 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / December 2007Another Ricemobile Gets Crushed
KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with altered parts." According to the report, the car (a blue Honda Civic) had headers and a turbocharger "meant for racing." > KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by > court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with > altered parts." According to the report, the car (a blue Honda Civic) > had headers and a turbocharger "meant for racing." When the f*** did modifying a car become a crime? Oh yeah, when the control freaks decided the only reason to modify one was for street racing.... Great... my aftermarket brakes can now result in the state taking my car if IL copies CA or I drive to CA? >> KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by >> court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >control freaks decided the only reason to modify one was for street >racing.... Now, before you get too excited, just bear in mind that we're hearing all of this through a "mainstream media" filter. Aside from the ubiquitous factual errors that pepper their stories, they also have a sensationalist agenda and will not hesitate to leave out certain details if it makes the story more "exciting." >>> KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by >>> court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > sensationalist agenda and will not hesitate to leave out certain > details if it makes the story more "exciting." They would have to be screwing the up the basic fact of the article: "possessing a vehicle with altered parts". They usually have that sort of core more or less correct. It does not surprise me that the control freaks would make changing a car from the factory condition a crime worthy of car crushing. After all, they buy their toastermobiles and leave them the way the factory made them. On Nov 15, 7:29 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <onooj390g0tajgbnlmrbnbka9jvncng...@4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I'll bet the true story is that the kid was caught street racing and the 'altered parts' bit was the straw that tipped the judge over to 'crush it'. Harry K > On Nov 15, 7:29 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > the 'altered parts' bit was the straw that tipped the judge over to > 'crush it'. Problem is, street racing is defined as anything the cop says it is. >>>> KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by >>>> court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >"possessing a vehicle with altered parts". They usually have that sort of >core more or less correct. Here's a slightly more detailed versino of the story. Be sure to read the comments, also, although it definitely appears that this newspaper has a VERY active censorship department. :( Apparently his car had some parts on it that were stolen (e.g. the transmission had the serial number filed off). There also appears to have been some question about the legality of his exhaust (Too loud? No catalytic converter?) http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/11337716.html Stopping races 1 car at a time A judge ordered a teen's vehicle, modified for street racing, destroyed. The order was carried out at a Harbor Gateway vehicle salvage plant. The souped-up car of an 18-year-old Lakewood street racer met the end of the road in Harbor Gateway on Wednesday, more than a month after the man was arrested for having a vehicle with an illegal engine. A judge ordered the illegally modified car - a 1995 Honda Civic, which contained a B18 CRI engine from Japan - to be destroyed. It was the first such judicial order in Long Beach history, City Prosecutor Tom Reeves said. Clifford Sung was arrested Oct. 15 by Long Beach police officers after they noticed his Honda's modified exhaust system. Once Sung was stopped, officers saw other signs of illegal street racing, including a fiberglass hood and a sway bar on the back of the car. The vehicle identification number had also been chipped off the transmission. > http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/11337716.html > Clifford Sung was arrested Oct. 15 by Long Beach police officers after > they noticed his Honda's modified exhaust system. Once Sung was > stopped, officers saw other signs of illegal street racing, including > a fiberglass hood and a sway bar on the back of the car. The vehicle > identification number had also been chipped off the transmission. They noticed.... he wasn't actually racing. So this means if I drive my mustang into CA and they 'notice' my car's upgraded brakes (plainly visable and I've noticed people staring at them at stop lights... like they've never seen brembo calipers before) they 'notice' the FR500 steering wheel... (hey, it makes as much sense as a 'carbon fiber hood', hell my mustang has a factory composite hood) If they start taking things apart they might notice my steeda tri-ax shifter. If they really know their mustangs they might notice my car has parts from the '98 cobra. They might also get suspicious because my passenger side fender and hood have been replaced (by a ford dealer) and 'notice' that the factory serial number labels are missing.... same with the bumper covers. Of course I still have all the original parts... 'sway bar on the back of the car'.... I would hope so. Most cars do. Ford put one on mine. I've never street raced in my life and any car I've owned would be laughed out of any such event. However, the cops could construct me to look almost as guilty as this kid. Hell... a pair of junkyard (numbers not matching provided ford stamps something on them) or ford motorsport (no serial number) PI heads would make things just as bad. Or maybe the syncros will die in my trans and I'll have to use the spare trans in my garage.... I don't speak ricer so I don't know what a B18 CRI engine is, but given the media it could just be one of those engines ripped out of cars forced off the road in japan and shipped to the US as replacements. In other words, probably some stupid ricer talk that refers to what is nothing more than a stock engine. These tool laws have to go. Because all they do is make us all subject to government thugs intruding into our lives and taking our property when ever they feel like it. Article comments... I see the know nothing toaster driver chiming up. Another government trusting fool as far as I am concerned. > These tool laws have to go. Because all they do is make us all subject to > government thugs intruding into our lives and taking our property when > ever they feel like it. No these laws don't have to go--have you ever been on a road when street racers are rapidly approaching from behind? I have, three different times, and it's very damn scary that they are not in full control of their vehicle as they are still increasing speed. Please do be aware that these are not skilled drivers, most of them are just plain reckless. One time was on a freeway, at night. I'm in the #2 lane out of 4, street racers are rapidly approaching at obviously 100+mph in the #2 and #3 lanes. I merge to the #1 lane. Street racer in the #2 lane also merges to the #1 lane. I quickly merge back into the #2 lane. Both street racers subsequently pass me very rapidly in lanes #1 and #3. (The obvious intent of merging into the #1 lane was to get out of the #2 lane.) The second time was also on a freeway. I'm in the #4 lane along with several other vehicles in lanes #1, #2, #3 and #4 on the freeway... after