, saw someone commit a violation, and stop the driver in respose to the violation.

Now they cruise through their shifts looking for reasons to stop as many cars as possible and check people out. If they find something (warrant, drugs, expired insurance, etc.) they proceed with the arrest.
When writing the report they claim the original traffic stop was justified by some minor violation that can neither be proven nor refuted.

If they search and don't find anything, they let the guy go on his way, usually with a "warning." No report is written.

The K-9 guys are the worst. The main reason they're on the payroll, at $35,000+, is to search as many autos as possible, especially on the interstates. (Property confiscation is a lucrative business.) When they write their reports (at least in Bartow County, GA) they frequently don't even bother to cite a reason for the stop or any justification for the search.

I believe it is literally impossible for a couple of young men in their 20's to make a cross-country trip without being stopped and searched at least once. This is especially true for the non-white community.

Let's give the cops a break though. Many of these guys who are younger than 35 graduated from the public school system after the 1980's, when the schools spent little time treating the Bill of Rights, etc., as a priority. They don't necessarily hold your constitutional rights in contempt; More likely they haven't a clue they're violating them in the first place.

Cheers,
Jon S.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

nah - they're pink I think and start "DUI". Last I heard a bill had just been tabled to bring the law in to Jeffrey's home State... as I post above.

Yeah, right after you said the following:

"You realise of course that it is American states which require drivers with certain motoring offences to register and to put up signs on their cars warning people?"

Which states unambiguously that (some number of) American states DO, CURRENTLY "require" -- not "will require IF this bill becomes law"...

Do you have difficulty differentiating between that which is current law and that which is proposed by one guy?

Quote

Not really much of an issue until you realise they give police instant probable cause to stop you without the need for any other grounds. Some would say that sounds a lot like a police state...

Such a license plate, on a car that is being driven by someone with absolutely no infractions committed (not speeding, weaving, running red lights) cannot possibly constitute probable cause to stop the car.

A court would bounce that right out: there is no axiom that the car with that plate is being driven by the guy with the drunk driving conviction; and there is no axiom that the guy with the drunk driving conviction is driving drunk this time.

And anyway, the law they write (IF they pass it) cannot prejudice a person's 4th Amendment rights under the Constitution. Just because the law says, "If you get in and drive a car with these plates you give away your right to be protected against unreasonable search," doesn't mean that's gonna fly in the Supreme Court.


You are spewing this stuff out your ass, aintcha? And I caught you at it.

Explain why you first said that the "scarlet letter" plates were CURRENT law, and then as proof of your claim you cited a PROPOSED law.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[unformed 0]

It's not too hard for a cop to have a reason which can not be proved in court.

I've been pulled over for hitting the brake too many times and too haphazardly that the cop thought I was drunk. He also said he saw me cross the middle line once or twice.

I wasn't drunk, but I was extremely tired.

The cop could easily have that as a reason to pull someone over. You can fight it in court, but if you've got a prior conviction, or you've got drugs in the car, your credibility is going down fast.

This ad space for sale.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Do you even bother to read the posts to which you respond? I mean, ever?

Quote

Do you have difficulty differentiating between that which is current law and that which is proposed by one guy?

The article itself says: "Ohio and Michigan have similar laws in place.". So no, I have no problem differentiating between States such as Ohio and Michigan where this law is already in place and States such as Florida where this law is being debated.

Quote

Such a license plate, on a car that is being driven by someone with absolutely no infractions committed (not speeding, weaving, running red lights) cannot possibly constitute probable cause to stop the car.

Well I dunno man... all I've done is posted an article which reads: "The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver."

Seriously mate, read the article before you pass comment on it; it will save us all a lot of time and you a lot of embarrassment.

Quote

You are spewing this stuff out your ass, aintcha? And I caught you at it

You caught yourself out by displaying your own ignorance because you couldn't be bothered to actually read the article I posted for you before responding. Everything you think you caught me on is actually in the post you've replied to and is there to prove you wrong.

Quote

Explain why you first said that the "scarlet letter" plates were CURRENT law, and then as proof of your claim you cited a PROPOSED law.

Read the article Jeffrey. It says the plates are current law in at least two other States. It also says the Bill wants them to be of themselves, sufficient cause for a cop to stop the driver. Just scroll up and read it - it's that grey bar on the right. Just here --->

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

Such a license plate, on a car that is being driven by someone with absolutely no infractions committed (not speeding, weaving, running red lights) cannot possibly constitute probable cause to stop the car.

Well I dunno man... all I've done is posted an article which reads: "The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver."

Quote

Read the article Jeffrey. It says the plates are current law in at least two other States. It also says the Bill wants them to be of themselves, sufficient cause for a cop to stop the driver. Just scroll up and read it - it's that grey bar on the right. Just here --->

Maybe 2 states but what about the rest 48?

A different thing when someone has been caught and done something very wrong (Driving under the influence is a pet peeve of mine), and needs to have their priviledge in check pales in comparison to having the police watching your every move on the streets, IMO.

I think there are worse things in UK for a police state comparison.

But that is my opinion.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Airman1270 0]

...You can fight it in court, but if you've got a prior conviction, or you've got drugs in the car, your credibility is going down fast...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

True. In 1997 I was stopped while going 45 in a 40 zone. I was kinda surprised he would bother me about this until he said his radar indicated I was going 63!

I later realized that his radar had probably picked up the Blazer which was speeding up behind my Camaro as we rounded the turn into the radar sights. Meanwhile, the cop saw "63" and when he looked up the first car in line was a Camaro. I knew I was screwed.

I was able to get the charge dismissed, without having to hire a lawyer, but I'm sure my clean record going back nearly 20 years was a significant factor in this event. If I had had a few speeding convictions they might not haved believed me.

Cheers,
Jon S.