http://www.wmur.com/news/11566304/detail.html
Anyone know the details of this story? WMUR only says that he was shooting at 8PM and he was charged with shooting with 300 from a home.
I wonder if they would arrest a person for discharging their weapon inside their own home that they were defending?
QuotePolice said Kirk Johnson, 52, started shouting at officers when they arrived.
They were able to take the gun from him, but it is still unclear why Johnson was shooting.
Maybe he started shouting because in America you're supposed to be able to shoot a gun in your own back yard without police coming and getting in your face.
It's unclear why he was shooting? Maybe he was shooting because he felt like it. That's a good enough reason for me.
Do a Google Maps search for "5 Eastern Ave, Rochester, NH" and you'll see why this fellow is not someone any of us would want to get behind and support. He initiated force against his neighbors.
QuoteI wonder if they would arrest a person for discharging their weapon inside their own home that they were defending?
They could, but there's the "justification" chapter, RSA 627, stemming from the legal doctrine of competing harms, which provides an affirmative defense against such a charge.
Looking at the google map, it would appear that shooting in the back yard (other than maybe a pellet gun or MAYBE a .22 for tackling pests) would be a bad idea.
Quote from: slim on April 09, 2007, 09:52 AM NHFT
I wonder if they would arrest a person for discharging their weapon inside their own home that they were defending?
I am gunna discharge my weapon in my house, for fun. 8)
As you can see from my avatar, stuff like this interests me. I wonder what he shot, I mean what rifle he used. I know the Rochester area. 1 mile from the Police Station is still in a residential area. I would not do what he did.
I lived in Danville N.H. a few months ago and I test fired my rifles after purchase in a 25 acre area with an adequit back stop, a big hill in the middle of the property. The police investigated but saw that I was safe. What this man did was really irresponcible and dangerous. I do not have all the facts but it looks bad.
What says you?
Sometimes I do terminal ballistic testing with phone books. Point blank range, with more than double the amount of phone books the bullet will go thru, plus sand bags on the side and in back. I could put my head on the other side and still be safe.
(http://sethcohn.com/images/gun/9mm.jpg)
Quote from: mvpel on April 09, 2007, 10:53 AM NHFTHe initiated force against his neighbors.
It seems pretty clear to me that this would not qualify as the initiation of force.
Noise is annoying, but it would be strange if the police started locking up landscapers with their leafblowers, lawnmowers, or chainsaws, or after-hours shooting hobbyists. When the government "protects" people from noise--at this relatively low level--what rights are they protecting? How many decibels before sound waves are a trespass or a battery? Perhaps I could see it as a tort--and if the neighbors could show damages they'd have a claim--but a priori criminal regulation like this is not justified.
I would say not firing a weapon within 300 feet of other property is a reasonable law, since the bullet can travel 300 feet, or your kids could wander 300 feet off your property and not know it. That being said, my neighbor took out our other neighbor's rooster (with his permission) using a 22, and we were all OK with that. If you wanted to set something safe up in your back yard, there is no reason you couldn't clear it with your neighbors.
There are a lot of neighborhoods in Rochester where you could shoot out your back yard and, only, hit someone from Maine
Quote from: BrokenWindow on April 09, 2007, 09:37 PM NHFTI would say not firing a weapon within 300 feet of other property is a reasonable law, since the bullet can travel 300 feet, or your kids could wander 300 feet off your property and not know it.
Not saying that I condone what this guy did, but that's not the sort of logic we should be using. After all, even small bullets can go a
long way (miles, in some cases).
Joe
Quote from: atr on April 09, 2007, 07:37 PM NHFTIt seems pretty clear to me that this would not qualify as the initiation of force.
I'm not talking about the noise, I'm talking about his backstop.
Did you look at the map, and note how his backyard is surrounded by neighbors on every side? If the Google satellite map is accurate, there may not be any single direction he could shoulder and aim a rifle without pointing it at a building.
One of the principal rules of firearms safety is to know your backstop and what's beyond it. Not to mention the rule of not pointing a firearm at something you're not willing to shoot.
There's a big tract of forest about four blocks away from the house, why didn't he go over there instead? If he was in fact shouting at and kicking police officers, perhaps he wasn't thinking clearly in the first place.
