 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / February 2007Yet Another Way to Lose Your Car
On tonight's KTLA Prime News comes a report about a prostitution sting in the San Fernando valley. Apparently any would-be John who solicits an undercover officer tonight is going to get his car impounded.  SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > On tonight's KTLA Prime News comes a report about a prostitution sting > in the San Fernando valley. Apparently any would-be John who solicits > an undercover officer tonight is going to get his car impounded. Another thing that should be legal, just regulated and taxed made into a crime for no good reason. > > On tonight's KTLA Prime News comes a report about a prostitution sting > > in the San Fernando valley. Apparently any would-be John who solicits > > an undercover officer tonight is going to get his car impounded. > > Another thing that should be legal, just regulated and taxed made > into a crime for no good reason. I agree. What the heck is the law doing intruding into ppls' private sexual behaviour ? I can legally employ a gardener to look after my garden, a plumber to fix my plumbing, a mechanic to repair my car. Why can't I employ a sex worker to look after my sexual needs ? It's another of those daft religious things. Which of course guarantees that the USA will have far more issues about it than most other western countries. Graham On Feb 10, 5:03 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On tonight's KTLA Prime News comes a report about a prostitution sting > > > in the San Fernando valley. Apparently any would-be John who solicits [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Graham I'm not going to comment on the legitimacy of the law since there are probably good arguments on both sides. However, it would seem that if the offense is nothing more than a misdemeanor, which I believe it is, it is going a bit overboard to take somebody's vehicle. One would get the impression that it's being used not only to drive the point home but more troubling, to get additional dollars for the state treasury fund since somewhere along the line, the person being arrested will probably end up forfeiting their vehicle. I mean we don't take people's cars away for speeding, though I imagine Laura will chime in and say we should. Charles R. Whealton Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com > > > > On tonight's KTLA Prime News comes a report about a prostitution sting > > > > in the San Fernando valley. Apparently any would-be John who solicits [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the offense is nothing more than a misdemeanor, which I believe it is, > it is going a bit overboard to take somebody's vehicle. I agree. Especially since it doesn't seem to be a moving traffic violation ! > One would get the impression that it's being used not only to drive > the point home but more troubling, to get additional dollars for the > state treasury fund since somewhere along the line, the person being > arrested will probably end up forfeiting their vehicle. I mean we > don't take people's cars away for speeding, though I imagine Laura > will chime in and say we should. Well... the reason we don't confiscate cars for speeding is that if we did, not only would most ppl no longer have a car but there would be rioting in the streets about it ! Speeding is a misdemeanour, not a crime. Graham "Chuck Whealton" <chuck_whealton@yahoo.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >One would get the impression that it's being used not only to drive >the point home but more troubling, to get additional dollars for the >state treasury fund since somewhere along the line, the person being >arrested will probably end up forfeiting their vehicle. I mean we >don't take people's cars away for speeding, though I imagine Laura >will chime in and say we should. Actually, in LA they *do* take away your car if you're convicted of street racing. And, before Brent accuses the LAPD of Revenue Enhancement, the confiscated cars are sent to the crusher, NOT sold off for profit. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Actually, in LA they *do* take away your car if you're convicted of > street racing. And, before Brent accuses the LAPD of Revenue > Enhancement, the confiscated cars are sent to the crusher, NOT sold > off for profit. Probably the same 'crusher' used here in chicago. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> Actually, in LA they *do* take away your car if you're convicted of >> street racing. And, before Brent accuses the LAPD of Revenue >> Enhancement, the confiscated cars are sent to the crusher, NOT sold >> off for profit. > >Probably the same 'crusher' used here in chicago. Well, they showed at least one crushed car on TV, but of course that doesn't prove that they didn't simply sell the others and say they crushed them... SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > doesn't prove that they didn't simply sell the others and say they > crushed them... Sell? What do you mean sell? The car disappears between the impound yard and the crusher. As far as the city government knows, it was 'crushed'. Of course they could just end up like this mustang.... http://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/car/274744772.html tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >>>Probably the same 'crusher' used here in chicago. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Sell? What do you mean sell? The car disappears between the impound yard >and the crusher. As far as the city government knows, it was 'crushed'. Where's the profit for the city in that? >Of course they could just end up like this mustang.... >http://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/car/274744772.html Interesting. I wonder if they got rid of all the VIN information from those remains, or of someone could find out who the original owner was and how many parking tickets he racked up before they towed his Mustang away? SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and how many parking tickets he racked up before they towed his > Mustang away? Can we spell c-h-o-p s-h-o-p? > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Where's the profit for the city in that? The city itself doesn't need to profit, only those with city jobs and elected offices need to. >>Of course they could just end up like this mustang.... >>http://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/car/274744772.html > Interesting. I wonder if they got rid of all the VIN information from > those remains, or of someone could find out who the original owner was > and how many parking tickets he racked up before they towed his > Mustang away? Of course I can't say that car went though such a process just by a CL ad. But needless to say I am suspicous of a 'mint' body stripped of everything with no title for the price that only a couple body panels would fetch. Plus, it looks a lot like a similiar color 6 cylinder car that was chicago CL without title to be parted out some months back without a title. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in >> rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >The city itself doesn't need to profit, only those with city jobs and >elected offices need to. So then why all the revenue patrols? SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>The city itself doesn't need to profit, only those with city jobs and >>elected offices need to. > So then why all the revenue patrols? Those aren't discounted by what I stated. It's just that some things are set up for the people within government to personally profit. They might not have started that way, might be just exploited, but in the end that's the result. Really, do you think the city of chicago should get ~$120 per car when it is left too long in the tow yard regardless of what that car is? No riceboy's suped up honda is going straight to the crusher. At bare minimum his street-racing engine, drivetrain, and suspension finds a home in another honda before that body goes into the crusher. > On Feb 10, 5:03 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Charles R. Whealton > Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com It bothers me that the gov't is so quick,willing and able to impound vehicles used for prostitution(victimless crime),but seemingly cannot(will not) do this for multiple DUI offenders,who ARE a clear danger to the public.Or for no/revoked license operators. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > It bothers me that the gov't is so quick,willing and able to impound > vehicles used for prostitution(victimless crime), The control freak types will argue that prostitution ruins a neighborhood and the same for drug dealing. The problem with that, is the only reason that happens is because prostitution and drugs are defined as criminal in the first place. Legal, taxed, and regulated, the problems would be at worst minor. > but seemingly cannot(will > not) do this for multiple DUI offenders,who ARE a clear danger to the > public.Or for no/revoked license operators. After a fair trial of course. Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> said in rec.autos.driving: >It bothers me that the gov't is so quick,willing and able to impound >vehicles used for prostitution(victimless crime) Which reminds me: in the same report, the reporter, anticipating objections such as yours, asked the police why they want to confiscate the vehciles of people who perpetrate "victimless" crimes like prostitution. The Jaybirdian response was something along the lines of "prostitution is not victimless - many of the women get robbed, beaten up, etc. either by the johns themselves or by the pimps, blah blah blah." Isn't it amazing how they have an answer for everything? :) SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Isn't it amazing how they have an answer for everything? :) It's called job security. If prostitution were legal, those associated crimes would be considerably less in number. > > Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> said in rec.autos.driving: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It's called job security. If prostitution were legal, those associated > crimes would be considerably less in number. And drugs. Graham >Which reminds me: in the same report, the reporter, anticipating >objections such as yours, asked the police why they want to confiscate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >up, etc. either by the johns themselves or by the pimps, blah blah >blah." Same could be said for convenience store cashiers, doesn't mean that should be illegal. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in rec.autos.driving: >>Which reminds me: in the same report, the reporter, anticipating >>objections such as yours, asked the police why they want to confiscate [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Same could be said for convenience store cashiers, doesn't mean >that should be illegal. I agree, the logic is completely fallacious. But that's the best they can come up with. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Matthew T. Russotto said in rec.autos.driving: > >Which reminds me: in the same report, the reporter, anticipating > >objections such as yours, asked the police why they want to confiscate [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Same could be said for convenience store cashiers, doesn't mean > that should be illegal. The big difference is that the droid in the c-store is engaging in activities that bring in the $$$ for the government (by way of overtaxation on everything they sell and taxing the hell out of his/her income to name a couple) and the prostitution business brings in nothing for the government. SignatureSpeeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS defends a known *DRUNK DRIVER*: "Teddy went off a single lane bridge with no guard rail at night. The real killer was the idiot who built the bridge. Next question." --Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE June 20th, 2006 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/zlnyz Message ID: qcch92lislem5sqq92qgf7hf9mlm847sgh@4ax.com >It bothers me that the gov't is so quick,willing and able to impound >vehicles used for prostitution(victimless crime),but seemingly cannot(will >not) do this for multiple DUI offenders,who ARE a clear danger to the >public.Or for no/revoked license operators. Which is going to get the gov't more revenue? A BMW, Mercedes, or other flashy car used by johns, or a piece of sh.t unregistered and unmaintained salvage yard special used by a multiple DUI offender? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >I agree. What the heck is the law doing intruding into ppls' private sexual >behaviour ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >It's another of those daft religious things. Which of course guarantees that the >USA will have far more issues about it than most other western countries. So prostitution is legal in the UK? Oh, right, it's not. Here's another religious thing for you: take care of the plank in your own eye before worrying about the mote in someone else's. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >I agree. What the heck is the law doing intruding into ppls' private sexual > >behaviour ? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > another religious thing for you: take care of the plank in your own > eye before worrying about the mote in someone else's. I'll venture that it's less of an issue here than in the USA. There has been serious discussion about decriminalising it btw. Graham >>I agree. What the heck is the law doing intruding into ppls' private sexual >>behaviour ? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So prostitution is legal in the UK? Oh, right, it's not. Actually, I think it is even though soliciting and running a house of prostitution are illegal. > Here's > another religious thing for you: take care of the plank in your own > eye before worrying about the mote in someone else's. > >>I agree. What the heck is the law doing intruding into ppls' private sexual > >>behaviour ? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Actually, I think it is even though soliciting and running a house of > prostitution are illegal. Prostituion per se is not a crime in the UK. Graham |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.