 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / April 2007Don't like someone? Have the police take their car.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1692.asp <...> "Residents of the state of Victoria, Australia can now settle scores by calling the police and ordering the seizure of someone's car. Hearsay evidence that a car may have had a "sustained loss of traction" is enough for police to seize a vehicle. So far in the city of Wodonga, three cars have been taken based solely on citizen complaints." <...> "The police will collect A$204 in fees for the car's return on Tuesday. On a second accusation, police keep the car three months and on a third police will sell the car and keep the profit." <...> http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/bm/local/733325.html > http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1692.asp > <...> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/bm/local/733325.html Police say the last three cars impounded in Wodonga were the result of community complaints. Sgt Cameron Roberts, of the Wodonga traffic management unit, said people have had enough of doughnuts, wheelies and lunatic behaviour by young, generally male, drivers. We have a real problem with these young men in Wodonga, he said. They flout the law in their cars and generally think they wont get caught. Well now they are finding out that is not the case. Sgt Roberts said more than one person has been surprised when police came knocking at their door. Under the anti-hoon laws if a person signs a statement we can impound the car, he said. Clearly the fact that these people are prepared to back up their complaint with a statement shows the sentiment in the community is that hoon drivers are no longer tolerated. Wodonga is still a small town and if you drive like this someone will see you, whether that be a police member or individual no longer matters. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1692.asp ><...> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >On a second accusation, police keep the car three months and on a third >police will sell the car and keep the profit." The problem is you cannot make such reports anonymously - you actually have to swear out a complaint. Which means the riceboy punk has your name and address, and knows exactly where to go if he wants to retaliate. This should keep the number of such complaints VERY low.  SignatureDrive right. Pass left. > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > name and address, and knows exactly where to go if he wants to > retaliate. This should keep the number of such complaints VERY low. You assume that people will only use it against 'rice boy punks' and truthfully instead of making stuff up against that guy with the yellow corvette who drives around with a video camera in his car. > In article <o4ik1359eodaani8c58c524br3c39om...@4ax.com>, Scott en Aztlán wrote: > > The problem is you cannot make such reports anonymously - you actually > > have to swear out a complaint. Which means the riceboy punk has your > > name and address, and knows exactly where to go if he wants to > > retaliate. This should keep the number of such complaints VERY low. Pfft. I imagine most people would think as I would- I'll worry about that when it occurs. The present situation of some jackasses habitually endangering the public, maybe me or mine, takes precedence. > You assume that people will only use it against 'rice boy punks' and > truthfully Why would you think otherwise? Are you familiar with a reporting system that has no avenue of abuse? In my experience it's usually the dishonest a.sholes who are most suspicious of the thoughts and actions of their own kind. IAC, I'm sure there's a substantial penalty for making false statements to the police and that the LEOs would carefully evaluate each report and would prefer to arrest any dicks who would use the system as you fear... so you can probably safely concentrate your paranoia on the various other conspiracies you so enjoy. ----- - gpsman > > You assume that people will only use it against 'rice boy punks' and > > truthfully [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > system as you fear... so you can probably safely concentrate your > paranoia on the various other conspiracies you so enjoy. I think your average person will, in their mind, "stretch" the truth of what happened, for "the general good" or because "this guy's clearly an a** and probably dangerous anyway". Ever been mad, having a bad day, and had some incident in traffic? Ever think back and find that maybe you were, in retrospect, partially in the wrong? My favorite examples of this are "I didn't see them" and "came out of nowhere". If you ever said anyone "came out of nowhere", you were not paying proper attention. Ever get mad then, and in retrospect think "that's not such a big deal, I guess I didn't need to get upset/flip them off/yell/etc.? So, you've got any Joe, Dick and Mary who's in a fight with the SO, having money troubles and just had their check engine light come on. You do something they don't like. It gets exaggerated, and you're screwed. LLB = "slammed on the brakes and made traffic skid and swerve around them" cut off = ran us off the road beat you to the merge after a light = peeled out of the light to cut me off It'll be just like people calling in the everlasting "drunk driver" when they're pissed at someone on the highway. At least with that one the driver can pass a breathy and go on their way. With this law anyone can play cop, and many people just are not ready for this responsibility. LLB's, people screaming "slow down" at cars already under the posted speed limit, and people putting their own speed limit sign stands in the middle of the road are prime examples. Then there's the moral & prejudice issues, from extremist vegans following hunters w/ Bambi in the back to racism. So, you complain about my buddy. I complain about you in retaliation. Your brother in law then complains about my girl. My riding buddy then complains about your kid. Really, I'd rather just all carry guns & be allowed to shoot out tires at that point - at least you can face your accuser and fight back on the spot instead of down the road. > It'll be just like people calling in the everlasting "drunk driver" > when they're pissed at someone on the highway. At least with that one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > under the posted speed limit, and people putting their own speed limit > sign stands in the middle of the road are prime examples. Not only play cop, but judge. There isn't any trial here, just punishment based on the word of someone. > In article <1176158075.692870.206...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, DanK...