All good points, mvpel.
I'm all about the guy having target practice, but if it places his neighbors in harms' way then he has no reason to be kicking the cops. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons for people to kick cops, but this doesn't look like one of them.
;)
Quote from: Quantrill link=topic=8090.msg143809#msg143809 date=1176254001
I'm sure there are plenty of reasons for people to kick cops
;)
/quote]
:laughing4:
Quote from: mvpel on April 10, 2007, 11:29 AM NHFT
Quote from: atr on April 09, 2007, 07:37 PM NHFTIt seems pretty clear to me that this would not qualify as the initiation of force.
I'm not talking about the noise, I'm talking about his backstop.
Did you look at the map, and note how his backyard is surrounded by neighbors on every side? If the Google satellite map is accurate, there may not be any single direction he could shoulder and aim a rifle without pointing it at a building.
From the article, we have no idea in what direction he aimed or fired his rifle--it could have been straight into the ground.
That's the problem with this law--even if pointing a rifle at your neighbor's house (or firing it at your neighbor's house) is an act of aggression, that's not what this guy was punished for.
If I'm weaving in and out of traffic, cutting off other drivers and being generally unsafe, but I haven't actually harmed anyone, is it still wrong? I would say that it is still recklessly endangering others on the road.
Discharging an object that propels a hunk of lead at velocities in excess of 1000 fps in a residential area is a potentially reckless act regardless of where the barrel is pointed.
I'm not saying that the end result was the best option, but I expect the police to investigate the discharge of a firearm in an urban area. It generally doesn't bode well.
Quote from: Crocuta on April 11, 2007, 02:09 PM NHFT
If I'm weaving in and out of traffic, cutting off other drivers and being generally unsafe, but I haven't actually harmed anyone, is it still wrong? I would say that it is still recklessly endangering others on the road.
Property owners (of roads and other property) have the right to enforce rules of conduct on their property.
The state governs the roads. Whether its control is legitimate, or what rules it may appropriately enforce, are large questions. I will say, however, that if the state is a legitimate owner of its roads, or an authorized agent of the rightful owners, it is clear that it has broad authority to enforce rules, including those against weaving, speeding, etc.
(Rules of the road, since they are set by the state, are treated as questions of policy, not rights. For example, you may think you have "the right" to talk on a cellphone while driving, but you have no more right to do that than to drive 100mph weaving through traffic, inasmuch as neither infringes others' rights. My personal belief is that you should be allowed to do both. Many self-described libertarians, however, believe that laws against "potential" dangers on public property are justified.)
QuoteDischarging an object that propels a hunk of lead at velocities in excess of 1000 fps in a residential area is a potentially reckless act regardless of where the barrel is pointed.
To the best of my knowledge, the state is not the rightful owner of that man's property any more than it is the rightful owner of restaurants. He, not the state, has the right to decide whether cigarettes will be smoked or firearms will be discharged on his property.
His neighbors have the right to invade his dominion when necessary to defend their own rights--for example, if starts firing his rifle into his neighbor's swimming pool. They can also deputize others to defend their rights, and the police assumed this role here.
There is no indication that his neighbors' rights were violated, or even threatened.
Quote from: atr on April 12, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
Property owners (of roads and other property) have the right to enforce rules of conduct on their property.
We are in agreement.
QuoteThe state governs the roads. Whether its control is legitimate, or what rules it may appropriately enforce, are large questions. I will say, however, that if the state is a legitimate owner of its roads, or an authorized agent of the rightful owners, it is clear that it has broad authority to enforce rules, including those against weaving, speeding, etc.
As long as the roads remain public property, and until those roads are returned to private ownership in a way that ensures free travel and access to everyone, the default is public ownership and management of the common roadways. With that comes the public coming to consensus on what is acceptable and proper behavior on those common roads. Frankly, I can live with that, but I'd be happy to see a better option replace it.
Quote(Rules of the road, since they are set by the state, are treated as questions of policy, not rights. For example, you may think you have "the right" to talk on a cellphone while driving, but you have no more right to do that than to drive 100mph weaving through traffic, inasmuch as neither infringes others' rights. My personal belief is that you should be allowed to do both. Many self-described libertarians, however, believe that laws against "potential" dangers on public property are justified.)
