Go back
sneaky tactics

sneaky tactics

General

Vote Up
Vote Down

Yesterday as we drove around our crazy hectic town there was alot of spring cleanup and construction going on. A normal sight for this time of year. At least until you became "in the know".

Dressed in coveralls and a hard hat blending in with the road crew was mrs. police officer. watching traffic with her radio in hand so that her good co-workers up the road could pull over non suspecting drivers who were not wearing their seatbelts.

Mabey it's just me but this seems absolutley absurd. Our town has doubled in population due to the oil boom, violent crime is run rampant and our police force is doing a major sting opporation to crack down on dangerous seat belt offenders!

They build the roads, put up the stop signs, erect the street lights and make me pass a drivers test berfore taking to the streets but deciding it's in my best interests to buckle up and enforcing me to do so is going beyond public service.

It's a $155.00 ticket here if you are caught unbuckled. This is a blatant mafia style tactic to fatten the governments own wallets. There's no money I guess in catching actual criminals. Hell go harrass the drunk drivers or morons yaking on their cell phones while driving through red lights. Or better yet the perverts out stalking and molesting our children, murdering women and stealing our identities.

Just hits a bit of a sore spot with me. Inerested in hearing about seatbelt laws elsewhere and peoples opinions on them. Espesially sneaky enforcement tactics of them.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by mokko
Yesterday as we drove around our crazy hectic town there was alot of spring cleanup and construction going on. A normal sight for this time of year. At least until you became "in the know".

Dressed in coveralls and a hard hat blending in with the road crew was mrs. police officer. watching traffic with her radio in hand so that her good co-workers up the ...[text shortened]... belt laws elsewhere and peoples opinions on them. Espesially sneaky enforcement tactics of them.
Do you know that if you were a subscriber to this site I would take you to task about democracy and who passes the laws and about how some people want to be selective about which laws are enforced etc. etc. but I'll just say this, "Buckle up = no fine = no revenue for the government." It's up to you.

Pay up or shut up.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by colleman
Do you know that if you were a subscriber to this site I would take you to task about democracy and who passes the laws and about how some people want to be selective about which laws are enforced etc. etc. but I'll just say this, "Buckle up = no fine = no revenue for the government." It's up to you.

Pay up or shut up.

That's rediculous, this is a public forum. I'm very disturbed by the discrimination against non-subscribers. Some non-subscribers are jerks, that post useless things. But a lot of them are intelligent, like mokko. If you don't want to say anything, that's fine. But don't make them feel bad just because they don't want to fork over the extra 30 bucks for more games that they may not want.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by colleman
Do you know that if you were a subscriber to this site I would take you to task about democracy and who passes the laws and about how some people want to be selective about which laws are enforced etc. etc. but I'll just say this, "Buckle up = no fine = no revenue for the government." It's up to you.

Pay up or shut up.

Here's your pill.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ark13
That's rediculous, this is a public forum. I'm very disturbed by the discrimination against non-subscribers. Some non-subscribers are jerks, that post useless things. But a lot of them are intelligent, like mokko. If you don't want to say anything, that's fine. But don't make them feel bad just because they don't want to fork over the extra 30 bucks for more games that they may not want.
You're right, some posters are intelligent. I'll wait until they post before making any further comment.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by shavixmir
Here's your pill.
Thank you - just what I needed

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by colleman
Do you know that if you were a subscriber to this site I would take you to task about democracy and who passes the laws and about how some people want to be selective about which laws are enforced etc. etc. but I'll just say this, "Buckle up = no fine = no revenue for the government." It's up to you.

Pay up or shut up.