all, it is the afternoon. But forget about afternoon traffic, right? These two street racers are going as fast as they can merging from #3 to #2 to #1, cutting in through narrow gaps back into the #2 lane... one was in the lead of the other and both were weaving into the same lanes, but both were without any doubt, an accident just waiting to happen. The third time was night time, on a median divided road. Street racers are approaching rapidly in lane #1 of 2 and lane 2 of 2. The shoulder is too narrow and pulling onto the median isn't an option. I'm in lane #1 and so I no choice but to speed up myself and rapidly pull into the nearest left turn lane as the median opens up for the left turn lane. Once in the left turn lane, I slowed down and almost came to a stop to let the street racers pass. Again, the street racers just continued on at high speed, an accident waiting to happen on a road with a speed limit of 45mph. So I think the laws are justified. If they street race, get caught, and are found guilty... yeah, please do crush their cars. If they do it again, and get caught again, and are found guilty again, then yeah, please do crush their cars again. On Nov 16, 1:49 am, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > > government thugs intruding into our lives and taking our property when > > ever they feel like it. > > No these laws don't have to go--have you ever been on a road when street > racers are rapidly approaching from behind? Nobody is saying street racing should be legal. But just having a certain part on your car, while not breaking any moving violation law, makes you a criminal. RIDICULOUS! > Nobody is saying street racing should be legal. But just having a > certain part on your car, while not breaking any moving violation law, > makes you a criminal. RIDICULOUS! especially parts that do not adversely affect emissions.  SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> These tool laws have to go. Because all they do is make us all subject to >> government thugs intruding into our lives and taking our property when >> ever they feel like it. >> > No these laws don't have to go--have you ever been on a road when street > racers are rapidly approaching from behind? Have you ever been stopped by a cop who threatened to make up a charge on you when you did nothing wrong? I have. I fear the cops and the government they work for far more than I do out of control rice boys. And yes, I have encountered some of these asshats on the road... I drive a mustang, it attracts them. > I have, three different times, and it's very damn scary that they are not in > full control of their vehicle as they are still increasing speed. Please do > be aware that these are not skilled drivers, most of them are just plain > reckless So the cops, who with this tool law will have little to zero impact on street racing can now hassle me, define me as a street racer, and then take my car? How is that 'better'? How is empowering a bunch of ignorant thugs better? I don't want them having that sort of power over me. I don't want my car subject to seizure because I didn't leave it the way ford built it or because a cop doesn't know what is stock equipment. > One time was on a freeway, at night. I'm in the #2 lane out of 4, street > racers are rapidly approaching at obviously 100+mph in the #2 and #3 lanes. > I merge to the #1 lane. Street racer in the #2 lane also merges to the #1 > lane. I quickly merge back into the #2 lane. Both street racers subsequently > pass me very rapidly in lanes #1 and #3. (The obvious intent of merging into > the #1 lane was to get out of the #2 lane.) > The second time was also on a freeway. I'm in the #4 lane along with several > other vehicles in lanes #1, #2, #3 and #4 on the freeway... after all, it is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Again, the street racers just continued on at high speed, an accident > waiting to happen on a road with a speed limit of 45mph. I've had similiar occur around me. How does empowering the government to have it's police officers stop anyone who's car they think was modified for street racing and take it stop that? It doesn't. What it does is empower the government to harrass people like you and me. > So I think the laws are justified. If they street race, get caught, and are > found guilty... yeah, please do crush their cars. If they do it again, and > get caught again, and are found guilty again, then yeah, please do crush > their cars again. They aren't racing! The cop sees the car on the street and infers by the car's appearance that it has been modified -for- street racing. >Have you ever been stopped by a cop who threatened to make up a charge on >you when you did nothing wrong? I have. I fear the cops and the >government they work for far more than I do out of control rice boys. And >yes, I have encountered some of these asshats on the road... I drive a >mustang, it attracts them. Cops or Riceboyz? >>Have you ever been stopped by a cop who threatened to make up a charge on >>you when you did nothing wrong? I have. I fear the cops and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Cops or Riceboyz? Riceboys was meant above. overall probably more riceboys than cops. >> These tool laws have to go. Because all they do is make us all subject to >> government thugs intruding into our lives and taking our property when >> ever they feel like it. >> >No these laws don't have to go--have you ever been on a road when street >racers are rapidly approaching from behind? Non sequitur. Which is what these laws are. >So I think the laws are justified. If they street race, get caught, and are >found guilty... yeah, please do crush their cars. If they do it again, and >get caught again, and are found guilty again, then yeah, please do crush >their cars again. There was no actual street racing involved. The car was crushed for having aftermarket parts, on the theory that such parts are an indication of street racing. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >I don't speak ricer so I don't know what a B18 CRI engine is, but given >the media it could just be one of those engines ripped out of cars forced >off the road in japan and shipped to the US as replacements. In other >words, probably some stupid ricer talk that refers to what is nothing >more than a stock engine. Probably not even stupid ricer talk; it sounds like a manufacturers engine designation. For instance, I think I had a 13AC engine in one car. Sounds really impressive until you realize that the 13 means 1.3L and the C means California emissions (I don't know what the A meant) According to Wikipedia, the B18C is a VTEC engine used in the infamous "Type R" -- so this was one of the few ricers who had more than a "Type R" sticker. Of course, there is no modification or combination of modifications which can provide evidence that a car is used for street racing. People race completely stock cars all the time, and it's perfectly legal to take a street car (modified or otherwise) to the track. Bet the car wasn't actually completely destroyed, either. The body might have been crushed, but that engine is probably being resold by some friend of the state. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Bet the car wasn't actually completely destroyed, either. The body > might have been crushed, but that engine is probably being resold by > some friend of the state. If the operation in CA is like chicago impound yards, somebody who knows somebody has the whole car. If they just wanted the engine, that would be gone the first night the car spent in impound.... if the kid got it back it would be missing all the good parts. On Nov 16, 2:22 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <--adnbNTSOk6QKDanZ2dnUVZ_hisn...