@gmail.com wrote: > > It'll be just like people calling in the everlasting "drunk driver" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not only play cop, but judge. There isn't any trial here, just punishment > based on the word of someone. The move for the locals to this nonsense is to write up the forms swearing that the mayor or chief sustained a loss of traction. It would be nice to have a bit of a movement where a bunch of people get with it and the police either have to ignore the ordinance or impound half the lot of Town Hall. If I lived there I'd take my car off of the road for a couple months (as long as this nonsense will likely go on) and start filling out statements. There are all sorts of driving moves that pisses me off. BTW, if you drive a truck or SUV and have had one of those "I'm changing the climate, ask me how" (or any similar variation) stickers stuck onto your vehicle, just think: next time that'll be an impoundment with a $200 fee. If it's happened two or three times... As an aside, good call to the halfwit that stuck that stupid anti- truck sticker on my buddy's truck the other day in NH. I guess he should be running a construction company moving lumber, tools, dirt and rock with a Prius. > If I lived there I'd take my car off of the road for a couple months > (as long as this nonsense will likely go on) and start filling out > statements. There are all sorts of driving moves that pisses me off. Just going to the grocery store and back I had two drivers I could use that on. > As an aside, good call to the halfwit that stuck that stupid anti- > truck sticker on my buddy's truck the other day in NH. I guess he > should be running a construction company moving lumber, tools, dirt > and rock with a Prius. The rude BMW SUV driver that cut me off without a signal while moving slower than I can walk after blocking traffic could use that sticker. Not to mention her passenger that flipped me off after her sub-walking pace cost making the green signal. "DanKMTB@gmail.com" <DanKMTB@gmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >The move for the locals to this nonsense is to write up the forms >swearing that the mayor or chief sustained a loss of traction. That assumes that the locals are somehow opposed to this "nonsense." My sense after reading the story is that they WANT this "nonsense" and aren't about to jeopardize it by antagonizing their local authorities. SignatureDrive right. Pass left. > "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Drive right. Pass left. That doesn't make it any more right. I'd like to be able to say "fortunately this could never happen in the YooEss" but I don't feel very comfortable making that statement. Sure, it's unconstitutional, but that hasn't stopped a lot of other crap from happening. nate > > > The problem is you cannot make such reports anonymously - you actually > > > have to swear out a complaint. Which means the riceboy punk has your [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Why would you think otherwise? Because people make false claims all the time, regardless of whether or not there is a possible penalty for doing so. In the meantime, the innocent guy, who could be YOU, gets f.cked. > > In article <o4ik1359eodaani8c58c524br3c39om...@4ax.com>, Scott en Aztlán wrote: > > > The problem is you cannot make such reports anonymously - you actually [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that when it occurs. The present situation of some jackasses > habitually endangering the public, maybe me or mine, takes precedence. And that is EXACTLY how things like underposted speed limits become codified into law. There is a misplaced trust that these laws will only be used against "those people" without any thought that yes, the law applies to YOU, TOO. Do you ever tire of making a complete a.s out of yourself on Usenet? > > You assume that people will only use it against 'rice boy punks' and > > truthfully > > Why would you think otherwise? Precedent. > Are you familiar with a reporting system that has no avenue of abuse? > In my experience it's usually the dishonest a.sholes who are most > suspicious of the thoughts and actions of their own kind. So anyone who is concerned with fairness, justice, and due process is a "dishonest a.shole?" > IAC, I'm sure there's a substantial penalty for making false > statements to the police and that the LEOs would carefully evaluate > each report and would prefer to arrest any dicks who would use the > system as you fear... so you can probably safely concentrate your > paranoia on the various other conspiracies you so enjoy. Yes, defending oneself after the fact and after one's vehicle is confiscated is certainly preferable to having proper checks and balances in place in the first place. Every time I think "gpstroll can't possibly post something more moronic and asinine than he already has" you come through yet again and prove me wrong. And the scary thing is, people like you are allowed to vote, which actually explains quite a bit. nate tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >>>"Residents of the state of Victoria, Australia can now settle scores by >>>calling the police and ordering the seizure of someone's car. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >truthfully instead of making stuff up against that guy with the yellow >corvette who drives around with a video camera in his car. a) The video tape will show that there was no drifting or doughnut-making going on. b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to worry about this particular issue. SignatureDrive right. Pass left. > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > a) The video tape will show that there was no drifting or > doughnut-making going on. No trial for you to show it at. > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to > worry about this particular issue. The concept may come to you On Apr 10, 5:35 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <ij4m13h7e4197ack8hag71s6pi78eon...@4ax.com>, Scott en Aztlán wrote: > > tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > No trial for you to show it at. Then you take it to CIVIL court. Duh. > > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to > > worry about this particular issue. > > The concept may come to you Cite? E.P. > On Apr 10, 5:35 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Then you take it to CIVIL court. Duh. good luck with that. >> > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to >> > worry about this particular issue. >> >> The concept may come to you > Cite? because ideas like RLCs and speed cameras and other things haven't spread from nation to nation.... yeah right... On Apr 10, 7:27 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1176212584.482241.33...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Apr 10, 5:35 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > good luck with that. So are you denying that someone *could* actually take it to court? > >> > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to > >> > worry about this particular issue. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > because ideas like RLCs and speed cameras and other things haven't spread > from nation to nation.... yeah right. Cite where this is happening in the U.S. E.P. > On Apr 10, 7:27 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > So are you denying that someone *could* actually take it to court? That's an amazing jump you're taking. Once again doing what you complain about. >> >> > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to >> >> > worry about this particular issue. