Politics And Current Events

NAN
Posts: 11563
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:26 pm
Location: shoeshine boy is a lady

Politics And Current Events

Postby NAN » Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:49 am

So catch the bad people. Don’t spend your time writing tickets for traffic non-sense. Use that time to build cases against those bad people.
And how do you do that if you want minimal police interaction? I continue to hear "well they should have just let them go, don't chase after them, etc, etc". So only act after the crime is committed and not try to prevent it?

I'm sure as soon as someone is killed by a car going 100 on the parkway, the first question will be "why aren't the police doing enough to stop this.". Always works that way with people like you. It's a complex world out there.

MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29195
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

Politics And Current Events

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:49 am

Welcome to prison reform meeting injustice. Is the idea of prison to rehabilitate or to punish? You can’t rehab this mistake, you can take away her 2A right so she never has the opportunity to make the mistake again, but there was no malice involved.
So we’re just going to punish her for the sake of punishing her. We’re not teaching her a lesson, we’re not trying to make the world safer, we just want her to feel pain?
Yeah, not sure there’s an appropriate sentence for that.
This is a fascinating philosophical question, and you’re exactly right in how you pose it. There is no appropriate sentence. Of course there should be “justice” in some way, but what constitutes justice here? And for who? The family or society?
neither and imo "justice" is a misnomer. criminal courts are utilitarian, not therapeutic. criminal court protects society from active threats either through rehabilitation or permanent removal of an individual from society. ideally the former, sometimes the latter.

this officer will likely no longer be a threat once they're stripped of their authority to commit violence against civilians.

civil court is where the feelings are resolved in this case.
eh. someone drinking and driving once in their life and getting into an accident might not be an active threat but that doesn't mean they should get off scot free

I think there are four roles to incarceration: punishment, protection of society, rehabilitation and deterrence. I think putting this cop in jail satisfies 1 and 4. unlike what that one Congressman claimed (I think it was Tom Cotton?), we have an incarceration problem so we should be more mindful about how many people were throwing in prison but this qualifies for me. I'm not saying she should be charged with third degree murder or something but this was a very bad mistake that ended someone's life. Even if she didn't mean to

I brought it up before facetiously but if I accidentally killed someone due to a major error on my part, I think some amount of jail is warranted.

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:56 am

Are too darkly tinted windows a primary reason to pull someone over? I hate that you can't have matching tint (legally) between front and rear windows. Although many people do here. I guess they suck it up and take the fine?
I've heard two different answers to this question. PA has no actual tint law with regards to how dark the tint can be. I've only ever been bothered by a cop once, who pulled me over because of how 'dark' it was, then let me off with a ticket for just 2 tinted windows. He was 'cutting me a break' by not giving me a ticket for the rest of them.

He was, in fact, just being a jagoff.
Yes, window tint is probable cause for a stop on its own. I suck it up and take the fine. I told that to a judge once and he didn't care, so long as my check cleared.

To the tint level concern. Title 75 states:
"No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sun screening device or other material which does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle through the windshield, side wing or side window of the vehicle."
So, in that way, it's fairly subjective. There is no 70% (or other) threshold measurable with a light meter in Title 75. The 70% number comes from a 1996 PennDOT administrative rule which mandated that level of light transmission to maintain compliance. So think of it like the PennDOT rule clarified the subjective nature of Title 75 while using Title 75 as the foundational authority. It's an important distinction for law nerds but the practical thing to takeaway as a driver is that this is the threshold the Commonwealth has agreed on and it's the standard you will be held to.

That second part about the 2 tinted windows is complete bullshit. There is not tiered violation scheme for the amount of windows. You either violated the rule or you didn't.

MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29195
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

Politics And Current Events

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:59 am

I never understood the window tinting subculture. What’s the drive to get your windows hypertinted?

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Politics And Current Events

Postby tifosi77 » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:18 pm

Also, there was a civil rights attorney on the TV earlier who said that because the latest Minnesota police shooting looks like it was genuinely a mishap there was probably no way to charge the officer criminally. Neat.