There are certain behaviors that one can logically deduce will lead to disaster. Smoking meth and drinking a fifth of vodka before getting behind the wheel of a car, for example. When combined with other drivers on the highway, one can reasonably assume that someone, and not necessarily the stoned driver, is going to be maimed or killed. Should we wait until someone actually dies before taking action, or should we presume that the other vehicle occupants around him have the rights to
life, liberty and property and prevent the loss of life in the first place? Don't get me wrong - if someone wants to get stoned and drunk and recklessly risk their
own life, more power to 'em. I can't however, say that they should be able to risk the lives of others.
QuoteTo the best of my knowledge, the state is not the rightful owner of that man's property any more than it is the rightful owner of restaurants. He, not the state, has the right to decide whether cigarettes will be smoked or firearms will be discharged on his property.
His neighbors have the right to invade his dominion when necessary to defend their own rights--for example, if starts firing his rifle into his neighbor's swimming pool. They can also deputize others to defend their rights, and the police assumed this role here.
There is no indication that his neighbors' rights were violated, or even threatened.
Let's say that I'm standing in my yard, firing a rifle at a block of granite. Every time I hit the rock, the bullet flies off in a random direction, but always stays within my property (some come pretty close to a trajectory that would cross your property, but they always hit a tree or something that stops them.) Am I violating your rights or your property? You can always hope that one comes straight back and intersects my cranium before a stray volley perforates your child. Or, you can stay locked up inside, hunkered down in the cellar until the risk is gone. You have to suspend your right to full and free use of your property in order to not lose your life.
Quote from: Crocuta on April 12, 2007, 02:07 PM NHFT
As long as the roads remain public property, and until those roads are returned to private ownership in a way that ensures free travel and access to everyone, the default is public ownership and management of the common roadways. With that comes the public coming to consensus on what is acceptable and proper behavior on those common roads. Frankly, I can live with that, but I'd be happy to see a better option replace it.
First, the public does not come to a consensus. Consensus is based on consent. Government's regulation of roads is based on representative majority rules. This is how we end up with cellphone bans and ridiculously low speed limits, for example.
While you may be okay with people getting arrested for driving 90 mph on I-93, I am not. It reminds me of the Billy Goats Gruff (http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0122e.html). People are driving along, not hurting anyone, then out come the police to steal their money.
QuoteThere are certain behaviors that one can logically deduce will lead to disaster. Smoking meth and drinking a fifth of vodka before getting behind the wheel of a car, for example. When combined with other drivers on the highway, one can reasonably assume that someone, and not necessarily the stoned driver, is going to be maimed or killed.
Vast numbers of people drive after consuming liquor and other intoxicants without injuring others.
QuoteShould we wait until someone actually dies before taking action, or should we presume that the other vehicle occupants around him have the rights to life, liberty and property and prevent the loss of life in the first place? Don't get me wrong - if someone wants to get stoned and drunk and recklessly risk their own life, more power to 'em. I can't however, say that they should be able to risk the lives of others.
People risk others' lives every day--drivers of cars, pilots of planes, etc. People drive drunk, sleepy, hungry, while talking, reading, applying makeup, etc. Fortunately, the vast majority of them do not injure others.
I assume that I have rights of life, liberty, and property, and that until another person violates them, I do not have the right to use force against that person. I don't know precisely at what point the rights violation occurs, but would characterize it differently than risk--more like imminent threat.
QuoteLet's say that I'm standing in my yard, firing a rifle at a block of granite. Every time I hit the rock, the bullet flies off in a random direction, but always stays within my property (some come pretty close to a trajectory that would cross your property, but they always hit a tree or something that stops them.) Am I violating your rights or your property? You can always hope that one comes straight back and intersects my cranium before a stray volley perforates your child. Or, you can stay locked up inside, hunkered down in the cellar until the risk is gone. You have to suspend your right to full and free use of your property in order to not lose your life.
