That Eureka Shoot 'em Up
The North Coast Journal has a great account of the police shooting in Eureka the other day. I'm not criticizing Eureka P.D. at all over this but think it important to remember the whole thing started with a perceived seat belt violation. Sure, it could have also been anything else, but discussing seat belt laws the other day with libertarians, I pointed out this is the sort of thing that bothers me about seat belt laws: Just one more thing that can lead to bigger things, and seat belt laws are pretty much a he said (the officer) vs. he said ( the driver) as to whether the driver had his seat belt on to begin with.
For what it's worth, I've been a seat belt fanatic since before the Buckle up for Safety campaigns of the 60s. As soon as seat belts became regular in cars, I wore mine. I do question whether people should be compelled to wear them.
Along the line of the "bigger things" aspect, I recall being in traffic court years ago. Some guy was there who was stopped by the highway patrol in Mckinleyville for a seat belt violation. The driver said he had his belt on. The highway patrolman insisted he didn't. As it happened, as a result of that stop the driver ended up with fines of something like $300.00 plus various fix it tickets. All over a his word vs. his word and a law that is questionable in the first place.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 7:44 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
It IS the simple things that can get you....like if this jerk off just COMPLIED with the officer.....one thing let to another, etc.....BS failure to comply with the law and the officer led to this......go back and review your DMV booklet....you will see where they describe your agreements to follow the law and abide by law enforcement....remember it is a privilege to drive in California - NOT a RIGHT!
Why 'force' seatbelts? Why force people to have working brakelights and headlights? Why smog checks? People who dont wear seatbelts cannot control their vehicles properly, and thereby cost ALL of us in increased rates. (money and death).
" People who dont wear seatbelts cannot control their vehicles properly, and thereby cost ALL of us in increased rates. (money and death)"
I've never heard that used an an excuse for seat belt laws. It's usually touted as more of a we know what's best for you type thing.
But I agree seat belts can keep people in their seats and more in control of the vehicle, at least the early model lap belts. The modern ones allow a lot more movement. I personally preferred the old style.
Fact - a driver got pulled over (we can debate validity of cause)
Fact - a driver fled
Fact - EPD got all Hopalong Cassidy because "how dare a driver just done and run off".....
Fact- EPD discharged firearms to the tune of 44+ rounds......haymaker rounds...
Fact - EPD will never find all the bullets they recklessly discharged...
Fact - EPD is very irresponsible with guns, but claim they are more responsible than criminals.
Fact - Criminals are better at not discharging their gun recklessly.
Fact - Criminals find it relatively easy to shoot a cop and not miss....
Fact - Voters approved more taxes to hire more cops who are dangerous to the peace and safety of the community.
Fact - less cops equals less crime committed.
Criticism - EPD can't escape criticism, it is like a dark casting shadow that lingers and looms like the most rancid fart.
"People who dont wear seatbelts cannot control their vehicles properly"
That is a really stupid thing to say. There is no correlation between those two things.
And yes, we should be critical of the cops who fired so many shots in a populated area when they had not been fired upon.
A 2% success rate with lethal bullets flying from four directions is worthy or some discipline and consequences. If not, to what standard can we ever hold cops to?
".like if this jerk off just COMPLIED with the officer.....one thing let to another,"
Maybe so, but that seems to be a common excuse used for police shootings. We don't need rinky dink laws like this to increase confrontations with officers to begin with.
Same as I wrote a while back about Arcata's public smoking laws. Those laws have the potential for confrontation as well.
A guy's walking down the sidewalk smoking a cigarette. A cop sees him and tries to stop and cite him. The guy runs off. Cop catches him and perhaps a struggle ensues. The cop feels he's losing the struggle so shoots the smoker. A dead smoker and a cop likely in trouble over someone smoking a cigarette.
It just seems that the "blame" is always put on the officer and not the people who started it. If you don' t like the laws that are being added to our society then you need to protest another way and at a different level....but all of that aside......when you are stopped by a law enforcement officer, for whatever reason, just COMPLY....if an illegal stop, search, whatever then take them to court. The responsibility of this whole situation belongs on the shoulders of the shit that ran from the cops!
The more dead smokers, the better. They're killing themselves already - might as well just get it over with, and in a fashion that doesn't piss off all the non-defective people downwind, or waste health care on prolonged self-inflicted illnesses.
The only argument I've ever heard for seat belts being a public safety issue is that, in the event of a major traffic accident (a minor one wouldn't be changed by wearing a seat belt), and you're still alert and your vehicle still controllable, you're slightly more likely to be able to aim the vehicle to the shoulder or steer around a second collision. This combination of circumstances happens quite rarely - usually by the time you hit something hard enough for your seat belt to make the difference between being conscious and not, you've already lost control of the vehicle, and the vehicle is in no condition to be controlled. Not to mention you'll be a bit distracted by the airbag going off, etc. And even when it does make the difference, most accidents are single-event things.
Since it does not improve public safety, I do not believe there should be any laws requiring adults to wear seat belts. That said, I think you're a fucking idiot if you don't. Your wearing your seat belt may not improve the public's safety, but it definitely improves your own.
However, more relevant to this incident, Linfoot is obviously a danger to the public. Twice now he's opened fire on someone not clearly presenting an immediate danger to others. However, you can be sure he'll be cleared of any wrongdoing, because somehow we have a system so badly broken that unelected functionaries can declare anyone innocent of any crime.
Cops need to study & memorize the Constitution so they can recognize tyranny in the mirror.
They were hired as peacekeepers once upon a time, back in the days of the wild wild west. The good old days, before the common good criminalized every citizen for quota.
"when you are stopped by a law enforcement officer, for whatever reason, just COMPLY."
Why do you think it's acceptable that blind obedience to the government is expected in all circumstances, with death as the punishment for failing to comply?
I'm OK with eliminating seat belt laws with two conditions.
1. If I'm in a traffic accident and anyone not belted in another vehicle is injured, I want to be immune from paying for any costs related to his injury. Zero dollars. I'll pay for breaking up someone's car, but if that person recklessly disregards his own safety by not wearing a safety belt, it's all on him.
2. If a minor is not belted in a vehicle and is injured, I want the driver of that vehicle held fully financially responsible for any injury to the child, regardless of who was at fault in the accident. Children aren't of an age of consent, and thus the adult in control of the vehicle takes responsibility.
Well, If Einstein were alive, he would also critique how the EPD was recklessly discharging a firearm, and are to be blamed.....yes....yes,yes.
Post a Comment
<< Home