And while there's no good place for a negligent police shooting, I think 10 miles from the courthouse that's the venue for the Floyd shooting is probably not ideal.
Bullshit. She can be charged with involuntary manslaughter. I'm not sure what the law is in minny but this happened on 2009 in Oklahoma and the officer was sentenced to 2 years for that
Different jurisdiction, different laws.

They may have a federal civil rights case against her, but the guy was not enthusiastic about giving his interpretation of MN law. He didn't go into details, but I can 100% see the path to no criminal charges in a case like this. Which is awful and sucks beyond belief.

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:19 pm

It looks better and with ceramic tinting it greatly reduces the heat transmission. I don't do the really dark limo tint because it's hard to see at night, but my tint is over the limit.

I just tinted the front windows of my van to match the side windows. You wouldn't think it matters but driving across Texas last June it was overriding the AC. Probably because the cabin area is so large in that vehicle.

DigitalGypsy66
Posts: 19680
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
Location: Iodine State

Politics And Current Events

Postby DigitalGypsy66 » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:19 pm

I never understood the window tinting subculture. What’s the drive to get your windows hypertinted?
For me, it's to keep the sun/heat out of the car. Privacy isn't bad either. :lol:

I didn't explain the two tint thing well. Most SUVs (and crew cab trucks) come with an option for privacy tinting on the rear windows. To have the front windows match that level of tinting, is illegal in most states. Which is dumb imo.

DigitalGypsy66
Posts: 19680
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
Location: Iodine State

Politics And Current Events

Postby DigitalGypsy66 » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:23 pm


tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Politics And Current Events

Postby tifosi77 » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:23 pm

To full circle that though, he was apparently stopped for air fresheners? WTH? Because they figured it was a cover up for the pot smell or what?
The traffic stop in the first place is why we need to talk reform. Nor have I heard what the warrants were for, it seems excessive to taser a dude for something minor. Increasing police interactions for minor offenses invites more opportunities for tragic mistakes.
I have not heard specifics, but I did hear one pundit refer to it as a misdemeanor warrant. I don't know what they were basing that on, or if that's accurate, but that's the only thing I've heard to date on that front.

Pavel Bure
Posts: 7545
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:57 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Pavel Bure » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:28 pm

So catch the bad people. Don’t spend your time writing tickets for traffic non-sense. Use that time to build cases against those bad people.
And how do you do that if you want minimal police interaction? I continue to hear "well they should have just let them go, don't chase after them, etc, etc". So only act after the crime is committed and not try to prevent it?

I'm sure as soon as someone is killed by a car going 100 on the parkway, the first question will be "why aren't the police doing enough to stop this.". Always works that way with people like you. It's a complex world out there.
FYI people are already driving 100 on the parkway/turnpike. The position you’re arguing is currently in place and failing.

Dickie Dunn
Posts: 28100
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Methuselah Honeysuckle

Politics And Current Events

Postby Dickie Dunn » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:30 pm

Saw this headline and immediately got excited to read the opinions of people who know nothing.


dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:31 pm

Oh, since I have Title 75 open here is the text on hanging stuff from your rearview mirror in PA:
§ 4524. Windshield obstructions and wipers.

(c) Other obstruction.--No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any object or material hung from the inside rearview mirror or otherwise hung, placed or attached in such a position as to materially obstruct, obscure or impair the driver's vision through the front windshield or any manner as to constitute a safety hazard.
So, hanging something from your mirror could be probable cause for a stop.

If you fought it you would likely attacking 'material obstruction.' But that would only help if you were trying to avoid a fine, it's not going to keep you from being stopped.

Gaucho
Posts: 49571
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:31 pm
Location: shootzepucklefraude

Politics And Current Events

Postby Gaucho » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:35 pm

Saw this headline and immediately got excited to read the opinions of people who know nothing.

