Big stereo could cost you your car

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

[tflabo]

"City police would be able to seize cars blasting loud music"

Bring that law to my neighborhood...either that or invent a reverse sound wave phaser zapper that would detect the sound wavelength, follow it to source and somehow destroy the speakers...oh how I wish for that technology. So much fun to use it like a bug zapper.

[Muleteam1]

Thanks for the reply. You have to understand that much of what is said in these forums is just hot air. Somewhere in my 56 years of living someone once said to me, "Believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you see." I would place the printed word in the same category as things you hear. My elderly father-in-law, a tough old west Texas cowboy, once told me with misty eyes that he regretted most the freedoms he had lost during his lifetime (1910s to 1990s). Regretfully we can almost be assured that as humans are pressed closer and closer together with population growth, more freedom will be lost and more laws will be passed to try and maintain fairness in the distribution of the few freedoms that still remain.

The knowledge of freedoms lost within a generation is usually lost to the next generation because each generation rarely listens to their parents about these sorts of things. Maybe this is a good thing or we would go mad if we could see the whole picture.

Muleteam1

[thoughtomator]

You seem to totally forget the liberties of the people assaulted by these stereo systems - this is not a theoretical harm like a gun lock or an invented one as in the abortion clinics', but real actual harm. People have the right to sleep in their own homes without this audio assault.

Those examples simply aren't appropriate. An appropriate example would be claiming the right to shine floodlights into peoples' houses. If you can do sound, why not light (or smell)? Should I have the freedom to make a stinky garbage pile next to my neighbor's house, drowning them in odors? Is that an essential liberty that the Founders fought for?

[Pure Country]

The twin fiddles sound of Bob Wills set my feet to moving but Scottish violins really tug at my heartstrings.

Oh, but the Pipes man, the Pipes!

[Arkinsaw]

You seem to totally forget the liberties of the people assaulted by these stereo systems - this is not a theoretical harm like a gun lock or an invented one as in the abortion clinics', but real actual harm. People have the right to sleep in their own homes without this audio assault. Those examples simply aren't appropriate. An appropriate example would be claiming the right to shine floodlights into peoples' houses. If you can do sound, why not light (or smell)? Should I have the freedom to make a stinky garbage pile next to my neighbor's house, drowning them in odors? Is that an essential liberty that the Founders fought for?

You are making an argument about the offense itself...the discussion is about the government reaction. Are you saying that if the government asserted the right to kill people who didn't mow their lawn that would be ok simply because high grass in the neighborhood is a nuisance?

Yes, subwoofers are a nuisance...but just because something is a nuisance does NOT give the government the power to do things that the constitution prohibits it. Private property rights are the foundation of the nation. The government can not throw off the chains that bind it in regard to private property rights just because it wants to do so or because some people would like it to do so.

As I said before. Many people think abortion protesting is a nuisance. Are you prepared for the government to assert the right to seize protestors cars because they stepped a foot to close to a clinic and those cars brought them to the site of the illegal nuisance activity? No. You would vigorously argue that the government had no right to seize their private property for such an offense. And you would be right. Unfortunately for you to be consistent, and not just an opportunist, you must defend the subwoofer fellows against illegal seizure as well...even though it would remove a nuisance to you.

[thoughtomator]

And again you are totally ignoring the equal liberty of folks in their homes who are assaulted by these audio systems. Don't they have any rights worth protecting, or is it only the most obnoxious people who have rights?

I have the right to bear arms (theoretically, anyway) but if I use a firearm in the commission of a crime, it would be pretty disingenuous to demand to keep the firearm afterwards.

The abortion clinic analogy isn't accurate, so please stop trying to convince me with it. Abortion protestors are on public property exercising legitimate rights of free speech. Boom-box bruthas are violating private property with their audio assaults and aren't engaged in anything that can be construed as free speech.

At a certain wattage, these speaker systems can literally be used as a weapon, and with such power comes responsibility. You can't have liberty without responsibility, and there's nothing virtuous in claiming so.

[thoughtomator]

You have to understand that much of what is said in these forums is just hot air.

It's got to be at least 90%.

[Arkinsaw]

And again you are totally ignoring the equal liberty of folks in their homes who are assaulted by these audio systems. Don't they have any rights worth protecting, or is it only the most obnoxious people who have rights?

Sigh. You are acting as if its a zero-sum game...that if these people's cars are not seized its somehow a violation of the liberty of the listeners. Thats a fallacy. These people's rights can be protected by a response OTHER than violating someone else's property rights. You are acting as if we MUST give the government a power it WAS NOT granted under the constitution to end this nuisance and that it cannot be ended without doing so. Thats untrue and fallacious thinking.

I have the right to bear arms (theoretically, anyway) but if I use a firearm in the commission of a crime, it would be pretty disingenuous to demand to keep the firearm afterwards.