I don't know the answer to your hypothetical. But my point is that we have no idea in what direction this guy was firing his rifle. We do, however, know what he was punished for--firing it within 300 feet of a residence. And I think we can agree that doing so is not inherently an activity that will lead to disaster (or violation of others' rights). And I hope we can agree that it is not an activity that deserves to be punished.
The law needs to be objective, not subjective, in order to be fair. If the speed limit is "reasonable and prudent" then if some thug with a badge wants to pull you over and fine you for driving 60 on the freeway, he can.
What do you propose as a replacement for the 100-yard limit for discharge of firearms in compact areas that would both respect individual liberty and protect the interests of neighbors whose homes may be shot towards?
Quote from: atr on April 12, 2007, 07:34 PM NHFTFirst, the public does not come to a consensus. Consensus is based on consent. Government's regulation of roads is based on representative majority rules. This is how we end up with cellphone bans and ridiculously low speed limits, for example.
...
I don't know the answer to your hypothetical. But my point is that we have no idea in what direction this guy was firing his rifle. We do, however, know what he was punished for--firing it within 300 feet of a residence. And I think we can agree that doing so is not inherently an activity that will lead to disaster (or violation of others' rights). And I hope we can agree that it is not an activity that deserves to be punished.
Ditto.
Quote from: mvpel on April 13, 2007, 08:59 AM NHFTWhat do you propose as a replacement for the 100-yard limit for discharge of firearms in compact areas that would both respect individual liberty and protect the interests of neighbors whose homes may be shot towards?
Already covered under:
Quote631:3 Reckless Conduct. ?
I. A person is guilty of reckless conduct if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another in danger of serious bodily injury.
II. Reckless conduct is a class B felony if the person uses a deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V. All other reckless conduct is a misdemeanor.
Joe
Violators would then be charged with a Class B felony instead of a violation, if the reckless conduct statute were applied instead of the unauthorized use.
Quote from: mvpel on April 13, 2007, 01:13 PM NHFTViolators would then be charged with a Class B felony instead of a violation, if the reckless conduct statute were applied instead of the unauthorized use.
Indeed.
Actual initiation of force should be punished severely.
Joe
Quote from: mvpel on April 13, 2007, 08:59 AM NHFT
The law needs to be objective, not subjective, in order to be fair. If the speed limit is "reasonable and prudent" then if some thug with a badge wants to pull you over and fine you for driving 60 on the freeway, he can.
I don't support any speed limit on public roads. Objectively, when one's money is taken from him as punishment for driving a certain speed (on a public road), that's stealing.
Quote
What do you propose as a replacement for the 100-yard limit for discharge of firearms in compact areas that would both respect individual liberty and protect the interests of neighbors whose homes may be shot towards?
Trespass: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/635/635-2.htm
or Assault (usu. called battery): http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/631/631-2-a.htm
Just to be clear, I do not support state regulation of private property at all, but these regulations are superior/preferable to the 300-foot firearm restriction. As a general rule, the state should not punish persons who have not violated others' rights. Because the 300-foot rule punishes people who have not violated others' rights, it is an unjust law.
Seems to me you don't need regulations. Noise polution, like any other polution, is a tresspass on private property. Seems to me if you can show that the noise distrupted the use of your property, common law, lower courts should be able to start developing standards on their own, with-out any "need" for regulations.
As far as endangerment, I don't think a person should be arrested untill actual damage has occured. We shouldn't be arresting people for crimes they statistically "might" commit.
Tracy
Quote from: atr on April 11, 2007, 01:48 PM NHFT
From the article, we have no idea in what direction he aimed or fired his rifle--it could have been straight into the ground.
In the video, his neighbor said he was shooting the gun in the air. It's a pretty tight residential area.
Quote from: tracysaboe on April 15, 2007, 08:48 PM NHFT
As far as endangerment, I don't think a person should be arrested untill actual damage has occured. We shouldn't be arresting people for crimes they statistically "might" commit.
Tracy
Would this apply to high-speed drunk driving as well?
The "damage" in the gun-firing case could very well be loss of life for some random person carrying in the groceries.
As far as the cops are conserned, yes.
BTW if drunk driving wasn't illegal it's likely most drunks would drive slower.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli5.html
Now, if roads were privately owned, the owners could set their own policies and expell people they felt were a danger to their other customers.
