NY GESTAPO CONFISCATING AUTOS: A CALL TO ARMS WANTED
Gretchen Anonymous Remailer
New York 1 News
2/22/99
Starting today, people who are caught driving drunk in New York City will
have their vehicle confiscated by police.
Mayor Giuliani and Police Commissioner Howard Safir announced Saturday that
anyone arrested for driving while intoxicated will have to hand over the
keys to their vehicles.
Checkpoints are already set up around the city, including one at Houston and
Washington Streets in Lower Manhattan. Reports say at least two cars, in
Brooklyn and Queens, have already been confiscated under the new rules.
Under the new policy, drivers will get the keys to their car back only if
they are found not guilty of DWI.
Copyright 1999, New York 1 News
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the new policy, drivers will get the keys to their car back only if
they are found not guilty of DWI.
Good luck.
Isn't this sorta like 'guilty til proven innocent'?
I am by no means in favor of driving while intoxicated. When proven. Then
lower the boom.
I have a feeling this one is gonna get flamed, but this just seems to be
giving police an awful lot of power to be judge and jury.
Posted by: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 06:24:31 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
And some people want Giuliani to run for the Senate? Yipe!
From: MK (mkr...@connectnet.com) *
02/22/99 06:25:50 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: MK
This could clinch it for Hildy!
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 06:27:54 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
Isn't this sorta like 'guilty til proven innocent'?
Welcome to asset forfeiture. Where you might be innocent, but your car is
guilty. Hey, its worth something to us, you aren't.
From: hopespringseternal (emailname) *
02/22/99 06:29:34 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: MK
This could clinch it for Hildy
Not that she wouldn't do it too!
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 06:30:06 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: MK
And some people want Giuliani to run for the Senate?
The same people who will miss D'Amato.
From: hopespringseternal (emailname) *
02/22/99 06:30:39 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
Someone posted this quote on FR a while back. It certainly applies to this
situation.
"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the propety of
the people, or reduce them to slavery under the arbitrary power, they put
themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved
from any further obediance." -John Locke - 1690, London
From: suijuris (suij...@fuse.net) *
02/22/99 06:33:20 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: hopespringseternal
Welcome to asset forfeiture.
Do you think that, if you give a wrong answer at a sobriety checkpoint, you
could be hauled out of your car for a half-hours worth of 'sobriety checks'?
What if you p^ss the cop off? Nah, NY's finest are trustworthy. Don't worry,
be happy.
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 06:34:19 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: suijuris
"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the propety of
the people, or reduce them to slavery under the arbitrary power, they put
themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved
from any further obediance." -John Locke - 1690, London
Giuliani said that this measure was a perfectly reasonable balance between
the rights of the individual and the right of society to protect itself from
drunk drivers.
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 06:37:44 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
Another thread considers how to attract "moderates" and liberal Republicans
at the voting booth. But it is this very type of crap that sends many
conservatives to the Libertarian and (Yikes!) Reform camps. Thanks for
nothing, Trojan horse Rudy.
From: jammer (emailname) *
02/22/99 06:38:01 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
Speaking as one who at times in the past had "one too many", I must ask: are
you suggesting that having been informed of the law and its consequences for
driving under the influence that you don't have the will power to avoid
those same consequences by foregoing that drink until you get to where
you're going?
From: logos (lo...@searnet.com) *
02/22/99 06:39:28 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: jammer
And the Demo Jackasses bray their A$$es off! Actually, they are pretty
smart...they are kicking our a$$...
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 06:41:13 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: logos
Speaking as one who at times in the past had "one too many", I must ask: are
you suggesting that having been informed of the law and its consequences for
driving under the influence that you don't have the will power to avoid
those same consequences by foregoing that drink until you get to where
you're going?Nope. I already said that. Crucify those who do and are proven
to do so. I just feel this is more of 'verdict first, evidence later'.
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 06:43:21 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
I read a different version of this article where Rudy warns his fine
citizens not to drive after having one drink! Talk about a Police State.
Now it looks like this is the same unconstitutional property confiscation
used against recreational marijuana growers...it stinks.
From: Fred Mertz (LucyI'm...@home.com) *
02/22/99 06:44:24 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: logos
"Under the new policy, drivers will get the keys to their car back only if
they are found not guilty of DWI.
Can someone check to see if my local radio reports are correct? They stated
that, even if found not guilty, a person receives his/her car back only at
prosecutorial discretion. This is what I object to, mainly.
