Posted on 10/16/2009 9:58:23 AM PDT by TChris
Doesn't apply. The Admin moderator removes those comments, or blocks the thread.
Who's doing the texting? The driver or the passenger? I don't know what is more idiotic....people doing stupid things or the laws being written to stop them.
It is anti-texting laws for drivers.
You’re forgetting that driving itself is a privilege and not a right, unlike free speech.
Please stop avoiding the question. It is a simply question: do you think new laws should be written that specifically address and specify “no texting while operating a motor vehicle”?
Unfortunately laws are written to mandate common sense. There must have been fatalities in order for this law to be written.
My neighbor got in a serious accident over the summer because the teenage driver was texting his friend and dropped his phone. When he picked it up to retrieve it he ran head-on into my neighbor's car. He is the father of six children and was nearly killed.
I don't think you'd want that happening to you, and if someone was idiot enough to be texting his friend instead of focusing on the road, you'd have his head yourself, guaranteed.
It's shame that laws like this have to be written because people have no common sense and think they can just do what they want when they want with no sense of accountability at all.
Yes. Unless the driver has four arms.
“Yes. Unless the driver has four arms.”
And an extra set of eyes.
You see, there is good intent to writing these laws, but there is no need to write them most of the time! Just like the “cyber stalking” laws. They are not worth the paper they are written upon, because it is already AGAINST the law to slander and libel and stalk people.
It is against the law to “unsafely operate” a motor vehicle. THIS is a vague law; however, it is rarely used. Would that law not suffice in the “texting while driving” argument? Writing laws like this actually “water-down” the other laws on the books.
Used to it was against the law to kill someone. Then someone said, we need harsher punishment for someone killing with a gun. So, they open the door for someone to argue that it doesn’t say not to use a knife and other stupid arguments.
You want things spelled out in exacting details (not vague), but that creates MORE problems than it fixes! For example, let’s add more years to a murderers sentence because a prosecutor thinks he hates the victim. I figure if he killed him, he probably hated him (at least at that moment)!
Writing laws on top of laws does not correct the problems! Enforcing the laws and ensuring the laws are applied is the problem. The American people have fallen down in their civil duties to care about their community, city, state and country. This failure to connect has led to the election of a Marxist through democratic means! If we don’t wake up and start applying COMMON SENSE (the first rule of law), then we will continue to backslide down the rocky road we currently find our bare-butts bumping!
It did just happen to me! My two youngest daughters were riding to school at the beginning of this school year on the school bus, when the driver in the truck following was busy texting. She ran into the back of the bus sending both my daughters to the ER via ambulance, as well as six other students!
I did not call my state rep and ask for a law to be written, I spoke with the seven cops and three ambulance crews and demanded that the driver be given tickets for unsafe operation in a school zone! And she was given three tickets that day (including unsafe operation of a motor vehicle)!
I'm not saying I agree with everything that is being legislated, but I understand the reasons for it. I have seen so many examples of out-and-out idiocy in the courtroom that I'm amazed the rule of law still stands.
[I’m not saying I agree with everything that is being legislated, but I understand the reasons for it.]
If we continue down this road, there will be absolutely no turning back. If that driver runs into the back of the bus today, she would get FOUR tickets. And I will bet, she will be texting again before the ink dries on the check she writes to pay all four tickets!
Liberals are beginning to usurp God’s law: COMMON SENSE. You see, if the liberals had not forced seat-belt laws, required impact airbags on new vehicles and re-enforced crumple zones, then this idiot would have killed herself instead of just harming my kids (as well as others). Now, because of these “understandable” requirements, she is free to continue to harm others!
Aye, there's the rub!
Who defines "run someone down"? What does that mean, exactly?
If I claim that Barack Obama is a Marxist usurper of government power, have I "run him down"?
If a classmate of my daughter writes online that she is an "ugly b!$%#", has that person "run my daughter down"?
This is a dangerously broad statute. I hope it's struck down quickly.
She got off easy with three tickets. I don't know what the penalties for texting while driving would be had that law existed, but I'll bet it would be a lot steeper than that, including loss of license.
The kid who ran into my friend got his license revoked, he won't drive until he's 21. He can text in the car all he wants to now... as long as someone else is driving.
It is not the victims of these preventable accidents who are behind that anti-texting law, it's the police themselves who are lobbying for it. The only statute that they can charge these imbeciles with is "inattentive driving" and they want stiffer penalties associated with texting.
For a law to be changed, usually it involves (1) loss of life and (2) more money for the government.
Technically, you have defamed him only if your claim is not true. His actions in office however, bear out whether that claim is true or not. Public officials expect to be talked about and their actions criticized anyway. That goes with the territory. He also has the Secret Service to protect his life from all threats.
A private citizen is another matter, that's why the media is very careful what they say about Sarah Palin these days, and they need to shut up about what they are saying about Rush Limbaugh or they could be charged with defamation. What the media is doing to Rush now is an example (on a large scale) of what personal cyber-bullying is--to the target.
If wisdom's ways you wisely seek,
Five things observe with care;
To whom you speak,
Of whom you speak
And how, and when, and where
[...it’s the police themselves who are lobbying for it.]
WRONG! I have several friends and family who are police officers, country sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and court bailiffs; most of them say that the laws are strong enough, it is the liberal judges (which here in Texas are elected to the bench) who let the people get off with a wrist-slap!
I have seen, with my own two eyes, a first time drunk-driver walk away with time served (22 hours) and $150.00 fine! He could have spent a year in prison, $5000.00 and a loss of his driving privileges (which is what he should have gotten)! But, the liberal judge let him walk, because he learned his lesson! The man had six DUI’s before he lost his license!
Just as I stated, the law doesn’t say I can’t type and drive, so if I put my laptop in my lap and type (via email, because that isn’t “technically” texting) then I am not breaking the law - right? When does this STUPIDITY stop?
Like you said, the laws are written to enforce common sense, and that should NOT be the case. If you are too stupid to come in out of the rain, then a law is not going to stop you from getting wet! The laws nine times out of ten, are fine; it is the selective application (as you stated earlier)!
Um, you didn’t read my very next comment, did you? LOL
PS If the statute just punshed “harm by posting,” with harm not defined, it would be unconstitutional. Sorry, I’m allowed to “harm” people’s feeling with my speech. For that matter, I’m allowed to harm their reputation - if what I say is true - and even harm their livelihood and life - again if what I say is true. As an extreme example, if I know someone is about to commit a heinous crime, I’m allowed to warn people about it even if that ultimately results in the person getting killed (for example by the cops). Any law to the contrary would be unconstitutional.
[...but I’ll bet it would be a lot steeper than that, including loss of license. ]
No, you don’t loose your license, you get a bigger fine. Now, had someone gotten killed, then she could have gotten vehicular manslaughter charges.
And defamation is already illegal! If defamation has occurred, then there is no NEED for more law.
If there is a need for more law, then it must be in an attempt to control something OTHER than defamation.
What, then?
Don’t you post to me!
(j/k)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.