Big stereo could cost you your car

STL Today ^ | 01/27/2006 | Jake Wagman

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

City police would be able to seize cars blasting loud music under an ordinance passed Friday by the Board of Aldermen.

The ordinance, which would take effect once signed by Mayor Francis Slay, prohibits the use and even installation of some enhanced speakers.

Slay was out of town and unavailable for comment.

Alderman Craig Schmid's proposal easily had enough votes to pass, but only after aldermen turned up the volume on their own concerns. Impounding a car for playing loud music is too severe, opponents said, and ripe for abuse.

[thoughtomator]

I don't agree with your characterization of this as "minor". Loud stereo speakers are an unignorable assault on the liberty of others to be unmolested in their homes. Doesn't the person trying to get to sleep have rights too?

[Moonman62]

This is overkill. I have no problem with seizure after the judicial process, however. People have no right to encroach on another's property with their music.

[FunkyZero]

total and complete silence are a long shot from being courteous to those around you.

[Muleteam1]

I've often fantasized about pulling up next to one of these inconsiderate jerks with one of these earthquake sound systems in the trunk of my car pounding out Hank Williams, Sr.'s Your Cheating Heart.

Muleteam1

[ridesthemiles]

However I would love to get a directed EMP device for my car, so if "Thumpy" is next to me in traffic sharing his music with everyone I can kill every bit of electronics in his car.""

I would buy one of those devices.
This is America- can anyone out there make such a device and make it very specific? Perhaps tie the directionality of the "pointer" with the high volume of the offending car/driver? Then you wouldn't spread your inpulse and stop all traffic on the spot.

[Cheburashka]

I often wondered about that myself. I even asked a neighbor if it sounded any better inside than outside. He invited me to set inside (a new Explorer) and check it out. I put one of my Pavarotti CDs in, kicked up the volume and sat back. It sounded better than on the big component stereo in my living room.
---
You may be on to something. Confiscate their rap CD's, etc. Force them to play Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc. for a year.

[MineralMan]

"This is America- can anyone out there make such a device and make it very specific? "

Nope. It won't work. Producing an EMP large enough to take out a car stereo system would require enough equipment to fill a semi trailer.

In the first place, the stereo system is pretty well shielded by the metal car body. In the second, the systems are generally designed to handle at least 1KW of power sent through the system. A directed electromagnetic beam would have to be powered by a huge power system to affect such an audio system.

It ain't happening.

However, if you can get into the trunk of one of these boomer cars, a simple shunt to short out the woofers (use large diameter wire) will destroy the woofer's amplifier or, at least, blow its fuses. However, I do not advise messing with some banger's vehicle.

[2ndreconmarine]

Jeez, now we are going to see the Conservative blind-spot again. The government seizing other people's private property without recompense is wonderful. In some cases the owner has to prove that the property is "not guilty". Wonderful. Joint property can be seized if one of the joint owners does something wrong and the other joint owner never has. Wonderful.

Excellent, excellent points.

Thank you.

I had (also) thought that a central tenet of conservativism was property rights. It is certainly essential for a free economy. Perhaps there is a violation here, but seizure is not the proper response.

[ChildOfThe60s]

I liken this to the smoking debate. Has it ever been proven that secondhand music causes any harm, or is just an annoyance that some killjoys want to use as an excuse to persecute lovers of loud music?

Man is that flawed logic. I don't give a crap what kind of music anyone listens to, nor do I care how loud it is. But they should play it where others are not forced to listen.

As a matter of fact, the manner in which most of these RichardHeads play the music is not so much because they like it loud, but because they enjoy annoying as many people as possible.

Example (happens very frequently, BTW): It is 98 degrees, the middle of summer in central Florida. Long lines of traffic on black asphalt roads backed up at intersections. 18 year old kid is sitting next to me in a new or nearly new car with all four windows down and playing a $2500 system at 150 decibels. The heat is stomach turning but he won't roll up his windows and turn on his A/C. Yeah, he's not doing it to bother anyone, he just happens to be a connoisseur of loud music. BS. AFAIAC I should have the legal right to pull out a baseball bat and smash his windshield. I just happen to be a connoisseur of cracked glass.