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> because ideas like RLCs and speed cameras and other things haven't spread >> from nation to nation.... yeah right. > Cite where this is happening in the U.S. Cite where it has been proven there is an alien spacecraft parked at area 51. On Apr 10, 9:03 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1176220275.164550.9...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Apr 10, 7:27 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > That's an amazing jump you're taking. Once again doing what you complain > about. You said "no trial to show it at." So, no civil trial? Where's the huge leap there, Brent? > >> >> > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to > >> >> > worry about this particular issue. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >> from nation to nation.... yeah right. > > Cite where this is happening in the U.S. [no cite provided] Yup, just as I thought. E.P. > On Apr 10, 9:03 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > You said "no trial to show it at." So, no civil trial? Where's the > huge leap there, Brent? No trial to prevent them taking your car, wether the government calls it civil or criminal is irrelevant in the current system. If you want to sue the government in civil court later, good luck with that. But you're just doing your argumentive routine, the one you protest when it's done back to you. >> >> >> > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to >> >> >> > worry about this particular issue. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yup, just as I thought. It's not required to show it's happening in the USA. It's happening somewhere and this is a time where national boarders do not constrain ideas and one where even the supreme court of the USA considers foreign law in making judgements. Hell, just look at the report-your-neighbor crap that has been done in the name of the war on terror if you really need a clear step in the USA. On Apr 10, 1:33 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1176236202.713605.38...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Apr 10, 9:03 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > No trial to prevent them taking your car, wether the government calls it > civil or criminal is irrelevant in the current system. That's not what you wrote. IOW, I am correct - you *can* use a civil trial. > >> >> >> > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to > >> >> >> > worry about this particular issue. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It's not required to show it's happening in the USA. Sure it is. They don't have a U.S. Constitution there, so they can do things differently if they so choose. Besides, I'm asking for a cite as to where it's happening in the U.S., not how you use your overactive imagination to make it so that it's going to happen in your neighborhood next week. It isn't. And until it is, there's really not much to do except shake one's head. E.P. >> No trial to prevent them taking your car, wether the government calls it >> civil or criminal is irrelevant in the current system. > That's not what you wrote. It's called context Ed. Of course your use of context is often self serving, ignoring it where it suits you. > IOW, I am correct - you *can* use a civil trial. Good luck with that. You might get your car or your money back after spending more than that on lawyers, filing fees, etc. >> It's not required to show it's happening in the USA. > Sure it is. They don't have a U.S. Constitution there, so they can do > things differently if they so choose. When it comes to driving, we don't have a US Constitution either, or haven't you noticed? > Besides, I'm asking for a cite > as to where it's happening in the U.S., not how you use your > overactive imagination to make it so that it's going to happen in your > neighborhood next week. Go visit all the threads where Scott is drooling over some new siezure or impound law to 'get those wetbacks off the road' or 'crush/impound those riceboy cars'. > It isn't. And until it is, there's really not much to do except shake > one's head. I'm sorry you've been sleep reading this group this for the last few years, but it's not my job to post a review for you just because you demand one. > On Apr 10, 9:03 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > You said "no trial to show it at." So, no civil trial? Where's the > huge leap there, Brent? A civil trial is not a criminal trial. Evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" is required to convict in a criminal trial, a "preponderance of evidence" is all that is required to convict in a civil case. I know which I'd prefer if it were my vehicle being seized (esp. when by the nature of the setup, it would be one citizen's word against another, and therefore by definition the case would be decided by whoever the judge thought was more believable, absent any unusual evidence like video that just happened to be taken of the alleged incident that happened to be saved and happened to be available to you.) Besides, how are you going to *get* to the fuckin' courthouse while your vehicle is in the impound lot? Above and beyond this, what right does the government have to confiscate my property without convicting me of a crime in a criminal court? I thought so. > > >> >> > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to > > >> >> > worry about this particular issue. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > [no cite provided] Cite was provided. You just chose to ignore it. nate > > On Apr 10, 9:03 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > A civil trial is not a criminal trial. Brent said "no trial." > Above and beyond this, what right does the government have to > confiscate my property without convicting me of a crime in a criminal > court? I thought so. That's sorta the point. It's hard to get around the search and seizure stuff in the USC. > > > >> >> > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to > > > >> >> > worry about this particular issue. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Cite was provided. Where this car confiscation stuff is happening in the U.S.? No, one was *not* provided. E.P. > That's sorta the point. It's hard to get around the search and > seizure stuff in the USC. Yet, impounding cars and holding them for ransom for whatever reasoning works quite well throughout the US for local governments. Sure, go ahead make your civil case. Your car will long be crushed or sold before a judge even tells you 'tough sh.t'. Conversely you could pay the ransom and then spend much more trying to get it back. Good luck with that. > Where this car confiscation stuff is happening in the U.S.? No, one > was *not* provided. Have you been asleep the last several years? Scott practically dances with glee with each new law designed to take the cars of wetbacks and/or riceboys. No trial, no due process before punishment. On Apr 10, 4:08 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1176244220.075973.139...