Tracy
Quote from: tracysaboe on April 20, 2007, 10:01 AM NHFT
Now, if roads were privately owned, the owners could set their own policies and expell people they felt were a danger to their other customers.
When will libertarians stop crying about private roads?
It won't happen for a long time.... we need to focus on other things..
Quote from: Dreepa on April 20, 2007, 10:07 AM NHFT
When will libertarians stop crying about private roads?
It won't happen for a long time.... we need to focus on other things..
When will libertarians stop crying about private schools?
It won't happen for a long time.... we need to focus on other things..
When will libertarians stop crying about private health care?
It won't happen for a long time.... we need to focus on other things..
When will libertarians stop crying about private charity?
It won't happen for a long time.... we need to focus on other things..
So you think that the vast amount of the populace is ready for private roads?
I am simply saying that focus should be maintained on things where something will happen instead of worrying about items that won't happen for a long time.
Quote from: Dreepa on April 20, 2007, 01:58 PM NHFT
So you think that the vast amount of the populace is ready for private roads?
At least in the case of roads the US Constitution gives the government that responsibility. In the case of things like health care etc they are going far beyond their duties.
Quote from: lildog on April 20, 2007, 03:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: Dreepa on April 20, 2007, 01:58 PM NHFT
So you think that the vast amount of the populace is ready for private roads?
At least in the case of roads the US Constitution gives the government that responsibility. In the case of things like health care etc they are going far beyond their duties.
Article 1, Section 8: "general welfare (http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/foundingdocs/constitution/studygenwelfare.html)" >:(
Quote from: Dreepa on April 20, 2007, 01:58 PM NHFT
So you think that the vast amount of the populace is ready for private roads?
I am simply saying that focus should be maintained on things where something will happen instead of worrying about items that won't happen for a long time.
One should focus on obtainable goals, but, maintain the debate on things like road privatization, because every time it comes up someone learns about the concept who has never heard of it. Also, by fleshing out the subject, a system of road privatization can be sculpted that covers all the 'what if's'.
Quote from: Pat McCotter on April 20, 2007, 04:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: lildog on April 20, 2007, 03:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: Dreepa on April 20, 2007, 01:58 PM NHFT
So you think that the vast amount of the populace is ready for private roads?
At least in the case of roads the US Constitution gives the government that responsibility. In the case of things like health care etc they are going far beyond their duties.
Article 1, Section 8: "general welfare (http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/foundingdocs/constitution/studygenwelfare.html)" >:(
Article 1, Section 8: "To establish Post Offices and post Roads;" ???
Quote from: tracysaboe on April 20, 2007, 10:01 AM NHFT
As far as the cops are conserned, yes.
BTW if drunk driving wasn't illegal it's likely most drunks would drive slower.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli5.html
Absolutely. The drunk drivers are such a responsible crew that we can be pretty confident that they would drive slowly while shitfaced.
Well....maybe the professionals. The kids probably won't.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 20, 2007, 10:41 PM NHFT
Well....maybe the professionals. The kids probably won't.
;D
That's true! I knew a person who drunk so much, that he actually drove better when he was drunk. He got pulled over one time because his taillight was out ::) The cop smelled alchohol and told him to take a breatheralizer test. They said he should have been dead of alchahole poisoning with all the alchahol in his system.
Never had an accident in his life.
Tracy
Quote from: Dreepa on April 20, 2007, 10:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: tracysaboe on April 20, 2007, 10:01 AM NHFT
Now, if roads were privately owned, the owners could set their own policies and expell people they felt were a danger to their other customers.
When will libertarians stop crying about private roads?
It won't happen for a long time.... we need to focus on other things..
Because every damb time I start talking about how government is evil and the free market can do things better, the 1st objection I always hear is "Government does some good things? They build roads. Do you want to be driving on dirt roads? etc"
The implication is that if government didn't build roads we'd all still be driving on dirt trails. They have know idea that pavement wasn't invented by government, No idea that the vast majority of road building is pork-barreling, etc.