You are equating a criminal with a deadly weapon with a criminal with a boombox? ANY crime allows the government to seize property? Loud boombox. High grass. Trash too close to the curb?

The right to seize property does exist. But it is VERY, VERY, limited. The concept is that we limit government very strictly on this, not just open it up and let it go wild. We are supposed to be jealous of our liberties. Your attitude is very cavalier with them.

The abortion clinic analogy isn't accurate, so please stop trying to convince me with it. Abortion protestors are on public property exercising legitimate rights of free speech. Boom-box bruthas are violating private property with their audio assaults and aren't engaged in anything that can be construed as free speech.

My analogy regarded the distance limits set on abortion clinic protestors. They cannot approach within a certain distance. If a protestor steps one foot over that line then, under your loose interpretation of property rights, the government could seize the car that brought the protestor to the clinic. My analogy is valid. The protestor would have violated a law, by one foot. The car would have been used in the commission of a crime, just like your boombox fellow. It works both ways. Not just for the guy you don't like.

At a certain wattage, these speaker systems can literally be used as a weapon, and with such power comes responsibility. You can't have liberty without responsibility, and there's nothing virtuous in claiming so.

I don't like them either. But allowing the government to seize private property so cavalierly is not a nuisance, its a danger to what the country was founded on.

[thoughtomator]

OK then, you tell me, under what circumstances can the government seize property? Can it seize evidence in a criminal case?

[Dr.Zoidberg]

turns up the loudest Bagpipe CD she has and lets it rip!

I've done that and gotten the longest string of obscenities mouthed in my direction you could imagine. My personal favorite is Amazing Grace(Massed Pipes & Drums) at 10 with the amp kicked in.

Makes the thumpies get all irritable

[Arkinsaw]

OK then, you tell me, under what circumstances can the government seize property? Can it seize evidence in a criminal case?

Government is very limited in what private property it can seize. Is there a gun it thinks was used in a crime? Yeah. The house the gun was in? No.

You are debating fallaciously. I consider it a nuisance so the government must have power to seize it. People's liberty is affected by loud boomboxes and I don't like them so that makes extreme remedies okay. Government can seize crime evidence under certain circumstances so it must be okay to seize any damn thing I don't like.

Those are not logical arguments.

People's "liberty" being affected by boomboxes can be remedied by something other than giving government the power to seize private property.

You don't like it, so abusing government power is fine by you as long as its for something you agree with. You won't listen to any argument that points out that this is a precedent that could very well affect you. If it does affect you, if some visitor brings a bag of pot in your house unknown to you, and they seize your house. You will scream bloody murder on this forum.

I got it. You don't like boomboxes. So the government can use any power they want to stop it whether the founders intended them to have that power or not. As long as government does what I want, I want it to be all powerful.

That's not conservative by the way, its self serving.

[thoughtomator]

That's pretty in theory, but in practice when you adhere to the rule of law you need some consistent standard to say this is when and what you can seize, this is when and what you cannot seize. Unless you can admit to having some consistent standard, such as "property used by the accused in the commission of the crime for which he is accused" (which is reasonable in my book), then the practice of your position would mean that no private property could ever be seized by a government under any circumstances.

Now it seems you admit that a gun used in a crime, even though it be private property, can be seized. In this case, the car is being used as the weapon in the crime.

I think local communities have a right to enforce laws against disturbance of the peace. If the only practical way to enforce the peace is to seize the vehicles, then it is the drivers of such vehicles, and not the local government, that has made it so. They have no cause to complain if the law is clear and equitably enforced.

I don't buy the argument that this is an infringement of liberty when the activity engaged in has nothing to do with liberty and the persons engaging in it do not take responsibility for their actions.

The other folks, the ones whose sleep is shattered by rhythmic din late at night, have to be taken into consideration as well. Apparently your attitude towards those who, on their own private property, are trespassed upon by these omnidirectional sound cannons, is that they have no rights at all.

I don't agree with that conception. One man's liberty to swing his fist ends at the tip of his neighbor's nose. In such a case as this, the fact that the car is private property is mooted by the equal property rights of the far more numerous people who are disturbed in their own homes by it, and the wishes of the people as expressed by a government elected by them.

[Pure Country]

I've done that and gotten the longest string of obscenities mouthed in my direction you could imagine. My personal favorite is Amazing Grace(Massed Pipes & Drums) at 10 with the amp kicked in.

Way to go! LOL!!! Hope you have an armored car!

[HiTech RedNeck]

Revving? That's wimpy. Kill the ignition for about a second (bike in gear, clutch engaged) then turn it back on. POW!!!

[djf]

Hey! Ping the Ipod list!

They're shakin in their booootz!!!