[Cheburashka]

There are alot of people on FR who think they are conservative but they are really just big-gov't types like the libs.
---
"I don't want the government interfering with my rights, but your rights aren't nearly as important."

[Proud_texan]

"Has it ever been proven that secondhand music causes any harm"

Doesn't matter as it's in the part of the constitution that says you have the right never to be offended or annoyed.

I find it annoying when I'm in my old geezer cranky mood but it's not like it's going to ruin my day and while it's hard to remember that far back I think it's pretty safe to say that when I was a teenager I did some stuff that probably annoyed grown-ups.

In fact I suspect that had the technology existed back then I probably would have been booming the Naughty Lady of Shady Lane.

[em2vn]

Liberal city at work.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Poor generalization. Granted, the severity of the penalty is certainly debatable; this concept of confiscating vehicles is asinine.. But there is nothing anti-conservative about reining in public nuisances.

Conservatism does not advocate anarchy. Nor does it, or the Constitution, advocate unlimited freedom to do anything you please to disrupt public places.

Limited government is not at all at odds with minimum standards for public behavior.

[R. Scott]

You may be on to something. Confiscate their rap CD's, etc. Force them to play Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc. for a year.

That could be a winner!

[Wurlitzer]

"What is it about Harley owners that makes them think a red octagonal sign with STOP written on it means "sit there and rev the engine for a while"? "

It's the only way to keep them running.

[R. Scott]

I learned a long time ago that the Universe does not revolve around me. I learned that what is a minor annoyance to me is pleasurable to someone else. Why should my likes and dislikes take priority over someone else’s? I’m just not that selfish – and I learned that anger is a waste of energy.
Things like noisy neighbors are a minor irritant – if I really wanted peace and quiet I would find a place to live out in the country with no nearby neighbors or roads.
My upstairs neighbor has a loud stereo with enhanced bass. It sometimes gets loud enough to move the pictures on my wall. It doesn’t take much energy to straighten the pictures in the morning on my way to the kitchen. I have a few neighbors with loud stereos in their vehicles. When I hear it at night I don’t bitch, moan and groan about it. I know that they are finding some pleasure in life.

[Arkinsaw]

I don't agree with your characterization of this as "minor". Loud stereo speakers are an unignorable assault on the liberty of others to be unmolested in their homes. Doesn't the person trying to get to sleep have rights too?

Well, we have a lot of people who think that forgetting to put a gun lock on your gun is a major offense. We have people that think that stepping one foot over a line near an abortion clinic with a sign is the worst thing you can do. If the majority decides that those things are major offenses, like you do with the subwoofers, will you accept seizure of your property for those offenses and accept it willingly?

We have to think about protection of fundamental liberties....even for people we hate, dislike, or have no feelings for.

If the government attempts to seize Hillary Clinton's car and make her prove that it wasn't used in a crime I would speak up because I believe that act to be unconstitutional and against what the nation was founded for. Same thing here even though I don't like subwoofers at the stoplight at all. Fine them, give them a 10 day public service, order them to remove the speakers, hold them in contempt if they don't. But the government should not be in the business of paying its way by seizing property from its citizens. Dangerous for all.

[Arkinsaw]

Conservatism does not advocate anarchy. Nor does it, or the Constitution, advocate unlimited freedom to do anything you please to disrupt public place

But it doesn't allow the government to kill a citizen who is disrupting a public place, or hold him without trial.....or IMO seize his private property.

Especially in the case where the owner has not been charged with a crime but has to "prove" that the property was not actually used for illegal purposes...or where joint owners lose their share of property even when they did nothing wrong. We have had cases of that stemming from all this.

[Smokin' Joe]

when did the rule of law turn in into a third world witch hunt based on a few local dictators?

People around here are stumping for it all the time. Just visit a smoking thread...

And this is somehow Conservative?

[Mr Ramsbotham]

As a matter of fact, the manner in which most of these RichardHeads play the music is not so much because they like it loud, but because they enjoy annoying as many people as possible.

Substitute "cigar smoke" for "music" and you're spot on.

But should we ban cigar smoking just because it annoys us? Or does there need to be a more significant reason?