It helps to be able to be consistant and respond to this knee-jerk retort by being consistant and point out that government doesn't even to that very well. Instead we get pot-hole-filled roads, and multiple accidents a day, a police state who can pull you over for any reason, real or contrive, and government cameras watching your every move while your on "their" roads.
Tracy
Quote from: Mark on April 20, 2007, 09:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: tracysaboe on April 20, 2007, 10:01 AM NHFT
As far as the cops are conserned, yes.
BTW if drunk driving wasn't illegal it's likely most drunks would drive slower.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli5.html
Absolutely. The drunk drivers are such a responsible crew that we can be pretty confident that they would drive slowly while shitfaced.
You talk as if you didn't even read the article.
Tracy
Tracy, I don't mean to be a dick here, just throwing something out there. But do you think the "police state" mentality on roads would be even worse if they were private, depending on the owners, of course? Do you think that the surveillance camera issue would be even worse if roads were private?
It's not in a companies financial best interest to harass their customers. Or their customers will use alternatives, and they'll loose business. Highway entrapreneurs would be balancing customer service, with security, just like every other free market business.
Tracy
Quote from: LiveFree on April 24, 2007, 10:09 AM NHFT
Tracy, I don't mean to be a dick here, just throwing something out there. But do you think the "police state" mentality on roads would be even worse if they were private, depending on the owners, of course? Do you think that the surveillance camera issue would be even worse if roads were private?
If I spent a $1B on a road.. I would certainly have cameras on it and probably force people to have something like a fastlane transponder.
You mean require
Quote from: Dreepa on April 24, 2007, 03:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: LiveFree on April 24, 2007, 10:09 AM NHFT
Tracy, I don't mean to be a dick here, just throwing something out there. But do you think the "police state" mentality on roads would be even worse if they were private, depending on the owners, of course? Do you think that the surveillance camera issue would be even worse if roads were private?
If I spent a $1B on a road.. I would certainly have cameras on it and probably force people to have something like a fastlane transponder.
1) Under a free enterprise system roads wouldn't cost anywheres near what it costs the state to build them. We all know the state waists a good 70% of it's income, and most of the decissions to spend the rest -- yes even when it comes to where to lay down roads -- are spent for political not economic reasons. Conpairable example Great Northern Railroad, vs. Government subsidized railroads that weaved tracks 3 times as long.
2) Million Dollar malls do have security and survailence, but it actually IS for their custamers protection because it'is only acted upon if somebody IS actively shoplifting or being violent to peacefull custamers.
3) their's a big difference between private survailence and government survailence. Private companies actually do use it to make their custamers lives better and help them out. -- The only covet here is that many turn information over to the government because they don't want to make waves. Other companies -- like Google -- would refuse to comply with government demands -- at least with-out a warrent. You could choose which companies were better in this respect regarding selling out to the feds when you chose which roads to drive on.
4) If you don't like survailence. Drive on a cheeply made road that doesn't have any. Or, it's quite possible that in a free market road system their could be public roads that weren't government owned, in which their's little or no security whatsoever competing along side the privetly owned roads.
Bottom line, when I drive on those quasi government roads called turn-pikes, I don't get harrassed near as much has I do by cops on government roads.
Tracy
Quote from: tracysaboe on April 23, 2007, 10:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: Mark on April 20, 2007, 09:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: tracysaboe on April 20, 2007, 10:01 AM NHFT
As far as the cops are conserned, yes.
BTW if drunk driving wasn't illegal it's likely most drunks would drive slower.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli5.html
Absolutely. The drunk drivers are such a responsible crew that we can be pretty confident that they would drive slowly while shitfaced.
You talk as if you didn't even read the article.
Tracy
I read the article. It read like an undergrad frat boy's term paper. It was ridiculous. My sarcastic response pointed out just one major hole in the author's logic. The assumption that drunk drivers would take the safest course of action if given the choice is proven wrong by the very fact that they are driving drunk, which is inherently less safe than driving sober.
As for your friend who drove better when drunk - If this is true he should do us all a favor and throw his keys in the river. My guess is that the alcohol made him dumb enough to think he drove better while drunk.
Quote from: tracysaboe on April 25, 2007, 12:53 AM NHFTOther companies -- like Google -- would refuse to comply with government demands -- at least with-out a warrent. You could choose which companies were better in this respect regarding selling out to the feds when you chose which roads to drive on.