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > That's sorta the point. It's hard to get around the search and > > seizure stuff in the USC. > > Yet, impounding cars and holding them for ransom for whatever reasoning > works quite well throughout the US for local governments. Except that a law like the one in Oz *doesn't exist here*, no matter how many slippery-slope dots you try and connect. E.P. > On Apr 10, 4:08 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Yet, impounding cars and holding them for ransom for whatever reasoning >> works quite well throughout the US for local governments. > Except that a law like the one in Oz *doesn't exist here*, no matter > how many slippery-slope dots you try and connect. It's amazing how you attempt to shove a square peg in a round hole. On Apr 10, 5:35 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1176251398.973675.290...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Apr 10, 4:08 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It's amazing how you attempt to shove a square peg in a round hole. Non sequitur. No matter how you flail about, your slippery slope argument is still a logical fallacy. E.P. > On Apr 10, 4:08 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > E.P. Yes it goddamn well does, and I even posted a link that should lead you right to it. The "war on some drugs" has made vehicle seizures without criminal charges legal, so it's only one small step to vehicle seizures because some a-hole called the cops and whined. If you didn't know that, please go educate yourself before even thinking about voting again. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > On Apr 10, 4:08 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > criminal charges legal, so it's only one small step to vehicle seizures > because some a-hole called the cops and whined. Actually, that's *the* huge slippery-slope leap. Commission of a drug crime (with the attendant legal issues surrounding it) and "because some neighbor said so" are worlds apart. No matter how much emotion gets attached to it, there is no law in the U.S. like the one in Oz, nor will there be in the foreseeable future. E.P. >>>On Apr 10, 4:08 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > crime (with the attendant legal issues surrounding it) and "because > some neighbor said so" are worlds apart. Yes, but what you refuse to acknowledge is that there is NO criminal proceeding - the leap is actually "because a cop said so" to "because a neighbor said so." Much less wide a chasm than you say - more like a small creek. > No matter how much emotion gets attached to it, there is no law in the > U.S. like the one in Oz, nor will there be in the foreseeable future. As repeatedly shown, there ARE laws very similar to the Oz law. Also similar laws in the YooKay. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>On Apr 10, 4:08 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > crime (with the attendant legal issues surrounding it) and "because > some neighbor said so" are worlds apart. I see his point went way over your head. You don't HAVE to commit a drug crime in order for your cash, vehicle or even home to be seized. The cop gets to play judge, jury and executioner and take it and then it's up to you to come up with bond and hire a lawyer and fight to get it back - a task which is made more difficult when your assets have just been seized. > No matter how much emotion gets attached to it, there is no law in the > U.S. like the one in Oz, nor will there be in the foreseeable future. > > E.P. > >>>On Apr 10, 4:08 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I see his point went way over your head. You don't HAVE to commit a > drug crime in order for your cash, vehicle or even home to be seized. But you do have to be suspected of one, and PC rules are still in effect. Cops can't arbitarily decide to take your stuff. > The cop gets to play judge, jury and executioner and take it and then > it's up to you to come up with bond and hire a lawyer and fight to get > it back - a task which is made more difficult when your assets have just > been seized. Except it's not like that at all. And the one or two exceptions to that statement don't make the logic "because your neighbor says so" any more comparable. E.P. >>I see his point went way over your head. You don't HAVE to commit a >>drug crime in order for your cash, vehicle or even home to be seized. > > But you do have to be suspected of one, LOL - that's wonderful, isn't it? We suspect you, therefore, you're guilty. It doesn't seem like that huge a leap before they suspect you because your neighbor said so. Why did you ignore my links regarding the CSP line for reporting aggressive drivers which clearly said that based on the words of others you can be given a citation? > and PC rules are still in > effect. Cops can't arbitarily decide to take your stuff. And yet it happens. >>The cop gets to play judge, jury and executioner and take it and then >>it's up to you to come up with bond and hire a lawyer and fight to get >>it back - a task which is made more difficult when your assets have just >>been seized. > > Except it's not like that at all. You mean it shouldn't be like that. > And the one or two exceptions to > that statement don't make the logic "because your neighbor says so" > any more comparable. > > E.P. > >>I see his point went way over your head. You don't HAVE to commit a > >>drug crime in order for your cash, vehicle or even home to be seized. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > We suspect you, therefore, you're guilty. The state still has to meet some burden of proof other than "because I said so." And screw-ups where people are falsely accused and assets seized are so rare as not be an issue. > It doesn't seem like that huge a leap before they suspect you because > your neighbor said so. In the imagination, yes. In reality, they are worlds apart. > Why did you ignore my links regarding the CSP line for reporting > aggressive drivers which clearly said that based on the words of others > you can be given a citation? I didn't ignore them - because they don't apply. One person can't do it - it has to be five. And if five separate people take the time to call in, I'm guessing the problem actually exists. > > and PC rules are still in > > effect. Cops can't arbitarily decide to take your stuff. > > And yet it happens. It doesn't. I'll agree that mistakes happen. Humans make mistakes - no doubt about it. > >>The cop gets to play judge, jury and executioner and take it and then > >>it's up to you to come up with bond and hire a lawyer and fight to get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You mean it shouldn't be like that. No, I meant what I wrote, exactly. E.P. <snip> >>>>The cop gets to play judge, jury and executioner and take it and then >>>>it's up to you to come up with bond and hire a lawyer and fight to get [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, I meant what I wrote, exactly. Then you're wrong, again. Obviously you have done no research whatsoever on the "drug-related" asset seizures; please educate yourself if you don't want to continue sounding like an idiot. Seizures *do* happen just as Fred (and I, and others) described. