Man Yelled “Black Lives Matter!” After Attacking Police Officer at Traffic Stop

a reply to: Blueracer

So you're going with that as your rebuttal to what Xcathdra said to you, because that is the same thing as trying to promote something that can save someones life...SMH

I love how people can fall back on "in the old days black people had to sit in the back of the bus" I think everyone is in agreement that that was wrong, however this is not the same situation, seatbelts aid in the saving on ones life during a car accident and the enforcement of wearing them is a benefit to everyone on the road.

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: Xcathdra

It used to be a law that black people sit at the back of the bus or not to drink from water fountains that were designated for white people only. You think that was okay? You know...because it was the law?

Of course not and those laws violated federal law / civil rights act. Thats how the feds were able to dispatch US marshals and federalize the state guard units to enforce the law.

Since then we added 42 USC 1983 for civil rights violations by people acting under authority / color of law.

In case you didnt realize it was case by case in the south that resulted in Rosa Parks, Dr. King, the civil rights act etc etc.

Moving the goal posts of your argument back to a time when laws were different doesnt really help your argument.

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: Xcathdra

This is a discussion about the driver in the OP getting pulled over for no seat belt. A BS reason to pull anyone over.

Your feelings on the matter are aside from the law. The law does give law enforcement the right to pull people over for not wearing their seatbelts. As it happens, I agree with you that government does not exist to save us from our own stupidity, and if you want to be an idiot and not wear a seatbelt, that's on you, but when you have a wreck and fly through your windshield and sustain severe brain damage, you should likewise not expect the state to support you because you didn't do everything you could to avoid that situation by wearing a seatbelt.

But that's just me.

As it happens, lawmakers disagree and feel like they should save you from your own idiocy and penalize you for not wearing your seatbelt because they know no one would stand seeing the severely brain damaged dying on the streets no matter how they go that way.

a reply to: ketsuko

Give up freedom for safety....Let's see how this turns out.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: ketsuko

Give up freedom for safety....Let's see how this turns out.

Seasonal, im sorry but explain to me how getting pulled over for a seatbelt violation is the same thing as giving up your freedom.

The guy in your OP was pulled over for a seatbelt violation, nothing showed that he had any reason to believe as long as he went along with all lawful orders he would have been on his marry way, the only person at fault here is the driver.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: ketsuko

Give up freedom for safety....Let's see how this turns out.

Usually in an accident where the person seat-belted in survives..

Like I said before though... You dont want to wear a seat belt while driving - you can always walk or ride a bicycle. You arent forced to drive anywhere.

a reply to: caf1550

You don't see that if you do not want to wear a seat belt you shouldn't have to? Being fined is a way to force people into obeying. That is a loss of a freedom.

The laws for motor bike helmets are being modified to allow no brain bucket.

If safety was the real reason, there would be some consistency. Safety is not the reason.

If you disagree it is OK.

a reply to: seasonal

Each state is responsible for their own laws so you will have inconsistency. You will have different laws in each state that you are subject to if in that state, whether your a citizen of that state or not (in regards to traffic laws).

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: caf1550

You don't see that if you do not want to wear a seat belt you shouldn't have to? Being fined is a way to force people into obeying. That is a loss of a freedom.

The laws for motor bike helmets are being modified to allow no brain bucket.

If safety was the real reason, there would be some consistency. Safety is not the reason.

If you disagree it is OK.

I have already stated many times in this post, you can make the choice not to wear a seatbelt but like other people have stated you are taking the chance of seriously injuring yourself or loosing your life for not wearing it, but when you get stopped for it you have to answer for it. The fine is there to promote people to doing something that can heighten there chances of surviving a car wreck. Where do you see no consistency, all the fines except for 9 states are quite close in comparison, and each state as the right to come up with there own fine.

a reply to: caf1550

You see wearing a helmet on a motorcycle as a safety device?

The laws are being modified to allow helmetless riding.

If one day you have the freedom to not wear a belt and the next day you must, or else. That is a loss of freedom. And I agree the belt is a safety devise.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: caf1550

You don't see that if you do not want to wear a seat belt you shouldn't have to? Being fined is a way to force people into obeying. That is a loss of a freedom.

The laws for motor bike helmets are being modified to allow no brain bucket.

If safety was the real reason, there would be some consistency. Safety is not the reason.

If you disagree it is OK.

Seat belt laws are bought and paid for by lobbyists for auto insurance companies.
The motorcycle helmet laws don't help insurance companies. They pay out less for a death than they do for a person that has a helmet on and spends the rest of their life paralyzed or in a vegetative state.
Politicians could give three #s if you are injured in a crash, they do like money though.

a reply to: butcherguy

At 10-30 dollars a pop I doubt it.