From: jammer (emailname) *
02/22/99 06:46:02 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: logos
Given that driving is a privledge, not a right, the actions being taken here
in NY City seem like a good idea right now. There have been numerous deaths
caused by DWI over the last year. Whole families have been wiped out. When
they catch these characters, it is usually someone who has from 5 to 15 DWI
convictions on their record. This way, they cannot drive again, at least in
the same car. Almost none of them have licenses and many cannot even speak
english. Drunk driving has become an epidemic in NY and people here are
behind the mayor on this.
From: wheels (resign@once) *
02/22/99 06:47:57 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
What if you p^ss the cop off?
You'll have 41 rounds fired at you at point blank range with 19 hitting you.
At least you won't have to worry about driving anymore.
From: MK (mkr...@connectnet.com) *
02/22/99 06:49:24 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: jammer
They stated that, even if found not guilty, a person receives his/her car
back only at prosecutorial discretion.
That was my impression from this morning's TV news...
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 06:49:58 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: wheels
Wheels, If what you are saying is true, that the people doing most of the
killing have multiple arrests, than that is all the more reason why this is
bad law. Have the law read that your car is taken after your third arrest, I
would have no problem with that. But this is crazy.
From: gordonhliberty (gor...@aol.com) *
02/22/99 06:50:41 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: jammer
If that's true, it seems to have been left out of the original post. And
while such a provision would change the tenor and nature of the law, it has
still been my experience that when one lives a life avoiding the violation
of the law in general, one is still able to live a life which avoids the
enforcers of the law.
From: logos (lo...@searnet.com) *
02/22/99 06:51:03 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
FREEDOM ALERT- On NBC with morning, police commisioner Safir said that they
would not confiscate leased cars. This is valuable information. While we all
might say, "I am not going to drink and drive" asset forfeitures are
expanding in to all sorts of realms. The lesson in today's society: lease,
lease, lease.
From: gordonhliberty (gor...@aol.com) *
02/22/99 06:52:36 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
This is a hard one. But I think it is probably a good idea. In our local
paper they list the DWI's every week. Fully 90% are repeat offenders. Taking
the car is a pretty effective remedy. On the other side we need to insist
that laws like this are not abused --I am sure they will be, probably mostly
on people who are not in a good position to fight back.
From: jackiewilson (emailname) *
02/22/99 06:56:07 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: wheels
Given that driving is a privledge, not a right...
When they catch these characters, it is usually someone who has from 5 to 15
DWI convictions on their record.
Respectfully, I don't know about driving being a privilege. However, if
someone already has 5 to 15 DWI's, they should have been restrained (jail,
rehabilitation, etc.) long ago. My problem is with the complete discretion
given to the police.
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 06:56:29 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: gordonhliberty
Look, the problem is less that there are DWI folks out driving, its that the
extremely liberal judges keep turning them loose on the rest of us. There
has been less that 1% of these jokers jailed in the past ten years. What the
mayor has done is put a crimp in the liberal judges "turn-em-loose"
philosophy. There is a daily list of DWI crashes that just has to stop.
Maybe if they can't drive, they can't kill.
From: wheels (resign@once) *
02/22/99 06:56:54 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: logos
The fact that you can avoid behavior that will be punished under a
ridiculous law does not make the law reasonable.
In addition to the obvious "guilty until proven innocent" problem with this
law, there is the problem of disproportionate punishment. Unfortunately, a
Supreme Court that was able to find in the penumbras and emanations of the
Constitution a fundamental right to kill one's child before birth has
refused to find any prohibition against disproportionate punishment. An
example. The Mercedes driver who is only slightly over the mark will lose
his Mercedes. The Yugo driver who is way over the mark will lose his Yugo.
Now, you may like to assume that in all cases the driver of the more
expensive car can better afford the loss, but this is not something the law
should assume. The law creates all kinds of perverse incentives.
Where does forfeiture law stop? If you copy a Rolling Stones tape in your
boombox at home, would it be right for the government to take your home?
If your wife, like Hillary, throws an ashtray at you and hurts you, should
the government take a one-half interest in the house (her half.)
Under current Constitutional law there is no impediment to a legislature
passing laws such as these.
It is very much like the "When they came for the Jews" parable.
When they seized assets from accused drug dealers (not necessarily
convicted), you did nothing.
When they seized assets from travelers at airports (simply because it is
assumed in America that anyone preferring cash to credit cards is a drug
dealer), you did nothing.
When they seized the cars of suspected drunk drivers, you did nothing.
And so on and so on.
At some point they will take your house and your computer under some law
against counter-revolutionary speech (they will call it "hate speech"), and
no one will care or be able to do anything about it. Their assets will have
already been taken, and it will be illegal under campaign finance laws for
individuals to place newspaper or TV or radio ads relating to political
issues.