@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > > Bet the car wasn't actually completely destroyed, either. The body [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > gone the first night the car spent in impound.... if the kid got it back > it would be missing all the good parts. MA is like that too. A few years back I had one of these ricemobiles, a civic w/ very low profile 17's, koni coilovers, sway bars, some breathing assistance, etc. It also had a beautiful competition level audio system. Fun little go-cart to drive. I digress. I sold it to a good friend of mine who crashed it on Storrow Drive. I talked to him shortly after the accident, and he told me the car was in impound but he was too shaken up to care and it was totaled anyway. I told him to get to the impound ASAP, and get the goodies. He said he was on the way, but then decided he wanted to get some sleep and decided to wait a day, The next day he found the car on blocks, no wheels, no suspension, no intake, no exhaust, no audio equipment. They even took the aftermarket wiring for the audio system: both amp power cables, both RCA's, all the speaker wire, everything. They told him something about the car being junk anyway, and them not being liable for theft. > MA is like that too. A few years back I had one of these ricemobiles, > a civic w/ very low profile 17's, koni coilovers, sway bars, some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > him shortly after the accident, and he told me the car was in impound > but he was too shaken up to care and it was totaled anyway. I've never totaled a car, but if one does, doesn't the driver have the option of having it towed to a body shop of their choice? If so, then why was your friend's vehicle impounded after the crash? >> MA is like that too. A few years back I had one of these ricemobiles, >> a civic w/ very low profile 17's, koni coilovers, sway bars, some [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > option of having it towed to a body shop of their choice? If so, then > why was your friend's vehicle impounded after the crash? Cops will often just call a tow company and it gets towed to whatever yard. > On Nov 16, 2:22 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > both RCA's, all the speaker wire, everything. They told him something > about the car being junk anyway, and them not being liable for theft. I fail to see how the State having posssession of your legal property cannot be held responsible for it's security. If you leave your car at an auto dealer for service,THEY are responsible for "reasonable and prudent security".(according to a lawyer I called after my Honda was left unlocked on a dealer lot and thieves stole items from it.When the service manager was informed of this,he settled quickly and came up with a check. ) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >I fail to see how the State having posssession of your legal property >cannot be held responsible for it's security. Because the state makes the laws which say it can't. Convenient, that. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/11337716.html > <...> > Clifford Sung was arrested Oct. 15 by Long Beach police officers after > they noticed his Honda's modified exhaust system. Once Sung was > stopped, officers saw other signs of illegal street racing, including > a fiberglass hood and a sway bar on the back of the car. A *swaybar*??? The horror! Only a psychopathic murderererer would ever want one of those! </Judy> (I prefer anti-sway bars myself, enough that I added one from a GT to my Mustang which originally had none) -- ~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) >>>>>KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by >>>>>court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > a fiberglass hood and a sway bar on the back of the car. The vehicle > identification number had also been chipped off the transmission. Now the ID number filed off I have a problem with but fiberglass hood? Rear sway bar? Utter and complete BS. Hell, I've got at least one car with a rear sway bar that wasn't so equipped from the factory. It may even be used for (legal) racing at some point. So long as it passes a safety inspection, what's the issue? nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > Apparently his car had some parts on it that were stolen (e.g. the > transmission had the serial number filed off). That would jibe with my (mis)understanding of what "altered parts" means in California: a violation of one of several laws against altering or defacing serial numbers on commonly stolen major subsystems. A reporter with a deadline and limited space, perhaps especially if he's a general assignment guy without a specialty in either transportation issues or the law, might hear "altered parts" as a law enforcement colloquialism and pass it along without further discussion. I would guess that the "signs of illegal street racing" were used to justify pulling him over and further inspecting the car, and the allegedly missing or altered VINs were what got him into this level of trouble. ( Urban California supposedly has a problem with some makes, models, and years being stolen just to get certain parts, like engines and transmissions/transaxles, that the street racers can readily put into smaller, lighter cars or use as replacements for the parts that they burn out or blow up. ) Although no expert on registration procedures, I think there are specific provisions for salvage-title Frankensteins, kit cars, and other cases in which there might be legitimate VIN or serial number conflicts. One wonders also if this particular person was one they'd been after, for street racing and/or other provocative behaviors, who finally slipped up and gave them an excuse. AKA "contempt of cop." For sure, if they were confiscating the cars of every Fast and furious wannabe with a carbon-fiber hood on one end and a loud muffler on the other, the crushers would be working three shifts. That having been said, civil forfeiture divorced from the results or even the existence of a criminal complaint is... well, perhaps not an inherently bad thing, but certainly the proverbial slippery slope toward all kind of law-enforcement abuses. The War on Some Drugs made this very clear , and the principles are being applied, sporadically and controversially, to *alleged* instances of various other crimes and civic nuisances. When and where do you draw the line? > No catalytic converter?) Indeed, there are also vehicle-code provisions regarding removal or disablement of required smog equipment, as well as installation of aftermarket replacements for smog-related equipment that don't have a California Air Resources Board certification. (California, unlike some states, cares not only about the actual tailpipe readings but also how they are achieved -- but I doubt you'd even achieve the former without a cat.) Federal regulations might also apply, depending on just what was done. I would guess that this alone usually involves a "fix-it ticket" and possibly a fine, though; and alteration of VIN numbers and the not-for-the-US-market engine were the big things. > One wonders also if this particular person was one they'd been after, > for street racing and/or other provocative behaviors, who finally > slipped up and gave them an