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> We suspect you, therefore, you're guilty. > The state still has to meet some burden of proof other than "because I > said so." Maybe not to pay out on a lawsuit if the victim brings one, later. But to take the car... no. > And screw-ups where people are falsely accused and assets seized are > so rare as not be an issue. How do you know this? >> It doesn't seem like that huge a leap before they suspect you because >> your neighbor said so. > In the imagination, yes. In reality, they are worlds apart. Neighbor tells cop, cop believes neighbor over suspect. Cop makes the determination that the car was involved in street racing because it has a big fart can muffler and a big drag racing tach and has the car siezed. Simple. >>>>I see his point went way over your head. You don't HAVE to commit a >>>>drug crime in order for your cash, vehicle or even home to be seized. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The state still has to meet some burden of proof other than "because I > said so." No they don't. > And screw-ups where people are falsely accused and assets seized are > so rare as not be an issue. It's happened way too often in the past. Just because you think it's rare does not make it a non-issue. >>It doesn't seem like that huge a leap before they suspect you because >>your neighbor said so. > > In the imagination, yes. In reality, they are worlds apart. I hope it never happens, and yet things that I hope never happen do so on a regular basis. >>Why did you ignore my links regarding the CSP line for reporting >>aggressive drivers which clearly said that based on the words of others >>you can be given a citation? > > I didn't ignore them - because they don't apply. One person can't do > it - it has to be five. It's still analogous. Those five people are your "neighbors" in the sense that you have used the word. > And if five separate people take the time to > call in, I'm guessing the problem actually exists. You see, "guessing" shouldn't be good enough in a court of law. It's disheartening that some people think it should be. >>>and PC rules are still in >>>effect. Cops can't arbitarily decide to take your stuff. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > E.P. > Actually, that's *the* huge slippery-slope leap. Commission of a drug > crime (with the attendant legal issues surrounding it) and "because > some neighbor said so" are worlds apart. > No matter how much emotion gets attached to it, there is no law in the > U.S. like the one in Oz, nor will there be in the foreseeable future. I just saw an episode of COPs where they got a report that a guy on a bicycle had illegal drugs. They found a guy on a bicycle and proceeded to forcibly search him..... go figure... >>>On Apr 10, 9:03 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > E.P. It's already been discussed here ad nauseum. Holy crap, are you taking "debate" lessons from the gpstroll? Your tactics seem to be scarily similar to its, to wit, asking for cites for every simple, well known, commonly accepted fact. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/search?group=rec.autos.driving& q=drug+confiscation&qt_g=Search+this+group nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > Where this car confiscation stuff is happening in the U.S.? No, one > > was *not* provided. > > It's already been discussed here ad nauseum. No, it hasn't. Nowhere in the U.S. is there a law like the one in Oz described above. Period. All the connect-the-dots slippery-slope arguments in the world will not make it a logical connection from Oz to the U.S. E.P. >> > Where this car confiscation stuff is happening in the U.S.? No, one >> > was *not* provided. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > All the connect-the-dots slippery-slope arguments in the world will > not make it a logical connection from Oz to the U.S. There isn't a need to. The US impoundment/confiscation laws were brought up to disprove your head in the sand 'can't happen here because of the US constitution' view. To show that the constitutional protections are not working, invalidating that view. BTW: -> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1546.asp -> 1/12/2007 -> California Appeals Court Green Lights Car Seizures -> Text of a California Appeals Court ruling upholding the constitutionality -> of car seizures without a trial. -> -> In a ruling yesterday, a three-judge panel of the California Court of -> Appeal upheld the ability of municipalities to seize automobiles without -> a trial. The decision overturned that of a Sonoma County Superior Court -> judge who had found in 2004 that the seizures were unconstitutional on -> their face. -> Patricia Samples filed suit in October 2002 challenging the law on -> principle. Her car was never impounded. The Sonoma County court found the -> law vague and in violation of the equal protection clause because drivers -> in rental cars are treated differently than drivers who own the vehicle. -> Under the seizure measures, automobiles are seized for thirty days upon -> the accusation -- not conviction -- that the driver had been involved in -> "street racing" or that his papers were not in order. -> In upholding the seizure ordinances, the appeals court acknowledged -> that some municipalities have been seizing vehicles in an unlawful -> manner. It's only cost Patricia Samples $249,000 + to fight this law. Scott better hope someone doesn't accuse him of street racing. ( afterall, a police officer just needs to determine (not witness) he was engaged in such an activity... that can be as little as beliving the LLB he passed over him ) After all... look what happened to this guy in oz: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/09/900.asp On Apr 10, 5:58 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1176251592.302659.255...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The US impoundment/confiscation laws were brought up to disprove your... Except the circumstances in which impoundments happen aren't anywhere close to "because a neighbor says so". Which is sort of a vital point that you chicken littles ignore. E.P. > Except the circumstances in which impoundments happen aren't anywhere > close to "because a neighbor says so". Which is sort of a vital point > that you chicken littles ignore. Deleting text doesn't change things any. Scott just better hope someone doesn't tell the cops he was street racing that vette though. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >>> >> > b) The day I drive the C6 down to Australia is the day I'll start to >>> >> > worry about this particular issue. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Cite where it has been proven there is an alien spacecraft parked at area 51. So you are equating the chances of this occurring in the US with the chances of their being an alien spacecraft parked at Area 51? SignatureDrive right. Pass left. > On Apr 10, 7:27 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > E.P. Virginia has just passed legislation allowing the reintroduction of RLCs, IN THE FACE OF THEIR OWN EVIDENCE that a) jiggering the yellow timing is cheaper and provides better results and b) RLC's cause an increase in certain types of crashes. Washington, D.C. has a significant speed camera program, in addition to their RLCs. Great Britain uses both speed cameras and RLCs. Obviously, the concept has spread from one country to another, and I haven't even tried to list all the places that either or both are used. nate > Obviously, the concept has spread from one country to another, and I > haven't even tried to list all the places that either or both are > used. Sure. But Saudi Arabia cuts off the hands of thieves. I guess we can worry about that in the near future? The logical fallacy of the slippery slope applies here. E.P. >> Obviously, the concept has spread from one country to another, and I >> haven't even tried to list all the places that either or both are >> used. > Sure. But Saudi Arabia cuts off the hands of thieves. I guess we can > worry about that in the near future? Read the current adminstration's memos on torture.... It's probably not as absurd as you believe it to be. > The logical fallacy of the slippery slope applies here. We just live in a nation who's federal government tortures prisoners either with its own employees or outsourced to foreign governments that's all. But anyway, your off topic slide into governments punishing crime aside... When it comes to driving, the same sort of schemes and laws do tend to cross borders in the english speaking world quite easily and examples should be known to you from this group. On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1176236325.530347.18...@e13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Read the current adminstration's memos on torture.... It's probably not > as absurd as you believe it to be. So, you're saying that the feds are going to start cutting off our hands soon? Interesting. > > The logical fallacy of the slippery slope applies here. > > We just live in a nation who's federal government tortures prisoners > either with its own employees or outsourced to foreign governments that's > all. Which, of course, implies that, soon, I'm next. I see. E.P. > On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So, you're saying that the feds are going to start cutting off our > hands soon? Interesting. Strawman.... >> > The logical fallacy of the slippery slope applies here. >> We just live in a nation who's federal government tortures prisoners >> either with its own employees or outsourced to foreign governments that's >> all. > > Which, of course, implies that, soon, I'm next. > I see. Ed is just making stuff up.... On Apr 10, 3:58 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1176244584.254979.165...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Strawman.... Nope. I asked a question, and you implied a "yes". If the answer is "no", then say that. > >> > The logical fallacy of the slippery slope applies here. > >> We just live in a nation who's federal government tortures prisoners [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ed is just making stuff up. You're the one claiming a slippery slope, and *I'm* making stuff up? ROTFL! E.P. >> Ed is just making stuff up. > > You're the one claiming a slippery slope, and *I'm* making stuff up? > ROTFL! I didn't say anything about slippery slope, that's all you Ed. On Apr 10, 4:10 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1176246167.824773.64...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> Ed is just making stuff up. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I didn't say anything about slippery slope, that's all you Ed. That's right, because you are engaging in the logical fallacy of the slippery slope. Yes, it exists, I'm not "making it up." You can look it up if you choose. E.P. > On Apr 10, 4:10 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > slippery slope. Yes, it exists, I'm not "making it up." You can look > it up if you choose. 'the concept may come to you' isn't slippery slope Ed. No slope was defined. On Apr 10, 5:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1176251212.732234.105...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Apr 10, 4:10 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 'the concept may come to you' isn't slippery slope Ed. No slope was > defined. Of course it is. How would it come to me unless somehow a series of events takes place? Sheesh. Backpedal some more, LOL. E.P. > On Apr 10, 5:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Of course it is. How would it come to me unless somehow a series of > events takes place? No series of events is required. Just passage of a similiar law in your state,county, or town. CA already has something similiar that is law and recently upheld on appeal. > Sheesh. Backpedal some more, LOL. You need to get your head out of the sand. On Apr 10, 6:00 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1176251977.810157.253...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Apr 10, 5:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > state,county, or town. CA already has something similiar that is law and > recently upheld on appeal. Similar? In which a neighbor reports your so-called wrongdoing, and your car is seized? > > Sheesh. Backpedal some more, LOL. > > You need to get your head out of the sand. As far as I can tell, folks are screaming about precisely nothing. Everyone here, and everyone participating in this thread has ZERO chances of their car being seized on the say-so of a neighbor. Or is likely to have it happen in the foreseeable future. E.P. > On Apr 10, 6:00 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > E.P. Bullshit. heck, I work with a guy whose neighbors have complained about his "unsightly" Ford pickup (a '93 model in good shape) and I have another friend who's constantly being harassed about his (all plated, registered, etc.) project cars in the driveway because someone objects. There are many, many cases on the books where people have been forced to get rid of perfectly good, legal automobiles because they didn't meet questionably legal zoning and/or HOA requirements - but the costs of fighting were too high. And, of course, you're completely ignoring the drug confiscation laws. Stick your head in the sand all you want, but IMHO this is an important issue worth stirring people up about so that they are prepared to fight it, not if, but when it is proposed here. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > On Apr 10, 6:00 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > friend who's constantly being harassed about his (all plated, > registered, etc.) project cars in the driveway because someone objects. And these car were actually seized, right? Because *that* would prove your point. > There are many, many cases on the books where people have been forced > to get rid of perfectly good, legal automobiles because they didn't meet > questionably legal zoning and/or HOA requirements - but the costs of > fighting were too high. But they were not seized by the government on a neighbor's say-so. > And, of course, you're completely ignoring the drug confiscation laws. Actually, I'm not. There are legal, constitutional issues in play there that far exceed "because a neighbor says so". > Stick your head in the sand all you want, but IMHO this is an important > issue worth stirring people up about so that they are prepared to fight > it, not if, but when it is proposed here. If anything like it ever comes to my community (or state), I'll fight against it. Let's just say I'm not too worried at this point. E.P. >> heck, I work with a guy whose neighbors have complained about his >> "unsightly" Ford pickup (a '93 model in good shape) and I have another >> friend who's constantly being harassed about his (all