From: montfort (emailname) *
02/22/99 06:58:05 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: gordonhliberty
I am FIRMLY against drinking and driving. That being said, whatever happened
to equal treatment under the law? If Stockbroker X gets his Jaguar with
10,000 miles confiscated and accountant Y only has to give up his mini-van
with 160,000 miles on it, where is the equality of punishment? Equal
punishment is key to justice in our system. This stinks. They surely could
have found some other way.
From: Glenn (mil...@cstool.com) *
02/22/99 06:58:54 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: gordonhliberty
That's the problem the repeat offenders keep finding loop holes and other
ways to beat the system. The local CBS station just did a story on DWI
repeat offenders and it was shocking how many people are convicted on 2nd
and 3rd DWI's and are still driving today. Some had as many as 10 to 15 DWI
arrests over the past 10 years been convicted on 3 or 4 but they're still
out driving right now. We both know who is going to lose thier cars,those
that can ill afford too while the REAL problem drinkers will be driving as
usual. I guess if you're a drunk driver in NY you best just buy cheap
cars(throw aways) and keep on driving. This is a law IMO that will be
knocked down by SCOTUS soon,I hope.
From: Big Ezy (big...@usa.net) *
02/22/99 07:03:24 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: logos
I agree with your premise, logos. But I think it is getting harder to avoid
the law enforcers. I just recently had a fairly unpleasant encounter with a
young officer at a 'seatbelt checkpoint'. I guess I wasn't submissive enough
to his rather brusque command to put my seatbelt on because he offered to
take me downtown to discuss it if I did not like it. He 'let me off' with a
warning, however.
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 07:03:31 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: logos
it has still been my experience that when one lives a life avoiding the
violation of the law in general, one is still able to live a life which
avoids the enforcers of the law.
I hate to differ with you, but St. Rudy the Repressive and his fellow
totalitarian thugs in the White House, Pentagon and Justice Dept. are
gradually making sure your otherwise common sense statement soon goes the
way of Hoover collars, buggy whips and what remains of our Constitution.
The goal to gain and keep absolute power. Laws like this, all passed in the
name of "safety and security and concern" are gradually conditioning us to
accept the fact that soon we all will be ultimately guilty of something, the
chief "crime" ultimately your race, religious beliefs or ethnic background,
as the Jews found out in Nazi Germany and, more recently, the Ibo tribe in
Nigeria.
From: MK (mkr...@connectnet.com) *
02/22/99 07:03:33 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: jammer
I don't know about NY's new law, but Calif. has a law that allows your car
to be impounded for a minimum of 30 days for a DWI arrest, lack of proper
registration or lack of insurance.
The law requires that the car is impounded by a tow company, the fees are
$15.00 per day (or more) in storage fees and, of course the original tow
fee. This makes it almost impossible for the SUSPECT/ACCUSED to get to work
because HE/SHE has no car (and in Calif. you need a car to get anywhere on
time).
Most VICTIMS of this law can not afford the $500.00 to $700.00 it will cost
to bail out the car after the mandatory 30 day hold period is up. This has
become a major source of income for tow companies because they then get to
sell the car on a lien sale for a pretty penny. A lot of them sell the car
to an owner of the business for a small fee and then the owner resells the
car at a large profit. The only loser is the guy that lost the car even
thogh he/she was later found to be not guilty.
From: sirgadget (1gad...@gte.net) *
02/22/99 07:04:14 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: gordonhliberty
This is one of the pervers incentives I mention in my post. I had not
thought of this angle, but I knew there would be too many perverse
incentives to even begin to list them all.
Now why should the guy with leased Jaguar fare differently from the guy with
the bought Chevy. This sort of thing really disappoints me. In have great
admiration for Rudy, but I do not see this as a legitimate tool in law
enforcement. I seem to be in the minority, though.
The "If it saves on life, it is worth doing" argument is pretty compelling
to a lot of sheeple. It might save a lot of lives to seize guns from all
citizens who make less than a certain income per year according to their tax
returns, or to take them away from all people who live in mobile homes, or
from all blacks. We would very quickly see the problem with such laws, but
why do we not see it here.
Freedom and the rule of law must be worth something, even some heightened
level of danger. (And believ me, I am a really risk-averse person.)
From: montfort (emailname) *
02/22/99 07:08:08 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: montfort
NEW YORK (AP) - A city crackdown on drunken drivers began with the seizure
of at least two cars.
New York is the first municipality in the nation to seize the vehicles of
motorists arrested on drunken driving charges as a way to reduce the number
of deaths on roadways.
Motorists with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent - the state's legal
limit for driving - or higher will have their vehicles seized on the spot.