excuse. AKA "contempt of cop." For sure, > if they were confiscating the cars of every Fast and furious wannabe > with a carbon-fiber hood on one end and a loud muffler on the other, > the crushers would be working three shifts. I see it just like speeding. It's selective enforcement. That is what gives government the greatest power. Because sheeple trust them, think the complainers are nuts and the mechanism builds by which one cannot oppose government or be selectively enforced upon. Driving and travel is one of the areas that gets a lot of attention in this regard. > That having been said, civil forfeiture divorced from the results or > even the existence of a criminal complaint is... well, perhaps not an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and controversially, to *alleged* instances of various other crimes > and civic nuisances. When and where do you draw the line? Civil forfeiture is a violation of Bill of Rights. It basically is the government has the guns so they will do as they please. > I would guess that the "signs of illegal street racing" were used to >justify pulling him over and further inspecting the car, and the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >with a carbon-fiber hood on one end and a loud muffler on the other, >the crushers would be working three shifts. These three paragraphs are a wonderful illustration of the lengths people will go to in order to justify the unreasonable actions of Authority, on the assumption that Authority must be right. Perhaps it's related to Stockholm Syndrome. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > These three paragraphs are a wonderful illustration of the lengths > people will go to in order to justify the unreasonable actions of > Authority, on the assumption that Authority must be right. > > Perhaps it's related to Stockholm Syndrome. I make no such assumption. I *do* assume that, in the contemporary US, there is at least a decent chance that Authority has a point. And if the allegations in the original story are true, I'd say there's a good chance that, in this particular case, a perpetrator of sociopathic behaviors that harm others got called on his bulls. (possibly in time to get turned around by it and pursue a career other than "inmate"). Note also the other followup by someone who has been a victim of car theft, apparently for chop-shop purposes. I think that Authority *does* have to be called to heel when it is doing things that infringe on individual rights beyond what a society considers appropriate (law and enforcement thereof being very culture- specific) or doing them in a societally unacceptable way. To paraphrase a wise old saying, your right to swing your slim-jim ends where my car lock begins. As others have pointed out, we really don't know from the news reports whether the owner of that car was just some kid being harshly punished for getting a little out of line... or a significant boil on the butt of the community who finally slipped up and gave them an excuse. Altered serial numbers start me on the road to forming an opinion though. I certainly don't want to be the victim of law enforcement abuses nor see others be so victimized, and toward that end it's important that we call Authority to heel when it is on the road to such abuses. I also want to know that the good guys have my back when illegal and dangerous street races (yeah, those 18-year-olds are known for their skill, experience, and good judgement) are being conducted in my town... or when somebody who grenaded his engine in a street race, or operates a chop shop on their behalf, is skulking through my neighborhood in search of his next parts donor. There's a happy medium in there somewhere. --Joe >> These three paragraphs are a wonderful illustration of the lengths >> people will go to in order to justify the unreasonable actions of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I make no such assumption. I *do* assume that, in the contemporary >US, there is at least a decent chance that Authority has a point. You built an entire house of cards justifying the actions of authority, based on no evidence, only your conviction that Authority must be right. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > You built an entire house of cards justifying the actions of > authority, based on no evidence, only your conviction that Authority > must be right. Wow, I did all that? I thought I was just bringing some facts (and some pointing out of places where facts might be lacking) into what had become a rather hyperbolic discussion; offering a hypothesis for what *might* have happened; guessing that that's what probably did happen; and actually calling into question the mechanism for the outcome. And free psychoanalysis too -- I had no idea that I thought "Authority must be right," having said merely that Authority *might* be right. Getting back to substance, it occured to me later that maybe </ house_of_cards> <hypothesis> the car went to the crusher as part of a plea agreement that got the alleged culprit out of criminal charges. Regards, --Joe >> You built an entire house of cards justifying the actions of >> authority, based on no evidence, only your conviction that Authority >> must be right. > >Wow, I did all that? Indeed you did. >I thought I was just bringing some facts (and >some pointing out of places where facts might be lacking) You thought wrong. Rather, you brought three paragraphs of pure speculation into it. >had become a rather hyperbolic discussion; offering a hypothesis for >what *might* have happened; A hypothesis based on no evidence, merely the assumption that Authority was right. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Nov 17, 7:37 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <35cbb037-1c21-4375-82b8-d38553bde...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can > result in a fully-depreciated one. So you brought in the speculation that 'the cop is always wrong'. How is his view any worse than yours? Harry K > On Nov 17, 7:37 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Harry K It seems to be a FAR safer assumption than "the cop is always right." It's sad, but it's true. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> On Nov 17, 7:37 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >nate Hi Nate, long time for me. What a crazy thread. It's only a Honda. ROFLMAO!!! Just kidding. I have one sitting in my driveway technically doa until I fix it up to pass inspection. cheers!!! SignatureJeeps and dubs and everything's nice... >What a crazy thread. It's only a Honda. ROFLMAO!!! It's not the $2000 Honda that the kid is sorry to lose - it's the $10,000 worth of "upgrades" he put on it. :) > merely the assumption that Authority was right. The difference between the assumption that Authority may be right, and the assumption that Authority *was* right, is the difference between disagreeing with my contention and putting your words in my mouth. Regards, --Joe > US, there is at least a decent chance that Authority has a point. And > if the allegations in the original story are true, I'd say there's a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than "inmate"). Note also the other followup by someone who has been > a victim of car theft, apparently for chop-shop purposes. Look at what they did to catch this so-called menance... I'm sorry, I don't want to face losing my car or even being stopped and searched and having my car disassembled because some cop thinks big brake rotors equals street racing. > I think that