Uh, I wouldn't use Google as an example of stalwart opposition to government. They sold out to the Chinese government to censor the Internet for their citizens, and I believe I heard that some people have actually been executed based on evidence that Google willingly shared.
Other than that, good post :)
Joe
Quote from: Mark on April 25, 2007, 06:17 AM NHFT
Quote from: tracysaboe on April 23, 2007, 10:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: Mark on April 20, 2007, 09:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: tracysaboe on April 20, 2007, 10:01 AM NHFT
As far as the cops are conserned, yes.
BTW if drunk driving wasn't illegal it's likely most drunks would drive slower.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli5.html
Absolutely. The drunk drivers are such a responsible crew that we can be pretty confident that they would drive slowly while shitfaced.
You talk as if you didn't even read the article.
Tracy
I read the article. It read like an undergrad frat boy's term paper. It was ridiculous. My sarcastic response pointed out just one major hole in the author's logic. The assumption that drunk drivers would take the safest course of action if given the choice is proven wrong by the very fact that they are driving drunk, which is inherently less safe than driving sober.
He could still take the safest course of action under the circumstances. I assume we are talking 'legally drunk' here. The result of some, arbitrary number. Ignoring that the same percentage of alcohol effects different people differently, just the fact that they lower the acceptable percentage, making something illegal, that was legal the day before show how arbitrary this is.
There can be a difference between driving legally drunk, and, shitfaced.
Personally, Although I have done neither for several years, I'd rather drive 'tripping' than shitfaced drunk.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 25, 2007, 08:20 AM NHFTHe could still take the safest course of action under the circumstances. I assume we are talking 'legally drunk' here. The result of some, arbitrary number. Ignoring that the same percentage of alcohol effects different people differently, just the fact that they lower the acceptable percentage, making something illegal, that was legal the day before show how arbitrary this is.
There can be a difference between driving legally drunk, and, shitfaced.
Indeed. The DWI laws are based on the State's arbitrary notion of what makes you "unsafe," not science. Different body chemistry can cause two different people to react in different ways to alcohol at different concentrations. A blood-alcohol level that puts one person under the table may have no measurable effect on another.
If the State was actually interested in testing people for safe driving under such circumstances, they'd use a reaction-time meter, not a breathalyzer. The reaction-time meter would show whether you are actually impaired, while the breathalyzer only shows if you have violated the arbitrary rules set by the legislature.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on April 25, 2007, 07:58 AM NHFT
Quote from: tracysaboe on April 25, 2007, 12:53 AM NHFTOther companies -- like Google -- would refuse to comply with government demands -- at least with-out a warrent. You could choose which companies were better in this respect regarding selling out to the feds when you chose which roads to drive on.
Uh, I wouldn't use Google as an example of stalwart opposition to government. They sold out to the Chinese government to censor the Internet for their citizens, and I believe I heard that some people have actually been executed based on evidence that Google willingly shared.
Other than that, good post :)
Joe
:)
Obviously, it's difficult to find a completely clean company these days.
They sold out to the Chinese by sensoring their Chinese version on the search engine, evan though most chinese can still use the .com top level domains. I don't really fault them for that. China likely wouldn't have had google at all if they hadn't. I do know that here in the US though they refused to let the FBI look at their records. That's why I thought of them. Their were also several wireless companies who refused to let the NSA tap into their phones, and others who roled over and played lapdog. There was a list of which was which circling the internet awhile back.
Tracy
I know this man...apparently he was asleep inside his house and someone was in the act of breaking into his house when he grabbed his shot gun and headed out the front door and fired a single shot into the air...
not the brightest thing to do...but invaders were attempting to siege his castle
Quote from: higheye on June 13, 2007, 05:26 PM NHFTI know this man...apparently he was asleep inside his house and someone was in the act of breaking into his house when he grabbed his shot gun and headed out the front door and fired a single shot into the air...
not the brightest thing to do...but invaders were attempting to siege his castle
That's a little beyond "not the brightest thing to do." Those pellets have to come back down...
Joe
that is what blanks are for.