While the motorist faces prosecution in criminal court, the vehicle seizure
will be part of a separate proceeding in civil court under state forfeiture
laws.
And because civil proceedings require only a preponderance of evidence for a
verdict - rather than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - motorists acquitted
of drunken driving in criminal court may still lose their cars in civil
court.
Civil libertarians have attacked the new policy as excessive and vowed to
challenge it in court. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said he is confident the plan
will hold up in court.
One car was seized Sunday and one today. Officer Theresa Farello, a police
department spokeswoman, could not immediately explain why a car was seized
Sunday evening, 1 1/2 hours before the program was to start at midnight.
Check this out.
From: Glenn (mil...@cstool.com) *
02/22/99 07:08:57 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: logos
Speaking as one who at times in the past had "one too many", I must ask: are
you suggesting that having been informed of the law and its consequences for
driving under the influence that you don't have the will power to avoid
those same consequences by foregoing that drink until you get to where
you're going?
I think this analogy is applicable: When the innocents at Waco were warned
to come out of the church/compound, and they didn't, they deserved what they
had coming. Yuck!!
The government has no riight to the citizens' property. It's just an excuse
for more asset forfeiture.
From: jamesbond (emailname) *
02/22/99 07:09:02 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Glenn
Thanx for the additional info.
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 07:11:50 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Glenn
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said he is confident the plan will hold up in court.
Because they no doubt plan a fear-mongering campaign that will hammer on all
the legitimateconcerns of the public. Why not investigate instead the court
system that allows repeat offenders back behind the wheel?
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 07:16:14 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
My favorite..
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review
of Pennsylvania (1759)
From: Jonx6 (Jo...@hotmail.com) *
02/22/99 07:18:23 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
" I am by no means in favor of driving while intoxicated. When proven. Then
lower the boom."
The BOOM<\b>.
1) Steal their car.
2) Re-peal their right to own guns.
3) Re-peal their right to VOTE.
4) Lock them up to make license plates.
5) AND issue a warrant to go through their house confiscating any wine,
beer, spirits, and right wing literature unless its during Super Bowl week.
Giuliani! another RINO noseing about in "for the good of Society's"
politics. Whats next "cigarettes"!. Jeez, steal their car!
From: hosepipe (MeanS...@OutRage.GOH) *
02/22/99 07:22:14 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: hosepipe
reset
From: hosepipe (MeanS...@OutRage.GOH) *
02/22/99 07:22:49 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: All
My God, but some of you folks sound just like Clintonista types with your
hand wringing over the loss of a car due to DWI. If your gonna do the crime,
be prepared to do the time. When you folks start crying crock tears for the
poor innocent DWI offender, you are leading the liberal charge against
responsibility. The reason these DWI offenders are not in jail is because
the liberal judges let them go in defiance of the law. Hey, we have to try
something, doing nothing just ain't working.
From: wheels (resign@once) *
02/22/99 07:29:25 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
Fifteen years ago, this would have been inconceivable.
Welcome to life during big government's War On Drugs Civil Liberty (a
National Socialist production). The plot is familiar:
1) Create an enemy.
2) Demonize the enemy.
3) Instruct the people that they need you to protect them from the enemy.
As effective now as it was in 1917, or 1932, or 1948. Ask Karl, or Vladimir,
or Josef, or Adolph, or Mao, or Idi, or Pol, or...
I hope history is a harsh judge.
From: Dr.Deth () *
02/22/99 07:29:38 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: hosepipe
5) AND issue a warrant to go through their house confiscating any wine,
beer, spirits, and right wing literature unless its during Super Bowl week.
I don't think the Super Bowl is gonna get you outta that RW lit rap!
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 07:31:45 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: wheels
The problem is they HATE the idea of personal responsibility. The preach
freedom but they mean license. They want ALL DRUGS legalized also. See
yesterday's thread (now almost 400k) on why drug dealers in prison are like
POW's or victims of NAZI crimes against humanity.
From: DonMorgan (emailname) *
02/22/99 07:33:38 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: gordonhliberty
On NBC with morning, police commisioner Safir said that they would not
confiscate leased cars. ...asset forfeitures are expanding in to all sorts
of realms. The lesson in today's society: lease, lease, lease.
That we are forced to come to this conclusion means that America has failed.
From: Dr.Deth () *
02/22/99 07:34:38 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: wheels
My God, but some of you folks sound just like Clintonista types with your
hand wringing over the loss of a car due to DWI.
After conviction, I might agree with you. With discretion by the officer
pulling you over, NO WAY! By the way, I don't drink (just my choice), don't
smoke either, so this is not for my car...