Authority *does* have to be called to heel when it is > doing things that infringe on individual rights beyond what a society > considers appropriate (law and enforcement thereof being very culture- > specific) or doing them in a societally unacceptable way. To > paraphrase a wise old saying, your right to swing your slim-jim ends > where my car lock begins. I don't care what society considers appropriate. Our rights as individuals trump what 'society' thinks. You're just calling for tyranny of the majority. Just because the majority drives around in toaster mobiles doesn't give them the right to have thugs harrass anyone who doesn't. > As others have pointed out, we really don't know from the news reports > whether the owner of that car was just some kid being harshly punished > for getting a little out of line... or a significant boil on the butt > of the community who finally slipped up and gave them an excuse. > Altered serial numbers start me on the road to forming an opinion > though. *IF* we can believe the news media on that... I haven't seen a vin on ford transmissions. Honda might be a different story. > I certainly don't want to be the victim of law enforcement abuses nor > see others be so victimized, and toward that end it's important that > we call Authority to heel when it is on the road to such abuses. That's very very very very rare and only when the media decides to involve itself. It is far better to avoid the abuses by not giving government power. Government ends up abusing whatever power it gets. > I > also want to know that the good guys have my back when illegal and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > operates a chop shop on their behalf, is skulking through my > neighborhood in search of his next parts donor. The government's police forces always excuse themselves that they can't be everywhere... Then they ask for more POWER and those like you are happy to give it to them. On Nov 18, 7:37 am, Ad absurdum per aspera <jtc...@california.com> wrote: > I think that Authority *does* have to be called to heel when it is > doing things that infringe on individual rights beyond what a society > considers appropriate That's just it. The Authority uses the media to slowly but surely adjust what society considers appropriate. Abe Lincoln would be turning in his grave if he could see the destruction of personal rights that we've seen over the last few decades (your country even more so than mine). Old Wolf <oldwolf@inspire.net.nz> wrote in news:794033a4-1d3f-4886-989d- 07f571b85b29@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > On Nov 18, 7:37 am, Ad absurdum per aspera <jtc...@california.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > rights that we've seen over the last few decades (your country > even more so than mine). That's a hoot;"Authority" -using- the media". Generally,it's media AGAINST the "authority".They pride themselves on being the "4th Estate",the "watchdog" of government. WRT crime,the gov't usually wants to downplay the stats,while the media revels in it,OVERreporting it. The destruction of personal rights in the US comes more from the "progressives"(socialists/"liberals") than anywhere else. Their motto is "gov't uber alles",everybody subservient to the State. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > That's a hoot;"Authority" -using- the media". > Generally,it's media AGAINST the "authority".They pride themselves on being > the "4th Estate",the "watchdog" of government So someone looking at the shallow picture. The media refuses to look at the deeper picture because then that would spoil the status quo. They are not about to turn on those that own the government and them. And that's the unspeakable. The media and the government are owned by the same people. > WRT crime,the gov't usually wants to downplay the stats,while the media > revels in it,OVERreporting it. A tiny fraction of government crime, and then only the petty stuff or stuff that can be hung on someone that is either low level or needs to be gotten rid of or both. The real crimes of the government do not get media the attention even close to that of Brittany Spears not wearing underware. > The destruction of personal rights in the US comes more from the > "progressives"(socialists/"liberals") than anywhere else. > Their motto is "gov't uber alles",everybody subservient to the State. Both parties are owned by the same people. The destination of both is the same, they only take different routes. The end is complete control either way. > The destruction of personal rights in the US comes more from the > "progressives"(socialists/"liberals") than anywhere else. > Their motto is "gov't uber alles",everybody subservient to the State. No, "gov't uber alles" is the motto of authoritarians. Libertarians are the antithesis of that; they want as little government interference and as few rules and regulations as possible. Socialists can be either authoritarian (e.g. Stalin), or libertarian ('green' political parties tend this way, although not strongly); they are orthogonal concepts. Further reading - http://politicalcompass.org/uselection http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007 Old Wolf <oldwolf@inspire.net.nz> wrote in news:3bdf0327-cca1-47f1-877b- 47518ebd5feb@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com: >> The destruction of personal rights in the US comes more from the >> "progressives"(socialists/"liberals") than anywhere else. >> Their motto is "gov't uber alles",everybody subservient to the State. > > No, "gov't uber alles" is the motto of authoritarians. And those Socialists want to use the power of gov't to determine what's best for their subjects. They "know best" what's good for you. And woe to you if you try to resist them. > Libertarians are the antithesis of that; they want as > little government interference and as few rules and > regulations as possible. Yeah,real Utopian wishful thinking. > Socialists can be either authoritarian (e.g. Stalin), or > libertarian ('green' political parties tend this way, > although not strongly); they are orthogonal concepts. I have yet to see any "Libertarian" government in actual being. Lots of Socialist/Communist gov'ts,though,and all "authoritarian". > Further reading - > http://politicalcompass.org/uselection > http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007 "liberal" does NOT equal "libertarian". "Liberal" equals "progressive"/Socialist/Communist,and their motto IS the State over all. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Old Wolf <oldwolf@inspire.net.nz> wrote in news:3bdf0327-cca1-47f1-877b- > 47518ebd5feb@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > best for their subjects. They "know best" what's good for you. > And woe to you if you try to resist them. How is that different than the trotskyite (some even ex-commie) neo-cons ? It's not. Neo-cons are all over the TV telling us how bombing Iran is good for us, how the fed devaluing the dollar is good for us, how Ron Paul supporters are terrorists and should be tazed, beaten, put in camps, whatever the neo-con in particular has in mind. > I have yet to see any "Libertarian" government in actual being. That's because the US government decided that freedom and liberty should be nothing more than buzz-words and advertising slogans before most of us if not all of us in this newsgroup were born. Too many control freaks looking for ways to control and steal from others. >> The destruction of personal rights in the US comes more from the >> "progressives"(socialists/"liberals") than anywhere else. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > libertarian ('green' political parties tend this way, > although not strongly); they are orthogonal concepts. A libertarian cannot be a socialist or any sort of collectivist or follow anye belief that has a central control. Greens believe in a central control, just with a different excuse. >No, "gov't uber alles" is the motto of authoritarians. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >libertarian ('green' political parties tend this way, >although not strongly); they are orthogonal concepts. Socialism is not compatible with freedom (though many socialists disagree, of course). Green is even less compatible with freedom; Green parties are all about imposing restrictions on humans ostensibly to protect the environment. It's the third most used excuse for authoritarianism, after terrorism and child porn. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. Matthew T. Russotto: > Socialism is not compatible with freedom (though many socialists > disagree, of course). Green is even less compatible with freedom; > Green parties are all about imposing restrictions on humans ostensibly > to protect the environment. It's the third most used excuse for > authoritarianism, after terrorism and child porn. Or, "Its for the children," in general. Signature"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do." --Joseph Stalin > Socialism is not compatible with freedom (though many socialists > disagree, of course). Green is even less compatible with freedom; > Green parties are all about imposing restrictions on humans ostensibly > to protect the environment. It's the third most used excuse for > authoritarianism, after terrorism and child porn. The environmental cause, like religion (when mentioned in politics), is nothing more than a convenient excuse for nanny-statism. Indeed, it is not that much of a stretch to say environmentalism IS a religion. On Dec 5, 4:12 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > >Socialists can be either authoritarian (e.g. Stalin), or > >libertarian ('green' political parties tend this way, > >although not strongly); they are orthogonal concepts. > > Socialism is not compatible with freedom (though many socialists > disagree, of course). I disagree , and I'm not a socialist. It *can* be compatible with freedom. Indeed, under Marx's original vision, every member of society would enjoy a moderate to high level of personal liberty; the only major restriction being that you have to contribute to the state's coffers if you can. (Contrast, how 'free' is a poor person in a right-wing society? Rich americans can do just about anything. Poor ones may be free to choose any religion and sexual orientation without reprisal, but they can't put a good meal on the table.) > Green is even less compatible with freedom; > Green parties are all about imposing restrictions on humans ostensibly > to protect the environment. It's the third most used excuse for > authoritarianism, after terrorism and child porn. Well, if the environment is damaged, then I have lost my freedom to enjoy that environment. So the restriction of certain freedoms is implemented, in order to preserve other freedoms they deem of higher value. That's what an 'honest' green party would do anyway; as you say, most green parties are actually thinly veiled communists. >On Dec 5, 4:12 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >high level of personal liberty; the only major restriction >being that you have to contribute to the state's coffers if you can. Marx's original vision simply could not occur. Let me know when the Cuban state withers away... >> Green is even less compatible with freedom; >> Green parties are all about imposing restrictions on humans ostensibly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >certain freedoms is implemented, in order to preserve >other freedoms they deem of higher value. This is what comes of calling everything a "freedom". If I build my house on a vacant lot (which I own), you can't look at my vacant lot any more. But that's not a loss of your freedom. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Dec 9, 1:12 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > >Well, if the environment is damaged, then I have lost my > >freedom to enjoy that environment. So the restriction of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > house on a vacant lot (which I own), you can't look at my vacant lot > any more. But that's not a loss of your freedom. And yet it is a loss of freedom if a company has to restrict its carbon emissions? Sorry, but I don't agree with that yardstick. > On Dec 9, 1:12 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > And yet it is a loss of freedom if a company has to restrict > its carbon emissions? Sorry, but I don't agree with that yardstick. The BS about CO2 isn't about controlling corporations... it's about controlling the people. Telling you how you may live, how many children you may, basically taking near total control over your life for the sake of the planet. It's about the same as the priests that demanded the people obey them or the monster would eat the sun. >On Dec 9, 1:12 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >And yet it is a loss of freedom if a company has to restrict >its carbon emissions? I'd consider it a major loss of freedom if I had to restrict my own carbon emissions. It's right up there with breathing. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. Ad absurdum per aspera <jtchew@california.com> wrote in news:e8a98e75-9e56- 4128-86d5-1048545f34e4@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com: >> Apparently his car had some parts on it that were stolen (e.g. the >> transmission had the serial number filed off). [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > smaller, lighter cars or use as replacements for the parts that they > burn out or blow up. ) MANY urban areas have this problem;my 94 Integra GS-R was stolen,stripped,and torched June 29th.(Orlando,Fl. area) IMO,just crushing his car was not justice. (unless he was IN it at the time!) B-) Unless he could provide bills of sale,he should get jail time for possession of stolen auto parts. > Although no expert on registration procedures, I think there are > specific provisions for salvage-title Frankensteins, kit cars, and > other cases in which there might be legitimate VIN or serial number > conflicts. They should require bills-of-sale with S/Ns recorded. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> Although no expert on registration procedures, I think there are >> specific provisions for salvage-title Frankensteins, kit cars, and >> other cases in which there might be legitimate VIN or serial number >> conflicts. > >They should require bills-of-sale with S/Ns recorded. Guilty until proven innocent? Replace any major component in a car, and you'll have VIN mismatches. No need for salvage titles or anything like that. If my engine blows up and I have it replaced with a salvage yard pull, and three years later the cops find out the numbers don't match (maybe my mechanic noticed and told them, maybe I got pulled over for speeding and the cop was bored and checked), should my car should be crushed because I lost the receipt for the engine? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Clifford Sung was arrested Oct. 15 by Long Beach police officers after > they noticed his Honda's modified exhaust system. Once Sung was > stopped, officers saw other signs of illegal street racing, including > a fiberglass hood and a sway bar on the back of the car. This is ridiculous. Fiberglass hoods increase the car's fuel economy (fighting global warming, too). Sway bars improve the car's handling, meaning it is less likely to lose control and kill someone. The story doesn't go into detail about his exhaust, but installing a free-flow exhaust instead of the factory option, usually increases fuel efficiency. >> Clifford Sung was arrested Oct. 15 by Long Beach police officers after >> they noticed his Honda's modified exhaust system. Once Sung was [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >a free-flow exhaust instead of the factory option, usually >increases fuel efficiency. The average IQ of a police officer is .... Need I say more? Just better than a clerk, teller, Walmart... LOLOL!!! http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/Definition_of_IQ.html SignatureJeeps and dubs and everything's nice... Old Wolf <oldwolf@inspire.net.nz> wrote in news:e3cdaca2-39e9-485b-8f07- faac14280b16@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com: >> Clifford Sung was arrested Oct. 15 by Long Beach police officers after >> they noticed his Honda's modified exhaust system. Once Sung was [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a free-flow exhaust instead of the factory option, usually > increases fuel efficiency. but usually violates noise ordinances. There may be more to this story than what was reported in the article. the very wording of the article may be added bias from the "reporter". SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by > court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with > altered parts." According to the report, the car (a blue Honda Civic) > had headers and a turbocharger "meant for racing." WTF???? Since when was it illegal to own a car with headers and a turbo? (in fact, how does one have both headers and a turbo? Wouldn't you want a cast manifold with a turbo? I'd think you could only use a "shorty" header at best, and it'd have to be thick stainless to stand up to the turbo heat.) Or is there more to the story, like the parts used didn't have valid CARB certification? nate > KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by > court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with > altered parts." According to the report, the car (a blue Honda Civic) > had headers and a turbocharger "meant for racing." Headers ? Graham >>KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by >>court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Graham Tubular exhaust manifolds. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by > >>court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Tubular exhaust manifolds. What's wrong with those ? By reducing gas flow losses they should make the engine more efficient which has to be a good thing. Graham >>>>KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by >>>>court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Graham There's nothing wrong with them, unless they're not CARB approved (all cars in California and increasingly other states need to have CARB approval on any aftermarket parts to ensure that emissions are not negatively affected.) I wish I knew more about this particular instance, because I've got a real problem with the presence of (presumably legal, as the phrase "not CARB approved" did not appear in the article) aftermarket parts being used apparently as evidence of racing. Now in the article Scott posted it was mentioned that the car had a "B18 engine from Japan" - I don't know what that means in Honda-speak but if it was a Japan-market only engine, it might not be legal to run in California and therefore there might have actually been solid legal reasons for confiscating the car, whether you agree with it or not. I just have the feeling, and this is pure speculation, that the truth is somewhere in between. The car might have been a "fast and furious" wannabe ricemobile, and the driver may have had the attitude to match. The car may have been crushed for legitimately unapproved equipment, and the whole suspicion of street racing thing and the mention of the 'glass hood and headers might have just been an ignorant reporter's shorthand. At least, I really *hope* so. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > Now in the article Scott posted it was mentioned that the car had a "B18 > engine from Japan" - I don't know what that means in Honda-speak but if > it was a Japan-market only engine, it might not be legal to run in > California and therefore there might have actually been solid legal > reasons for confiscating the car, whether you agree with it or not. It is a moot point as finding it was the result of a search that violated the Bill of Rights. > I just have the feeling, and this is pure speculation, that the truth is > somewhere in between. The car might have been a "fast and furious" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > At least, I really *hope* so. That's just as bad IMO. Because it says that the government's thugs may stop you any time they feel like it and decide if your vehicle has equipment not approved by the government and then take it. Cops can't tell one car model from another yet they will decide the legality of the finer points of modifications on the spot when ever they want to? It's absurd on its face. The slight risk of increased emissions is not worth the huge risk of drastically reduced liberty. Eeyore: > > >>KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by > > >>court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What's wrong with those ? By reducing gas flow losses they should make the > engine more efficient which has to be a good thing. Not to the simple minds that govern in the USA (esp in CA). -- "THose who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, govern." --Unknown > KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by > court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with > altered parts." According to the report, the car (a blue Honda Civic) > had headers and a turbocharger "meant for racing." Sheesh...just as I was considering buying a trailer hitch and winch for my Jeep. Eep. > KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by > court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with > altered parts." According to the report, the car (a blue Honda Civic) > had headers and a turbocharger "meant for racing." No contest, if I recall correctly, is treated like a guilty plea. As such, if the penalty for being guilty of street racing or modifying the car for street racing is to have it crushed, then that would be proper justice. >>KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by >>court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > if the penalty for being guilty of street racing or modifying the car for > street racing is to have it crushed, then that would be proper justice. I guess the real problem I have with this is what is the difference between modifying a car for street racing and modifying it for officially sanctioned racing events? nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by >>>court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > between modifying a car for street racing and modifying it for > officially sanctioned racing events? Those that support such laws likely do so under the control freak line of thinking, the it doesn't effect me line of thinking, or the authoritarian line of thinking. In the first, they see no reason for racing period and believe that there is no difference between the two, racing should be banned because they think its better that way. In the second they don't race cars so they are just unconcerned about what happens to people who do. In the third they believe authority is always correct and can tell the difference, apply the law correctly, and only punish the 'bad' people. >>>KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by >>>court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > nate "street racing" is not legal,while track racing is,provided it not include street operation. If the modified auto raced at the track is driven to and from the track on public roads,it must comply with the usual street vehicle regs. If one trailers the modified auto to and from the track,then it need not comply with those regs. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>>KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by >>>>court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > If one trailers the modified auto to and from the track,then it need not > comply with those regs. Right, I understand that. The news article was real sketchy on the details but "fiberglass hood" (likely really carbon fiber) and "rear sway bar" were listed as evidence of modifications made for racing, and I'm confused as to why they wouldn't be suitable for street use. The "headers and turbo" maybe I could understand, but the other stuff? If the state of California's official position is that adding a sway bar or a fiberglass hood is illegal, I'm certain that I don't want to live there. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>>KTLA reports that a Lakewood (CA) teen's ricemobile was crushed by > >>>>court order after he pleaded no contest to "possessing a vehicle with [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Same here. You don't even need a specially modified car to 'street race'. Don't ask how I know ;). By the way that article reads, they could grab any car at all off the road and crush it as any car can 'street race'. Mere possession of an item that _can_ be used in criminal acivity is not sufficient for legal action...well, I guess possession of burglary tools has pretty well be accepted as prima facia evidence of criminal activity. I for sure don't agree with it. Harry K > Mere possession of an item that _can_ be used in criminal acivity is > not sufficient for legal action...well, I guess possession of burglary > tools has pretty well be accepted as prima facia evidence of criminal > activity. I for sure don't agree with it. Or they are just tools for locksmithing.... Law is getting a very 12th century flavor to it as of recent years. Given the adminstrative courts and various legislation passed in recent years we are probably see trials for heresy and something a lot like witch trials before things get better. Of course there is always H.R.1955/S.1959 >>Mere possession of an item that _can_ be used in criminal acivity is >>not sufficient for legal action...well, I guess possession of burglary [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Or they are just tools for locksmithing.... Law is getting a very 12th > century flavor to it as of recent years. Or you could have someone like me who works on old cars and has a slim jim laying around because sometimes locksmithing and auto repair are the same thing... nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> In article >> <ea7c75de-02d9-400d-940e-f06592436bbb@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>burglary tools has pretty well be accepted as prima facia evidence of >>>criminal activity. I for sure don't agree with it. It warrants a closer investigation to see if the person with the tool owns the vehicle or has legal business being where they are. Time of day is a factor,too. If I catch you next to MY car with a slim jim,you're in REAL trouble. >> Or they are just tools for locksmithing.... Law is getting a very >> 12th century flavor to it as of recent years. My car was slim-jimmed twice;the 1st time they stole my ECU,the 2nd they took the whole car. "gone in 60 seconds" describes it perfectly. I am NOT real pleased with the open and easy sale of such tools. IMO,you should have to pay a locksmith if you lock yourself out,those slim- jims should not be available to the general public. > Or you could have someone like me who works on old cars and has a slim > jim laying around because sometimes locksmithing and auto repair are > the same thing... > > nate depends on if you own the car you're opening,or the owner is with you/you have their consent. you can be detained until that is verified. I suggest you keep a spare key in your wallet. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > >> In article > >> <ea7c75de-02d9-400d-940e-f06592436...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > at > kua.net aye, but then there is this: Last hunting season, I hauled a small load of brush, trimmings, leaves out to the wood lot to dump on a brush pile. Guy with bird dog was sitting on his tailgate at my entrance. I dumped and stopped to talk to him on my way out. He borrowed my key to see if it would unlock his rig as they were both the same make/yr. Didn't work. He explained he had been waiting 2 hours for a locksmith to show up. Had been hunting birds, opened up to get some coffee and lunch. Bumped door which shut and locked with the keys inside. 'No problem', sez he, "I'll just use my spare key from my wallet". Nope. That was in his coat pocket that he had just tossed into the cab. Locksmith showed as we were bs'ing. That sounds unbelievable but it is true. I told him I keep my spare in a magnetic key safe tucked up under bed side rail. He decided his is going to be in a similar location. Harry K >He explained he had been waiting 2 hours for a locksmith to show up. >Had been hunting birds, opened up to get some coffee and lunch. >Bumped door which shut and locked with the keys inside. 'No problem', >sez he, "I'll just use my spare key from my wallet". Nope. That was >in his coat pocket that he had just tossed into the cab. That's what I love about my car: since it doesn't use a key, the access control device never has to come out of my pocket. Thus, there's no chance of locking it inside the vehicle. Even if I were to remove it from my pants pocket and leave it in the cupholder or something, the car would detect that the access device is inside the car and refuse to lock the doors if I were to close them. Not that I have ever locked myself out of any car, even the ones with regular keys, but this newfangled system gives me a nice warm fuzzy. :) > It warrants a closer investigation to see if the person with the tool owns > the vehicle or has legal business being where they are. In other words, government permission for just about everything. > My car was slim-jimmed twice;the 1st time they stole my ECU,the 2nd they > took the whole car. "gone in 60 seconds" describes it perfectly. Proof that the laws are not effective. > I am NOT real pleased with the open and easy sale of such tools. > IMO,you should have to pay a locksmith if you lock yourself out,those slim- > jims should not be available to the general public. I've been able to enter my own cars with a coathanger faster than I've seen cops use slim jims to help people locked out of their cars. The times someone tried to steal the oldsmobile their weapon was a screwdriver and the damage they did wasn't pretty. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message