I'm not stupid just poor. Didn't know that was a crime. Fine, it'a a law I get that part. If you were so inclined you would see that my beef is with the time and energy spent on sneaky tactics used and wasted on enforcing such an intrusive law. If you catch someone you catch someone but to play dressup as a constuction worker alongside the roadway just to nab people for not wearing sealt belts seems extreme. Time and energy could much better be spent else where. And hey I gladly pay the price for not wearing my sealt belt when i so choose not to. Sadly this is why I'm poor! :'(

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ark13
That's rediculous, this is a public forum. I'm very disturbed by the discrimination against non-subscribers. Some non-subscribers are jerks, that post useless things. But a lot of them are intelligent, like mokko. If you don't want to say anything, that's fine. But don't make them feel bad just because they don't want to fork over the extra 30 bucks for more games that they may not want.
😀😀😀😀
The nicest thing anyone has ever said about me.
Thank you for the support.
I think I'll stay awhile longer
🙂

Vote Up
Vote Down

Hmm, I wonder if Skeet'll get wind of this thread. I'm sure he'd have a thing or two to say about non-subscribers.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by mokko
I'm not stupid just poor. Didn't know that was a crime. Fine, it'a a law I get that part. If you were so inclined you would see that my beef is with the time and energy spent on sneaky tactics used and wasted on enforcing such an intrusive law. If you catch someone you catch someone but to play dressup as a constuction worker alongside the roadway just to n ...[text shortened]... e price for not wearing my sealt belt when i so choose not to. Sadly this is why I'm poor! :'(
OK OK I'm sorry if I upset you, I've had a couple of drinks and you touched a nerve with your post.

Am I right in thinking that you believe that all resources should be concentrated on dealing with major crime and that traffic offences ( for example ) should be ignored?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Bowmann
Hmm, I wonder if Skeet'll get wind of this thread. I'm sure he'd have a thing or two to say about non-subscribers.
SHE, SHE, SHE!!!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by colleman
OK OK I'm sorry if I upset you, I've had a couple of drinks and you touched a nerve with your post.

Am I right in thinking that you believe that all resources should be concentrated on dealing with major crime and that traffic offences ( for example ) should be ignored?
No, traffic offences should not be ignored. But a failure to comply with wearing your sealt belt is not harming anyone else but myself. And I'm not saying that I don't wear my seat bealt the majority of the time either. But to set up such an elabotare farce to catch these so called seat belt offenders is beyond ridiculous! This is time that could be better spent. I would much prefer to see random check stops being preformed to catch drunk drivers than a "sting" opperation for handing out seat belt tickets. I am the only one who thinks this is crazy!!!
If not wearing your seat belt is causing a major epidemic in traffic collisions then please let me know beacause as far as I'm aware it is not.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Police have got wise to the fact there's no point in targetingcriminals ... if you go after murderers rapists and muggers then they'll just deny it, and may be violent -> expensive investigation -> expensive trial -> expensive incarceration on the off chance they get convicted, it's a loss of revenue all the way down the line. Whereas targeting law adiding taxpayers for offences like littering and not wearing seatbelts -> offender admits offence and appologises -> offender gets issued with a fixed penalty fine without any expensive trial -> offender likely to pay up .... it's got to be a winner.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by mokko
No, traffic offences should not be ignored. But a failure to comply with wearing your sealt belt is not harming anyone else but myself. And I'm not saying that I don't wear my seat bealt the majority of the time either. But to set up such an elabotare farce to catch these so called seat belt offenders is beyond ridiculous! This is time that could be better s ...[text shortened]... epidemic in traffic collisions then please let me know beacause as far as I'm aware it is not.
OK, so you have a beef about this particular law but the fact is that the wearing of seat belts results in fewer people being killed or seriously injured. I really don't care whether you think it is a 'sneaky' way to save lives or not, I'm in favour of it.
There are those who make a similar complaint about being caught for speeding, especially by cameras. I don't understand it; If you don't break the law you don't suffer any consequence.
You cannot pick and choose which laws you are going to obey and which you are not. The method of enforcement is irrelevant, the most effective means should be used.
You elect somebody to represent you in government; they pass laws and everyone should respect those laws. If you don't like it, vote for someone who reflects your views - that's democracy.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Siskin
Police have got wise to the fact there's no point in targetingcriminals ... if you go after murderers rapists and muggers then they'll just deny it, and may be violent -> expensive investigation -> expensive trial -> expensive incarceration on the off chance they get convicted, it's a loss of revenue all the way down the line. Whereas targeting law adid ...[text shortened]... ty fine without any expensive trial -> offender likely to pay up .... it's got to be a winner.
You sir, are a total pratt!