So next, are they going to confiscate your vehicle if you fall asleep at the
wheel, play your music too loud, drive too fast, raise/lower the vehicle too
much???
From: Berthold (gsm...@cvn.net) *
02/22/99 07:37:57 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: montfort
It is very much like the "When they came for the Jews" parable. EXACTLY.
Excellent message, this really says it all.
From: Dr.Deth () *
02/22/99 07:38:25 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Dr.Deth
Did i do that? </blush>
From: Dr.Deth () *
02/22/99 07:42:41 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
This is one of them "yeah, but..." issues. Terrible infringement on our
personal liberties, but...
* DWI is one of the most despicable crimes against fellow citizens
imaginable
* The perpetrator is incapacitated purely by an act of excessive
self-indulgence
* Perpetrators deserve absolutely no remorse or sympathy from society for
theier acts
So, what's the alternative to the kinds of wrist-slap sentences these creeps
ususlly get, as compared to the agony that the families of DWI accident
victims must live with?
An automatic ten-year sentence, no parole?
If we don't come up with some suggestion, we're likely to see an assault on
beer, wine, and liquor companies like we've seen the state launch against
the tobacco companies.
From: catch (emailname) *
02/22/99 07:44:01 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Dr.Deth
Leased cars not seized, hmm? What if it's jointly owned? does your business
partnet, or spouse lose their interest in the car as punishment for an act
they may have had NO involvement in? Sure, protect big business... NAH! Make
them add a DUI clause in the lease, or take your driving records, or blood
test you before leasing you a car.
Even viewed backwared, this is just an incentive to lease, and is yet
another grap at property rights, since LEASED PROPERTY IS NOT YOURS!!!
From: Berthold (gsm...@cvn.net) *
02/22/99 07:46:48 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: wheels
Given that driving is a privledge, not a right...
*Sigh* Sometimes I think that intelligence is not as common as once thought.
Listen, "wheels", there is a very old document referred to by those who
remember it as the Constitution of the united States of America. I won't tax
your attention span by reciting the entire document, but let Me illuminate
here just one small portion that states, in part;
"...that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."
The key word for you here is 'Liberty'. No state, no government has the
right to Lawfully restrict My liberty for any reason, short of arrest. Using
My car to transport Me and any friends from one location to another is an
excercise of My unalienable Liberty, neither the state or the de facto
regime currently in power has the Lawful authority to stop Me. Note that I
did not say 'drive'. The Black's Law dictionary I studied lo those many
years ago listed a 'driver' as 'A person who transports other persons or
property for a fee'. I do not normally charge My family to ride in My car
with Me.
If you like to have your freedom limited in this or any other manner, have
fun. I, however, would appreciate it if you did not attempt to ladle out any
more unlawful rhetoric.
From: utilizer (nom de guerre) *
02/22/99 07:46:58 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: wheels
Wheels, put your thinking cap on a minute. When you condone gulty until
proven inocent, or "affirmative defense laws" you will surely lose your
freedom. No sane person codones drunk driving, but we all have different
levels of impairment. I may be impaired at .08, you may be impaired at .10
or greater. What maters is where I see my responsibility to my fellow man
and his property. Should I be lawfully cupable for an accident then I should
be civially liable, and if criminally negligent, then criminally liable;
facing all the maximum penalties under law. That principle of individual
responsibility is what keeps the public in balance, not confiscatory
"affirmative defense" laws that breed further contempt and hatred for the
feared "government thugs" intent upon stealing property at gun point without
due process.
From: suijuris (suij...@fuse.net) *
02/22/99 07:50:01 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: utilizer
By your definition, I have the RIGHT to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
Courts have already determined that driving is a priveledge, not a "right".
That is why the states are given the ultimate authority over driving. If
driving were a "right", then the federal government would regulate the
thing. Ask any lawyer or judge.
From: wheels (resign@once) *
02/22/99 07:51:51 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
Absolute stupidity. This mayor just lost my respect.
From: RightOne (emailname) *
02/22/99 07:53:35 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Berthold
I wonder if this law will apply to NYC politicians and police? Many of the
others certainly don't.
From: MK (mkr...@connectnet.com) *
02/22/99 07:54:17 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: montfort; rex havoc; MK; james bond; and All
Naturally, I expected some interesting responses to my posts, but you have
all exceeded even my expectations. As Mr. Grace would say, "You've all done
very well."
Montfort: Strictly speaking, no one who has his car impounded is "guilty
until proven innocent." As you know, under our system it takes a court
judgment to establish guilt; in the case of DUI it now takes a BA test of a
certain level to establish said guilt. The uncorroborated word of the
traffic officer is no longer sufficient. Ergo, no DUI, no loss of
automobile.