plated, >> registered, etc.) project cars in the driveway because someone objects. > And these car were actually seized, right? Because *that* would prove > your point. I came to find a big fat tow sticker on a car in my driveway that complied with every law on the books. Is a 7 day waiting period to a zero waiting day period really that big of a leap? > On Apr 10, 6:00 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: > As far as I can tell, folks are screaming about precisely nothing. Nobody here is screaming, except perhaps you. > Everyone here, and everyone participating in this thread has ZERO > chances of their car being seized on the say-so of a neighbor. Not today, but it could happen in the future. > Or is likely to have it happen in the foreseeable future. Where'd you get your crystal ball? > E.P. > > On Apr 10, 6:00 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: > > > As far as I can tell, folks are screaming about precisely nothing. > > Nobody here is screaming, except perhaps you. LOL. I'm the only one *not* hurling invective. > > Everyone here, and everyone participating in this thread has ZERO > > chances of their car being seized on the say-so of a neighbor. > > Not today, but it could happen in the future. No matter how much people pretend that the slippery slope exists, it doesn't make it magically happen. > > Or is likely to have it happen in the foreseeable future. > > Where'd you get your crystal ball? It's called "logic". It's a novel thing, invented with Western Civilization. Look it up - it's a fascinating concept. >> > On Apr 10, 6:00 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >No matter how much people pretend that the slippery slope exists, it >doesn't make it magically happen. It ain't magic making it happen. It's people making it happen. Every step they push makes the next step that much easier, whether you see a logical connection or not. You pretend there's a bright line between where we are today and the predicted consequence, but there simply is not. Once the step is taken to those predicted consequences, you'll claim a bright line between that one and the next prediction... and you'll be wrong again. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Apr 14, 11:20 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <1176569768.274605.276...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > claim a bright line between that one and the next prediction... and > you'll be wrong again. Re-iterating the imaginary slippery slope does not make it appear, by magic or otherwise. Like the taxation analogy - there were those who predicted that if allowed, government would take all your income for tax. I see no difference between that fear-mongering and this fear-mongering. Other than the subject is different. The bright line exists because your neighbors cannot get your car taken from you without some proof of a fairly serious crime being committed, and even then, agents of the state must be involved in investigation. "Hey, Matt does drugs" is not enough for the cops to seize your assets. There actually needs to be something more than somebody's say-so. The huge leap from seizure of assets (or car) by a government agent by due legal process and seizure due to your neighbor not liking you are so far apart as to be, dare I say it, absurd. But, because my mind is open to the possibility that some smart person in the U.S. might think it a good idea, I will happily recant at the very first passage of such a law in the U.S. I'm guessing I won't be recanting. Ever. E.P. > On Apr 14, 11:20 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. > Russotto) wrote: >>It ain't magic making it happen. It's people making it happen. Every >>step they push makes the next step that much easier, whether you see a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Re-iterating the imaginary slippery slope does not make it appear, by > magic or otherwise. Except it's NOT imaginary. > Like the taxation analogy - there were those who predicted that if > allowed, government would take all your income for tax. I've never heard anyone but you bring up the alleged argument that income tax would eventually take all of someone's income. But, if you know your history, we do see the slippery slope in action. Initially, the income tax was only supposed to take a very small percentage away from the mega-wealthy. Now, it takes a very significant portion of almost everyone's income who lives above the poverty level. If the public in the early 20th century would have known how much it would eventually take, do you think they would have accepted it so easily? I think not. > I see no > difference between that fear-mongering and this fear-mongering. Other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > taken from you without some proof of a fairly serious crime being > committed, No proof is required in civil forfeiture for alleged, suspected or even imagined drug crimes. > and even then, agents of the state must be involved in > investigation. "Hey, Matt does drugs" is not enough for the cops to > seize your assets. No, but "Hey, Ed sure has a lot of traffic coming in and out of his home. He has no job, lives in a $400 a month apartment, and yet he owns a $60,000 car" could lead to a search warrant and when the cops find a roach in your ashtray, they decide you're a major drug dealer and seize your vehicle and any cash they find on the premises. And yet, they don't think it's worth it to prosecute you for the 10th of a gram of marijuana they found in your ashtray. If you don't like it - you can go to court to get your car back - but they took all of your money and potential collateral, so you're screwed. In reality, you just have a lot of friends who like to drop by and visit you, you inherited that expensive car from your dead mother and you you had a party the nite before where people you didn't even know sparked up a joint in your living room while you were out on the patio drinking a beer with people you did know - you didn't even know there had been any illegal drugs at your party. Does that seem unlikely to you? I'm sure it does, but that's the reason we have courts in which you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. > There actually needs to be something more than > somebody's say-so. Of course there has to be. You own a car which is capable of driving fast is another requirement. > The huge leap from seizure of assets (or car) by a > government agent by due legal process and seizure due to your neighbor > not liking you are so far apart as to be, dare I say it, absurd. It's so absurd that our Founding Fathers thought it wise to include the 4th Amendment in our Constitution. > But, because my mind is open to the possibility that some smart person > in the U.S. might think it a good idea, I will happily recant at the > very first passage of such a law in the U.S. > > I'm guessing I won't be recanting. Ever. I'm guessing that too - especially since you would never admit you were wrong, even if you were proven to be wrong. > E.P. >On Apr 14, 11:20 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. >Russotto) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Like the taxation analogy - there were those who predicted that if >allowed, government would take all your income for tax. Actually, the early objections were that the income tax could go as high as 10%. That slope has already slipped. >The bright line exists because your neighbors cannot get your car >taken from you without some proof of a fairly serious crime being >committed No proof is necessary. The accusation is sufficient; it's then up to the subject of the forfeiture to prove in civil court that the property is innocent. >But, because my mind is open to the possibility that some smart person >in the U.S. might think it a good idea, I will happily recant at the >very first passage of such a law in the U.S. > >I'm guessing I won't be recanting. Ever. No. Because however bad it gets, you'll move the line until the law doesn't meet your standards. And if you can't move it that far, you'll deny the law acts the way it does. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> No series of events is required. Just passage of a similiar law in your >> state,county, or town. CA already has something similiar that is law and >> recently upheld on appeal. > Similar? In which a neighbor reports your so-called wrongdoing, and > your car is seized? Funny how your definition of similiar is 'exact'. >> > Sheesh. Backpedal some more, LOL. >> You need to get your head out of the sand. > As far as I can tell, folks are screaming about precisely nothing. > Everyone here, and everyone participating in this thread has ZERO > chances of their car being seized on the say-so of a neighbor. > Or is likely to have it happen in the foreseeable future. Keep telling yourself that. Those laws will just be used on the <insert undersirable group here>. >> On Apr 10, 4:10 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >'the concept may come to you' isn't slippery slope Ed. No slope was >defined. Ed's too busy sticking his head in the sand and engaging in the fallacy of the "argument ad logicam" to get it. Anyway, the term "slippery slope" covers a wide variety of arguments, not all fallacious. In many cases, what is decried as a slippery slope is a perfectly valid "reduction ad absurdum", and the person yelling "slippery slope" simply refuses to accept the consequences of his premises. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I see. that's right, YOU don't have anything to worry about because you're one of the GOOD people, not one of THOSE people. Keep telling yourself that, if it helps you sleep at night. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > that's right, YOU don't have anything to worry about because you're one > of the GOOD people, not one of THOSE people. Slippery sloppe arguments to not gain credibility upon reiteration. > Keep telling yourself that, if it helps you sleep at night. Neither do strawman arguments. Weak positions call for logical fallacies, always. E.P. >On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >So, you're saying that the feds are going to start cutting off our >hands soon? Interesting. Certainly not. They'll deliver you to Syria via extraordinary rendition, and then the Syrians will cut off your hands. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > > Obviously, the concept has spread from one country to another, and I > > haven't even tried to list all the places that either or both are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > E.P. The slippery slope that we're obviously already falling down here. We already have unconstitutional RLCs and speed cameras set up with "civil" not "criminal" penalties so the state can fine you without a real trial. We already have laws in place that allow civil forfeiture of assets, vehicles, and even houses without a criminal trial if you are involved in "drug related" activity - even if you are not charged with a crime! If your assets are seized in this manner it is YOUR responsibility to prove that you are innocent and that your property should be returned to you. Yes, the concept of forfeiting your vehicle without due process due to citizen complaints is unconstitutional and should not be tolerated, but we already have similar practices codified into law here, unconstitutional though they may be. This is nowhere near as far fetched an idea as that of cutting off people's hands, although I'm surprised some jackass hasn't already responded with "hey, that's a good idea." nate > > > Obviously, the concept has spread from one country to another, and I > > > haven't even tried to list all the places that either or both are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The slippery slope that we're obviously already falling down here. No, obviously we are not. Restating a logical fallacy does not make it less of a fallacy. The slippery slope, at it's core, is an emotional appeal. It's an attempt to connect a bunch of unconnected things to point toward some conclusion. The animal rights folks do this all the time: 'a rat is a dog is a boy'-type arguments. E.P. >>>>Obviously, the concept has spread from one country to another, and I >>>>haven't even tried to list all the places that either or both are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No, obviously we are not. Restating a logical fallacy does not make > it less of a fallacy. It's not a logical fallacy. It is happening. > The slippery slope, at it's core, is an emotional appeal. It's an > attempt to connect a bunch of unconnected things to point toward some > conclusion. The animal rights folks do this all the time: 'a rat is > a dog is a boy'-type arguments. How about if we're talking about a set of connected, closely related things? And we're only one or two steps away from the very thing that you say can't happen? What about then? nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>>Obviously, the concept has spread from one country to another, and I > >>>>haven't even tried to list all the places that either or both are [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It's not a logical fallacy. It is happening. A law like in Oz is happening where, again? I've asked for a cite now five times, and all I get are red herrings. > > The slippery slope, at it's core, is an emotional appeal. It's an > > attempt to connect a bunch of unconnected things to point toward some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > things? And we're only one or two steps away from the very thing that > you say can't happen? What about then? Then it's not a slippery slope argument. But each step has to be logically connected to the last, AND the next. That's the only time that reasoning is valid. If one of the steps is a very big leap from the last step, then you've got a logical fallacy. E.P. >>>>>>Obviously, the concept has spread from one country to another, and I >>>>>>haven't even tried to list all the places that either or both are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > A law like in Oz is happening where, again? I've asked for a cite now > five times, and all I get are red herrings. I posted a link to a search OF THIS VERY NEWSGROUP where vehicle seizure laws were discussed. Of course, you snipped that out of your reply. It's really sad that you have to resort to such disingenuity to get out of admitting that you were wrong. nate Signature |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message