Police Deleted My Photo's!! C&C Also

[rfosness88]

I was with you right up til this point. The cops have the right to protect the people that live in that town. Under age drinking leads to all kinds of problems besides dui's and alcohol poisoning.

If your drunk driving, committing other crimes, being belligerent, over intoxicated, violent...ect you deserve a ticket. If im a 20yr old quietly walking home to my dorm after 2-3 beers I do not deserve a $300 ticket. If I blow a .000001 while driving I do not deserve a DUI. I personally have not gotten any tickets, but I do not they should over crowd the city with police officers because they can make a lot of money on harmless people.


Rofls to the good day sir

 

[Mgw189]

If your drunk driving, committing other crimes, being belligerent, over intoxicated, violent...ect you deserve a ticket. If im a 20yr old quietly walking home to my dorm after 2-3 beers I do not deserve a $300 ticket. If I blow a .000001 while driving I do not deserve a DUI. I personally have not gotten any tickets, but I do not they should over crowd the city with police officers because they can make a lot of money on harmless people.


Rofls to the good day sir

Think what you want but breaking the law is breaking the law. I dont care if you are 21 at midnight and drink at 11:59 you are still knowingly breaking the law. If you choose to break the law you also choose to suffer the consequences if caught. This is the problem with most people who break the law.

You know what the law is dont break it. Plain and simple. I know its against the law to speed however I do it every time I get in my car. It is my choice not to follow the speed limit. It doesnt matter if I am doing 31 in a 30 or 75 in a 55 the law has still been broken and I choose to deal with the consequences. I just dont get the well I only kinda broke the law mentality.

 

[rfosness88]

idk i guess i view it as a 10yr old selling lemonade without a business license.

 

[Mgw189]

idk i guess i view it as a 10yr old selling lemonade without a business license.

Really? WOW! Congrats this is officially the most ignorant post on any message board I have even belonged to. :hail::hail::hail::hail::hail::hail:

 

[table1349]

rfosness88;1544087]ya, im just sick of them ticketing all of the underage drinkers, ya it's illegal, but why dont they catch the real criminals.

So tell me, What is a real criminal??? In the academy they never had a course on real criminals and unreal criminals. We were taught that there are laws and people either followed the law or they didn't. The ones that don't follow the law are the reason for the criminal court system.

Merriam Webster:

Main Entry1 crim·i·nalPronunciation: \ˈkri-mə-nəl, ˈkrim-nəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French criminal, from Late Latin criminalis, from Latin crimin-, crimen crime
Date: 15th century 1: relating to, involving, or being a crime <criminal neglect>

2: relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime <criminal statistics> <brought criminal action>

3: guilty of crime ; also : of or befitting a criminal <a criminal mind>

4: disgraceful

I guess we should have let the 21 year old drunk driver go from a month or so ago that ran from the police, crashed her car into another vehicle and killed two people, cause she wasn't a real criminal.

Funny thing about alcohol, drinkers tend to over indulge, especially young drinkers. And young drinkers tend to think there is nothing wrong with it, and in that mental state they also see nothing wrong with driving. The sad thing about this whole way of thinking. It takes serious injury or death to usually get someone out of the "breaking some of the laws really isn't bad" mentality.

I know a lot of people that have moved to coke and heroin because they are afraid of getting breathalyzed.

Right....and I know a lot of burglars that were afraid of going to jail for a year or two if they got caught with another persons stuff so they became rapist and serial killers instead.

 

[anubis404]

Think what you want but breaking the law is breaking the law. I dont care if you are 21 at midnight and drink at 11:59 you are still knowingly breaking the law. If you choose to break the law you also choose to suffer the consequences if caught. This is the problem with most people who break the law.

Have you ever heard of Kohlberg's moral stages? Making moral decisions based on the belief that the law is absolute is classic stage 4, which is still considered a primitive way of moral reasoning. People don't deserve to be punished simply because the law says so. Following the law only because it is the law got us nowhere in history, and it will get us nowhere now.

 

[mosu84]

Have you ever heard of Kohlberg's moral stages? Making moral decisions based on the belief that the law is absolute is classic stage 4, which is still considered a primitive way of moral reasoning. People don't deserve to be punished simply because the law says so. Following the law only because it is the law got us nowhere in history, and it will get us nowhere now.

That may be the most enlightened moral reasoning theory, but I don't think Kohlberg is going to make you feel better when you're handcuffed in the back of a police car at 2am.

I don't really care if I deserved to get punished; I care if I am actually getting punished and there is nothing I can do about it.

 

[mosu84]

I guess we should have let the 21 year old drunk driver go from a month or so ago that ran from the police, crashed her car into another vehicle and killed two people, cause she wasn't a real criminal.

Funny thing about alcohol, drinkers tend to over indulge, especially young drinkers. And young drinkers tend to think there is nothing wrong with it, and in that mental state they also see nothing wrong with driving. The sad thing about this whole way of thinking. It takes serious injury or death to usually get someone out of the "breaking some of the laws really isn't bad" mentality.