As to the difference between losing a Mercedes or a Yugo, one might assume
that the Mercedes driver had a modicum more intelligence, sufficient to know
the consequences of drinking and driving - perhaps not, but it's a
reasonable assumption. On the other side of the coin, I doubt that the dead
pedestrian cares what make of car ran him over.
rex havoc: While I agree that many law enforcement officials could use a
refresher course on "How to Win Friends and Influence People,", the fault
lies not with the officer but with the laws he is given to enforce.
MK: It seems to me to be quite a stretch from the crime of DUI to the
"crimes" of race, religious beliefs or ethnic background. And do you truly
believe that everyone in the White House, the Pentagon and the Justice
Department is a "totalitarian thug?" Sounds like a whole lot of conclusions
being jumped to here.
jamesbond: DUI equates to Waco? I'm sorry, but that's not even an analogy.
So far, in this country at least, the only way to change, alter, repeal or
enact a law is through legislation. Is anyone suggesting some other method?
If what is worried about here is the ripple effect - that one law will lead
to another one just a little more egregious - then that is a worry that
should have begun about the time Moses walked down from the mountaintop.
Does anyone know of anyone against whom this law has been unfairly applied?
Is there any proof that this law is being, or will be, abused? Seems to me
that the best way to avoid the consequences is to make sure one doesn't
drink and drive in NYC. If that offends, then until there is proof that the
law is being used for more nefarious purposes than to get deadly drunk
drivers off the streets, some will just have to be offended.
From: logos (lo...@searnet.com) *
02/22/99 07:57:11 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: DonMorgan
The problem is they HATE the idea of personal responsibility.
I don't understand your 'they HATE' comment. I fully endorse the idea of
personal responsibility. This law on the surface sounds like one anybody
could endorse. It gets right down to business. But, what about the
inequities of punishment? Or the 'guilty until proven innocent'. Also, there
is some question about getting your car returned if proven innocent. What
about all the costs involved in getting your car back if innocent? I don't
pretend to know what the answer is, but this doesn't sound like it.
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 07:59:15 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: wheels
Rights: Governed by the STATES
Priviledges: Governed by the Federal Government
Sure. Where's personal responsibility? And what happens to your
rights/priviledges if the government decides you shouldn't have them? Our
rights are given to us by our Creator. And our freedoms are guaranteed, not
granted, by the Constitution.
From: Berthold (gsm...@cvn.net) *
02/22/99 07:59:27 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: catch
Why not just have prohibition again/ This stupid law will hurt small and big
business. NY is lucky though, it has alternative transportation but for
other states where cars are necessary it's even more dangerous. I say "Grow
up world, it is dangerous and learn to take care of yourselves. We don't
need protection from an occaisional drunk driver we need protection from our
government! America's priorities are all wrong. To all the new yorkers
afraid of cars, take the bus. What a bunch of babies. Next, do we have to
wear helmuts while driving? Get real.
From: pugsy () *
02/22/99 08:02:59 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
Are you a New Yorker? Have you looked at the process that led to this law?
From: DonMorgan (emailname) *
02/22/99 08:03:46 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: No civil liberties in NYC
I agree that this is frightening. Is this what the GOP has become??? Are we
really this bad?? Guiliani won't get my vote.
From: 1Old Pro (emailname) *
02/22/99 08:05:11 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: DonMorgan
It's becoming all to obvious that many of the people here who tend towards
the authoritarian are not, as they claim to be, defenders of the
Constitution. They are pretenders, whose real interest is simply to supplant
Clinton's regime of value enforcement, by any means necessary, with their
own. They truly believe (as Cal Thomas noted this morning on C-SPAN) that if
the reins of government power were only in *their* hands, all would be well,
and government would be a benificent power.
They couldn't be more wrong. Government power is destructive of human
liberty, and of moral decency, because it is not based on persuasion, but on
force. It is a necessary evil, but is nonetheless still, at its heart, evil.
As Geo. Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it
is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a
moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
It seems many people here forget that people in this country are supposed to
be innocent until proven guilty. That's a principle I can live with. And I
will *always* oppose people who try to make it otherwise; they are
un-American.
From: B Knotts (-) *
02/22/99 08:05:43 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: wheels
If your gonna do the crime, be prepared to do the time.
Doing the crime has nothing to do with it. There are far to many instances
of over zealous prosecutions where no such crime was committed. You can be
innocent as a new born babe and still "charged" with a crime. It has
happened, is happening more frequently, and the trend is things are going to
get worse, not better.