I'm hardly pro-nuclear, but I read some actual articles and understand it's safe.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:35 pm

In my mind prison should be for one reason: Protection of society.

All jails do are create criminals and encourage criminality.

Zero non-violent crimes should carry a prison sentence. Any kind of theft should be restitution.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:35 pm

Excellent

Gaucho
Posts: 49571
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:31 pm
Location: shootzepucklefraude

Politics And Current Events

Postby Gaucho » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:37 pm

In my mind prison should be for one reason: Protection of society.

All jails do are create criminals and encourage criminality.

Zero non-violent crimes should carry a prison sentence. Any kind of theft should be restitution.
:thumb:

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Politics And Current Events

Postby shmenguin » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:40 pm

In my mind prison should be for one reason: Protection of society.

All jails do are create criminals and encourage criminality.

Zero non-violent crimes should carry a prison sentence. Any kind of theft should be restitution.
I think certain non violent offenses committed at a certain scale are societally destabilizing and warrant jail time.

But generally yes to this.

robbiestoupe
Posts: 11556
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:27 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby robbiestoupe » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:57 pm

Oh, since I have Title 75 open here is the text on hanging stuff from your rearview mirror in PA:
§ 4524. Windshield obstructions and wipers.

(c) Other obstruction.--No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any object or material hung from the inside rearview mirror or otherwise hung, placed or attached in such a position as to materially obstruct, obscure or impair the driver's vision through the front windshield or any manner as to constitute a safety hazard.
So, hanging something from your mirror could be probable cause for a stop.

If you fought it you would likely attacking 'material obstruction.' But that would only help if you were trying to avoid a fine, it's not going to keep you from being stopped.
Larry David hiring a hooker to use the HOV lane to the Dodgers game: legal

Larry David hanging a handicap placard on his rear view: illegal

Got it

DigitalGypsy66
Posts: 19680
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
Location: Iodine State

Politics And Current Events

Postby DigitalGypsy66 » Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:00 pm

The Afghan pullout is not contingent on anything, either. So they are gone baby gone in September.

About damn time. 20 **** years.

NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Politics And Current Events

Postby NTP66 » Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:05 pm

Are too darkly tinted windows a primary reason to pull someone over? I hate that you can't have matching tint (legally) between front and rear windows. Although many people do here. I guess they suck it up and take the fine?
I've heard two different answers to this question. PA has no actual tint law with regards to how dark the tint can be. I've only ever been bothered by a cop once, who pulled me over because of how 'dark' it was, then let me off with a ticket for just 2 tinted windows. He was 'cutting me a break' by not giving me a ticket for the rest of them.

He was, in fact, just being a jagoff.
Yes, window tint is probable cause for a stop on its own. I suck it up and take the fine. I told that to a judge once and he didn't care, so long as my check cleared.

To the tint level concern. Title 75 states:
"No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sun screening device or other material which does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle through the windshield, side wing or side window of the vehicle."
So, in that way, it's fairly subjective. There is no 70% (or other) threshold measurable with a light meter in Title 75. The 70% number comes from a 1996 PennDOT administrative rule which mandated that level of light transmission to maintain compliance. So think of it like the PennDOT rule clarified the subjective nature of Title 75 while using Title 75 as the foundational authority. It's an important distinction for law nerds but the practical thing to takeaway as a driver is that this is the threshold the Commonwealth has agreed on and it's the standard you will be held to.