The argument seems to be that it is valid only because it is a law. Yet I bring up things that were law at one time and the same side freaks out. There were BS laws then and there are BS laws now.

a reply to: seasonal

So I can go two ways with the helmets on motorcycles, they reduce the risk of death on a bike by 37% which is not a very high percentage, and I can understand why people don't want to wear helmets just like I can understand why people don't wear seat belts but in all 50 states it is the law to wear your seatbelt where as only 19 states say you must wear a helmet and 28 say a certain age group must

The classic misconception with most people today is that wearing a helmet is all you need to be safe on a motorcycle. Well, if the accident involves the motorcyclist traveling no faster than 17 mph, then maybe so. Please do some research, as most of us have, and you will find that even the executives of helmet companies cannot guarantee that their helmets will withstand an impact of greater than 15 mph. Fact, not just opinion.

Seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about half.12 Seat belts saved almost 14,000 lives in 2015.3 Air bags provide added protection but are not a substitute for seat belts. Air bags plus seat belts provide the greatest protection for adults.1

Helmets saved an estimated 1,772 lives in 2015.1 If all motorcyclists would have worn helmets in 2015, 740 more could have been saved. Each year, the United States could save more than $1billion if all motorcyclists wore helmets.2 Helmets reduce the risk of death by 37%.2 Helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 69%.3,4

Safety

a reply to: Blueracer

You tried to say that seat belt laws are the same thing as saying black people have to sit on the back of the bus or drink at different water fountains, not even close to comparison.

Everyone agrees that those laws were wrong and effected a entire race, had no life saving merits to them. Seat belts do have life saving merits to them, they are not attached to one race but everyone, you can still choose to not wear your seat belt like I have stated many times, it is your choice, do whatever it is you want.

I actually can't believe you are trying to compare those two things. No one is fighting seat belt laws though marches and civil rights action, everyone (except for you) understand the life saving values of wearing them and everyone realizes that you can still make the choice not to wear it.

originally posted by: Blueracer
The argument seems to be that it is valid only because it is a law. Yet I bring up things that were law at one time and the same side freaks out. There were BS laws then and there are BS laws now.

Sure however comparing a seat belt law to the civil rights movement... it really has no comparison. Now if the seat belt law only applied to certain ethnic groups while making it illegal for other ethnic groups then you might have a point.

Since the seat-belt laws protect everyone, there is no comparison.

Since the laws on resisting a lawful detention / arrest / stop are designed to protect everyone, the guy in the op article has no case.

originally posted by: caf1550
a reply to: Blueracer

You tried to say that seat belt laws are the same thing as saying black people have to sit on the back of the bus or drink at different water fountains, not even close to comparison.

Complete rubbish and you are totally clueless.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I didn't. Trying to get a gage on if you ever felt a law was unjust or if you agree with all laws just because they were the law.

originally posted by: Blueracer

originally posted by: caf1550
a reply to: Blueracer

You tried to say that seat belt laws are the same thing as saying black people have to sit on the back of the bus or drink at different water fountains, not even close to comparison.

Complete rubbish and you are totally clueless.

Really complete rubbish...you someone who believes a seat belt law is unjust is comparing it to another law that everyone agrees is unjust, but me calling you out for it makes me clueless, Ok. Those two laws are not even close in comparison, one went against the civil rights of an entire race while the other promotes safety but im the clueless one.

The seat belt law doesn't state that only one race must wear a seat belt while all the others are free to do as they please, It is for everyone to wear a seat belt for your own safety while operating or being a passenger in a vehicle, it is no way racist, sexist or whatever else you want to try and compare it to. No one is arguing the unjust factor of certain laws during certain periods of time. We are arguing whether it is lawful or not to pull someone over for not wearing a seat belt which has been stated time and time again is a lawful reason to stop someone in most states and a fine able offense in every state but now you are trying to spin it into the same thing that civil rights was.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: caf1550

You see wearing a helmet on a motorcycle as a safety device?

The laws are being modified to allow helmetless riding.

If one day you have the freedom to not wear a belt and the next day you must, or else. That is a loss of freedom. And I agree the belt is a safety devise.

Honestly, idc if seatbelt is law, it does not hurt anyone to wear it. Why is everyone digging in every little thing they can about a silly seat belt law? Pffft, i care about freedoms being taken away such as my 1st or 2nd amendment, etc. Those are far more important and needing to protect then argue over why we have a seatbelt laws, dont care, keep it simple!