Fighting a case in Civil Court will often cost more than the value of the
car in attorney's fees alone. The defendant looses, even if he/she is
innocent and pure as the driven snow. Denver, has a similar law concerning
anyone who happens to have a firearm in their vehicle, no matter the
purpose. That is really getting people up in arms, [no pun intended].
Folks, this in not good law. Its potential for abuse is horrendous. It is
siezure/confiscations actions such as these that have been turned into
virtual tax revenues for law enforcement and a mockery of property rights
and the 4th Amendment. The federal and state abuse stories in the "War on
Drugs" are becoming exceptionally alarming as regards taking of property on
any pretext without conviction, and often without even charges being filed.
More of your Government at work protecting your rights. Janet Reno et.al.
just love this sort of thing. Constitution? what Constitution! We saw the
proof of that going out the door a week ago in the Senate.
Ancient Geezer
Green Ridge Valley
in Colorado
"Be on your guard!
[Supporting the Free Republic Forum;Geezer's Playground]If your brother
sins, REBUKE him;
and if he REPENTS,
forgive him."
(Luke 17:3)
From: ancient_geezer (ancient...@yahoo.com) *
02/22/99 08:06:06 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: RightOne
I agree with you about respect and the mayor. I don't like rudy. I don't
think he's trustworthy. He's not a conservative. He's not even much of a
republican. What he is though is a tough little scrapper who knows how to
play NY politics. He has used the despotic powers of the mayor's office to
come down tough on crime, civil liberties be damned. He has cleaned up the
city more in these past few years, then all of the Democratic Mayors have in
the past 40 or so. This is a good thing, because if Hillary believes her own
press (and she just might) and makes a go for NY senator. He is going to
crush her, make her look immature, inexperienced, shady, you name it. Rudy
has the respect of the city and I can see him taking the votes of the
upstaters as well, especially over a far left Liberal like Hillary.
From: delapaz (emailname) *
02/22/99 08:06:14 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: utilizer
Jeepers people, do as i say, not as i do.
From: Dr.Deth () *
02/22/99 08:06:25 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: B Knotts
Oh, shoot. to==too. And, Italics be gone!
From: B Knotts (-) *
02/22/99 08:07:46 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: DonMorgan
Are you a New Yorker?
No.
Have you looked at the process that led to this law?
That is what I am trying to do here hopefully with the help of FR.
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 08:08:09 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
Solution: Stay yo ass outa New York City.
From: ParrotsUp (parr...@yahoo.com) *
02/22/99 08:09:33 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: B Knotts
Their guilt or innocence is not in question. If innocent, no penalty
accrues. The question is self-government. If the people of NY want this, and
the courts test it and find it Constitutional, what objection do you have?
From: DonMorgan (emailname) *
02/22/99 08:10:16 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: ParrotsUp
Thanx for the advice.
From: rex havoc () *
02/22/99 08:12:06 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Berthold
Curses! ITALICS begone!
From: Berthold (gsm...@cvn.net) *
02/22/99 08:12:20 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
I agree..I thought it sounded like a good idea until they said
that they take the keys on the spot until you're found not Guilty
Arrest them if they are drunk, if not let them go, but taking
the car away on the spot gives the authorities way too much power
From: Blackdakota (davi...@hotmail.com) *
02/22/99 08:12:48 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: wheels
Oh, yes, let's illustrate our position by referring to ridicuous allegories.
Really.
Ignoring for the moment your astonishing ability to apparantly rationalize
any infringment upon all that I hold dear; courts have ruled that the
government has no authority to restrict a citizen's travel. There are many
cases on file in this matter -cases which have never been overturned! I
suggest you do a search on the topic, perhaps you might learn something
(besides, I'm bloody tired of having to repeat Myself).
Also, a couple of years back, I heard that a judge up washington state way
ruled that the second Amendment to the Constitution actually applied only to
the militia, which today is supposedly the national guard (paraphrasing),
and that citizens do NOT have the right to keep and bear arms. I am ignoring
that ruling. Judge or no, I KNOW I have that right, and his ruling is
illegal on its face.
Pick your path, 'wheels'.
From: utilizer (nom de guerre) *
02/22/99 08:14:09 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: DonMorgan
And because civil proceedings require only a preponderance of evidence for a
verdict - rather than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - motorists acquitted
of drunken driving in criminal court may still lose their cars in civil
court.
There's my objection. An end-run around double jeopardy.
From: Glenn (mil...@cstool.com) *
02/22/99 08:14:26 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: DonMorgan
It is unconstitional and un-American; that's what objection I have. A
punishment is being exacted before any trial is held. And, as others have
noted, under civil forfeiture, return of the seized items is often at the
discretion of government officials. Not the way things are supposed to work
in this country.