Kind of an unfair counterargument. It's my understanding that the other poster isn't condoning eliminating DUIs, drunk and disorderly conduct, etc. He's just arguing that punishing the state of being drunk underage is a silly law in the sense that it is a government-knows-best protection for 20-year-old adults. By all means, when a 20-year-old drives drunk he should be punished severely. I would be willing to bet the other poster would classify a DUI as a real crime.

 

[DRoberts]

My only question would be if the girl in the back of the police car was a minor. If so I could see the officer asking you to delete those photos. But as stated there was no legal bases for you to have to erase anything, or hand your equipment over. Stand up to these people and refuse.

 

[anubis404]

That may be the most enlightened moral reasoning theory, but I don't think Kohlberg is going to make you feel better when you're handcuffed in the back of a police car at 2am.

I don't really care if I deserved to get punished; I care if I am actually getting punished and there is nothing I can do about it.

That's perfectly fine, but don't think you are doing the right thing by following the law. Whether you want to stand up for your rights or be walked on by authority figures is your choice, but don't think standing up for your rights will be easy. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't get off easy, and neither will you, however that does not make your actions wrong. The post I was responding to had a condescending tone, as if he was scolding the poster for doing the wrong thing. If anything, standing up for your rights is more courageous than wrong.

 

[DRoberts]

Kind of an unfair counterargument. It's my understanding that the other poster isn't condoning eliminating DUIs, drunk and disorderly conduct, etc. He's just arguing that punishing the state of being drunk underage is a silly law in the sense that it is a government-knows-best protection for 20-year-old adults. By all means, when a 20-year-old drives drunk he should be punished severely. I would be willing to bet the other poster would classify a DUI as a real crime.

Yes but this leaves one to rationalize that the only "unfair" laws are the ones that affect the individuals wants. To a 19 or 20 year old "minor in possession" laws are stupid. So should they be abiolished? To a vigilante murderer "murder laws are stupid, so should they then be abolished as well?
There's no way to please everyone, but laws are needed. So as a society of responsible people we either respect them and accept the consequence for breaking them, or we go to a complete anarchist society and let the strong survive.

 

[mosu84]

Yes but this leaves one to rationalize that the only "unfair" laws are the ones that affect the individuals wants. To a 19 or 20 year old "minor in possession" laws are stupid. So should they be abiolished? To a vigilante murderer "murder laws are stupid, so should they then be abolished as well?
There's no way to please everyone, but laws are needed. So as a society of responsible people we either respect them and accept the consequence for breaking them, or we go to a complete anarchist society and let the strong survive.

Well I'm not really arguing one way or another, but the argument is that "unfair" laws are any laws that punish victimless crimes. That is the main distinction the other poster had in mind.

I agree with you that once a law is in place it is best to just follow it -- for the most part. If you do break it, accept the consequences. However, the above poster is right that not all laws have the same benefit to society, and perhaps their resources are best diverted elsewhere.

 

[anubis404]

Yes but this leaves one to rationalize that the only "unfair" laws are the ones that affect the individuals wants. To a 19 or 20 year old "minor in possession" laws are stupid. So should they be abiolished? To a vigilante murderer "murder laws are stupid, so should they then be abolished as well?
There's no way to please everyone, but laws are needed. So as a society of responsible people we either respect them and accept the consequence for breaking them, or we go to a complete anarchist society and let the strong survive.

"I don't want to sound like Spiro Agnew, law and order and wave the flag, but if everybody did as he wanted to do, set up his own beliefs as to right and wrong, then I think you would have chaos."

"At stage 4, in contrast, the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with society as a whole. Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one's duties so that the social order is maintained."

You are basically arguing that the only reason people follow laws is because they fear the legal ramifications (Stage 1 behavior). Considering that the majority of society has moral reasoning ability beyond stage 1, your scenario is unrealistic. I am not contending the need for laws, I am contending whether these laws should be held as absolute. Humans are fallible, so who is to say that the laws made by humans are right in the first place? I'm sure the Jews living in Poland during the 40s would disagree with your argument. Do the right thing because it is right, not because the law states that it is right.

Judging from the information given by the poster, the intentions of the local laws come into question. If would seem that the city is more interested in picking the pockets of legal adults rather than protecting the public.

 

[Josh66]

Do you guys really understand what is going on? Criminals know what the law is, they just don't care.

Just like how I know the law, but I choose not to obey certain ones.
I know the consequences, and I will face them if I have to. There are some laws that I feel are not constitutional, so I choose not to comply. If I had a good enough lawyer, I could probably get off - but I probably can't afford that kind of lawyer, so I accept the consequences if I get caught. I don't break many laws, and the ones I do break don't draw much attention so I usually "get away with it". I don't feel that I'm "getting away" with anything though - I feel that I am within my constitutional rights and that the laws I choose to ignore are an infringement on those rights.

 

[Josh66]

Just one example-
The seat belt law

I wear my seat belt most of the time, but I don't think we need a law for it. It should be your own personal choice.

The 'seat belt law' is entirely about generating revenue. That's it.
(Do you really think they care about your safety?)