[sweet_diane]

"If you want to hear every offensive word known to man spewing from the mouths of nine and ten year old 'kids', just hang around your local public school at 'quitting time'."

I know what you mean. Our daugters started public school in the 6th and 10th grades, after only being in small private Christian schools (which have their share of problems too unfortunately). I volunteered once a month in the middle school office and man did I get an education. The kids are as rude as the parents let them be.

[television is just wrong]

lol, I shy away from ever having anything like that. I have tinnitus and loud noises only make it worse in the long run.

[chris1]

Half the people on FR are not really conservative at all. There are many people who think this os all fine as long asit happens to "those people" not realizing that they are "those people" as soon as someone else might come into power.

[afnamvet]

I wear two thanks to severe ear infections as a child. Doing flightline work in the Air Force and my shooting hobby finished them off. I still listen to my ITunes music though with my modified earphones...LOL.

[Arkinsaw]

Now it seems you admit that a gun used in a crime, even though it be private property, can be seized. In this case, the car is being used as the weapon in the crime.

Again, that is ridiculous. You act as if there is no difference between a murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, and playing music too loud. That is a fallacious argument.

We allow government to seize a weapon used in commission of a crime therefore we must allow government to seize the car of a guy whose music is too loud. You purposefully ignore the difference between the two crimes and the differing level of government interest.

I think local communities have a right to enforce laws against disturbance of the peace.

Who has said that they don't? "You don't want them to seize private property therefore you must think communities don't have the power to enforce laws against disturbance of the peace." Fallacious. Nobody said that.

If the only practical way to enforce the peace is to seize the vehicles, then it is the drivers of such vehicles, and not the local government, that has made it so. They have no cause to complain if the law is clear and equitably enforced.

Ah....who said that seizing a persons car for this crime is the only practical way to enforce the peace? That is the whole argument. Its NOT the only practical way, in fact its a very extreme way. Its a way that impacts one of the primary foundations of the country, private property rights. Its a way that sets a terrible precedent for your property and mine. That is why we limit government to doing the minimum necessary to accomplish necessary goals.....you know.....Conservatism.

I don't buy the argument that this is an infringement of liberty when the activity engaged in has nothing to do with liberty and the persons engaging in it do not take responsibility for their actions.

Your sense of liberty is rather narrow. People have many rights. People have a right to buy and own a 50-gallon drum of perfume if they want. The problem comes if they dump it in their neighbors yard. You have the right to own a shotgun bigger than you need. The problem comes if you blow your neighbors head off. These guys have a right to own a boombox. They have a right to have it in their car. They even have a right to play it where it doesn't disturb the peace. The question is, what are the remedies that can be applied that solve the problem yet are the least damaging to liberties....car seizure for loud noise is not that minimum remedy.

The other folks, the ones whose sleep is shattered by rhythmic din late at night, have to be taken into consideration as well. Who has said otherwise? We are talking about the level of the remedy, not whether there should be one or not. Fallacy. It is not a zero sum game and nobody said the sleeping folks should not be considered.

Apparently your attitude towards those who, on their own private property, are trespassed upon by these omnidirectional sound cannons, is that they have no rights at all.

Fallacy. I have said no such thing and nobody else did either.

I don't agree with that conception. One man's liberty to swing his fist ends at the tip of his neighbor's nose. In such a case as this, the fact that the car is private property is mooted by the equal property rights of the far more numerous people who are disturbed in their own homes by it, and the wishes of the people as expressed by a government elected by them.

Thats sounds lovely. Look at the current issue of cities seizing private property if they think the property could be better used economically by someone else. Elected officials did that. Conservatives scream bloody murder about it here on Free Republic. You seem to be saying that anything government decides to do is ok because they are elected by the majority. Thats great if you are the majority and not the individual property owner. The Constitution protects us FROM the majority.

Your argument about the swing and the nose is standard. But giving government the power to prevent someone from swinging at your nose is different than giving government the power to cut his arm off, seize his house, and kill his dog.

Your whole argument is disingenuous. You act as if those who don't support seizing these guys cars therefore support government doing nothing about the problem. Thats a fallacy, its incorrect, nobody said it, and I think you know it.

Conservatives support property rights. Conservatives support limited government power. The minimum government power necessary to perform the limited duties assigned it. The minimum disturbance to the rights of individuals necessary to accomplish the necessary tasks of society.

You can't seem to realize, that once you give government the power to seize your neighbors car because his stereo is too loud, you give them the power to seize your car because its emissions don't meet their standard. You give them the power to seize your house because your neighbors don't like the color you paint it if they consider it a nuisance.

Perhaps when they seize your car because its an emitter, or because it had a gun in it, or because you parked over the yellow line and bothered people by taking up two spaces....perhaps you might understand the concepts of property rights and giving government too much power.