Have a trial, convict the person, *then* seize the car. I have no objection
to that. Innocent until proven guilty; no exceptions.
From: B Knotts (-) *
02/22/99 08:14:41 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: DonMorgan
Their guilt or innocence is not in question. If
innocent, no penalty accrues
I REPEAT:
Fighting a case in Civil Court will often cost more than the value of the
car in attorney's fees alone. The defendant looses, even if he/she is
innocent and pure as the driven snow. Denver, has a similar law concerning
anyone who happens to have a firearm in their vehicle, no matter the
purpose. That is really getting people up in arms, [no pun intended].
From: ancient_geezer (ancient...@yahoo.com) *
02/22/99 08:14:49 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: ancient_geezer
Rather than debate with unfounded words -- post the law, post the data from
the City that supports their decision and let's look at the facts.
From: DonMorgan (emailname) *
02/22/99 08:17:49 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: wheels
If your gonna do the crime, be prepared to do the time.
If this is your argument, you lose. Here's why:
You do the crime. You do the time. The idea of 'property' committing a crime
and thus being subject to civil prosecution and seizure forthwith, strains
credulity more than a remake of 'The Last Starfighter' by Mrs. Crabtree's
7th Grade Op Art class, whose materials are limited to a Sony Handicam,
fingerpaint, and cut-up shipping pallets from the local Piggly Wiggly.
Since you are doing the crime, the crime must be prosecuted. Since you are
doing the crime, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Since you are
doing the crime, punishment in form of fine, jail, and yes, seizure, can
proceed *from this point*. Any other reasoning should be defeated by
'unlawful search and seizure', 'habeas corpus', and any number of other
constitutional and common law measures.
Let's give the ACLU their props when they get this piece of heinous
legislation revoked, and God help us all if they don't.
From: Dr.Deth () *
02/22/99 08:20:18 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: montfort
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
..clearly unconstitutional......
From: Sockdolager (sock_d...@yahoo.com) *
02/22/99 08:23:48 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: logos
MK: It seems to me to be quite a stretch from the crime of DUI to the
"crimes" of race, religious beliefs or ethnic background. And do you truly
believe that everyone in the White House, the Pentagon and the Justice
Department is a "totalitarian thug?" Sounds like a whole lot of conclusions
being jumped to here.
I never said that everyone in those places was a totalitarian thug. This
administration though, sadly, has backed more unconstitutional and
extralegal methods to centralize government power than any other since
FDR's, LBJ's and Dick Nixon's. And, looking at Mayor Giuliani's previous
decisions and views in regard to public safety matters, I am coming to see
that his presumed "law and order" position, his words to the contrary,
smacks more of autocracy in a silk glove that a concern for the welfare of
all New Yorkers.
My reasoning about DUIs and the like eventually leading to the crimes
against people of different backgrounds serves an functional example of how
the long-term PROCESS of assaulting and dismantling civil liberties as part
of reaching a goal of autocratic power under the otherwise harmless rubric
of "safety and security" can be and often is done incrementally and often
covertly in matters over which most of us are in general agreement.
Hard cases make bad law, as you know, and this particular one, to me, as I
read it, has enough legal and constitutional problems (let alone the
practical issue of selective enforcement) to where I am concerned that it
will set a poor precedent permitting the extension of more unwarrranted
police power into individual lives and more unconstitutional abuse of civil
liberties.
From: MK (mkr...@connectnet.com) *
02/22/99 08:27:48 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rex havoc
"I have a feeling this one is gonna get flamed..." Can't blame you for
thinking that, given what often happens to those expressing an essentially
libertarian position. This is a good example of why you simply can't give
government the power to tear up the Constitution to prosecute the war on
drugs without it coming back to haunt you. It is particularly tempting, on
this issue so obviously related to physical safety, to side with Rudy. The
issue of judges who turn loose repeat offenders is a tough one. But doesn't
it make more sense to work on a method of getting rid of judges who behave
this way? I'd have less problem with any asset forfeiture if it ocurred
after conviction, and if property was returned upon acquittal. On the other
hand, I love to read stories like this (and the average person's outraged
reaction to them), because we ultimately ask for this when we allow
exceptions to the Constitution to enable us to go after one specific group
we can't seem to get any other way. Maybe the whole concept will receive the
condemnation it deserves when enough innocent people become its victims!
From: ggraziano (ggra...@clarityconnect.com) *
02/22/99 08:28:06 PST
Clark Magnuson
state was a small price to pay. Now the price is getting a lttle bigger.