That second part about the 2 tinted windows is complete bullshit. There is not tiered violation scheme for the amount of windows. You either violated the rule or you didn't.
Thanks for clearing that up. My tint is 35%, with the rear window being 20%. You can still see inside the car during the day, but obviously not during the night. Not sure how much better you can see without tint if we're talking all lights off inside the vehicle, too.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:05 pm

Welcome to prison reform meeting injustice. Is the idea of prison to rehabilitate or to punish? You can’t rehab this mistake, you can take away her 2A right so she never has the opportunity to make the mistake again, but there was no malice involved.
So we’re just going to punish her for the sake of punishing her. We’re not teaching her a lesson, we’re not trying to make the world safer, we just want her to feel pain?
Yeah, not sure there’s an appropriate sentence for that.
This is a fascinating philosophical question, and you’re exactly right in how you pose it. There is no appropriate sentence. Of course there should be “justice” in some way, but what constitutes justice here? And for who? The family or society?
neither and imo "justice" is a misnomer. criminal courts are utilitarian, not therapeutic. criminal court protects society from active threats either through rehabilitation or permanent removal of an individual from society. ideally the former, sometimes the latter.

this officer will likely no longer be a threat once they're stripped of their authority to commit violence against civilians.

civil court is where the feelings are resolved in this case.
eh. someone drinking and driving once in their life and getting into an accident might not be an active threat but that doesn't mean they should get off scot free

I think there are four roles to incarceration: punishment, protection of society, rehabilitation and deterrence. I think putting this cop in jail satisfies 1 and 4. unlike what that one Congressman claimed (I think it was Tom Cotton?), we have an incarceration problem so we should be more mindful about how many people were throwing in prison but this qualifies for me. I'm not saying she should be charged with third degree murder or something but this was a very bad mistake that ended someone's life. Even if she didn't mean to

I brought it up before facetiously but if I accidentally killed someone due to a major error on my part, I think some amount of jail is warranted.
How does prison provide rehabilitation for someone? I agree with punishment, protection, and deterrence (although I think there's a bit of research that prison doesn't really deter criminals). But how is rehab carried out?

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:08 pm

Thanks for clearing that up. My tint is 35%, with the rear window being 20%. You can still see inside the car during the day, but obviously not during the night. Not sure how much better you can see without tint if we're talking all lights off inside the vehicle, too.
I always do the courtesy of rolling the windows down during a stop. If they want to be knobs and still ticket me for it, fine. The last time I got a tint ticket it was in my roadster. I rolled the front windows down and he still gave a ticket despite the fact you'd never be able to see in the rear window either way because of the placement of the seats, etc. The pull-over for that one was speeding on 376 on Thanksgiving day. Thanks bud, sucks that you're at work, I know.
Last edited by dodint on Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:08 pm

In my mind prison should be for one reason: Protection of society.

All jails do are create criminals and encourage criminality.

Zero non-violent crimes should carry a prison sentence. Any kind of theft should be restitution.
This is pretty much where I'm at as well.

Lemon Berry Lobster
Posts: 15363
Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 3:13 pm
Location: dodint is a millennial

Politics And Current Events

Postby Lemon Berry Lobster » Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:09 pm


Larry David hiring a hooker to use the HOV lane to the Dodgers game: legal

Larry David hanging a handicap placard on his rear view: illegal

Got it
There's a crazy story that goes along with this episode. A man took his daughter to the game, but later on was being charged with murder. The man happened to be sitting in a section and was caught on tape, proving his innocence.

NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Politics And Current Events

Postby NTP66 » Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:12 pm

Thanks for clearing that up. My tint is 35%, with the rear window being 20%. You can still see inside the car during the day, but obviously not during the night. Not sure how much better you can see without tint if we're talking all lights off inside the vehicle, too.
I always do the courtesy of rolling the windows down during a stop. If they want to be knobs and still ticket me for it, fine. The last time I got a tint ticket it was in my roadster. I rolled the front windows down and he still gave a ticket despite the fact you'd never be able to see in the rear window either way because of the placement of the seats, etc. The pull-over for that one was speeding on 376 on Thanksgiving day. Thanks bud, sucks that you're at work, I know.
Same here - window is always rolled completely down before he even steps out of his patrol car. This guy gave me **** about 'I can't see you through your window' (obvious lie unless he's blind), but it took a lot to not just reply 'good thing the window was rolled down before you walked up, eh?'

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RonnieFranchise and 103 guests