After Sara was killed in front of McKinley, I don't think the state passed anything of meaning to keep repeat offenders off the road.  I remember her mom being interviewed and she was upset.

All they did was install those pain in the ass speed bumps and install speed cameras that cause more traffic to an already congested city/area.

I have a friend who's an insurance claims adjsuter and before letting anyone borrow her car, she ask to see their license. She said on a few occassions, the person didn't have one. So she didn't let them borrow her car.

There's no money to be made in passing traffic laws, however, there is money made when the City or State buys those speed tables and cameras.

So, you're an automobile-control advocate?

Works for guns and drugs.  Ought to work for driving without a valid license, too.

 

Not really comparable. Are you opposed to taking away cars from people who repeatedly use the cars to break the law or something?

Not really comparable. Are you opposed to taking away cars from people who repeatedly use the cars to break the law or something?

Yes, i am opposed to taking private property from people when the property provides critical transportation needs for themselves and their family. 

Additionally, if a car sells for $30K, you are supporting fining that person $30K worth of property as well as preventing them from having their own transportation which might be a requirement for their job.  Now that fine is taking away their job, which would have the dollar amount that their job generates in income.

i'm curious if you've ever heard of the phrase "excessive fine."  Check out the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution.

My solution would be to require the law breaker to take remedial driver's education and to do ride-alongs with police and EMT.  Maybe they could also attend the funerals of people killed in senseless traffic accidents -- so they can see the real consequences breaking a simple traffic law can have on spouses, children, friends, other family members and coworkers or classmates.

One of the problems we have is that nobody sees themselves as part of society anymore. If they break a law, it only involves harm to "the system".

Taking a car away won't stop a chronic traffic nuisance.  They drive cars they can talk friends, relatives and coworkers into letting them borrow.  They can also "borrow" cars without permission.  Over a million vehicles are reported stolen on average each year.  That's not counting vehicles from work that are misappropriated by employees and returned before anyone notices.

When you work for a government agency, you are allowed to check out vehicles when needed for official business.  Some get to use these cars 24/7/365 due to the nature of their work.

So, taking a car from someone is not a guaranteed solution, and it's excessive unless the vehicle's market value equals the fine the law allows.

Not really comparable. Are you opposed to taking away cars from people who repeatedly use the cars to break the law or something?

Take away their cars, there is no right to drive.

Yes, i am opposed to taking private property from people when the property provides critical transportation needs for themselves and their family. 

Additionally, if a car sells for $30K, you are supporting fining that person $30K worth of property as well as preventing them from having their own transportation which might be a requirement for their job.  Now that fine is taking away their job, which would have the dollar amount that their job generates in income.

i'm curious if you've ever heard of the phrase "excessive fine."  Check out the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution.

My solution would be to require the law breaker to take remedial driver's education and to do ride-alongs with police and EMT.  Maybe they could also attend the funerals of people killed in senseless traffic accidents -- so they can see the real consequences breaking a simple traffic law can have on spouses, children, friends, other family members and coworkers or classmates.

One of the problems we have is that nobody sees themselves as part of society anymore. If they break a law, it only involves harm to "the system".

Taking a car away won't stop a chronic traffic nuisance.  They drive cars they can talk friends, relatives and coworkers into letting them borrow.  They can also "borrow" cars without permission.  Over a million vehicles are reported stolen on average each year.  That's not counting vehicles from work that are misappropriated by employees and returned before anyone notices.

When you work for a government agency, you are allowed to check out vehicles when needed for official business.  Some get to use these cars 24/7/365 due to the nature of their work.

So, taking a car from someone is not a guaranteed solution, and it's excessive unless the vehicle's market value equals the fine the law allows.

Fair enough, but the alternative of putting them in prison for repeated violations of criminal traffic laws (since fines aren't stopping people like this) would also cause them the loss of their job. Granted they will still have housing of course but locking this person up still causes much of the same hardships which you cite as your opposition to forfeiture.

I am pretty familiar with forfeiture and I have some qualms with it generally but I also recognize it as a tool to combat crime. It isn't a guaranteed solution but no solution is guaranteed aside from being locked up. I think taking their car is a lesser punishment than locking them up for an extended period of time.

As to your alternative suggestion I do like your out of the box thinking there.

Fair enough, but the alternative of putting them in prison for repeated violations of criminal traffic laws (since fines aren't stopping people like this) would also cause them the loss of their job. Granted they will still have housing of course but locking this person up still causes much of the same hardships which you cite as your opposition to forfeiture.

I am pretty familiar with forfeiture and I have some qualms with it generally but I also recognize it as a tool to combat crime. It isn't a guaranteed solution but no solution is guaranteed aside from being locked up. I think taking their car is a lesser punishment than locking them up for an extended period of time.

As to your alternative suggestion I do like your out of the box thinking there.

did you graduate from a community college with a degree in Obvious Arts?

https://www.khon2.com/hawaii-crime/86-year-old-woman-burglarized-while-visiting-husbands-grave/

We've reached a new low...I hope the supernatural pays a visit to those despicable crumbs....

did you graduate from a community college with a degree in Obvious Arts?

All of his arguments are surface-level.  He isn't capable of making a judgement call on which policies are good and which are bad.  He just blathers as if he's debating himself on the pros and cons -- as if we need him to explain them to us.

He's sounding more and more like an AI BOT, able to gloss over the responses he gives without committing to any position one way or the other -- unless it's an issue involving Trump.  Then it's always the anti-Trump answer.

https://www.khon2.com/hawaii-crime/86-year-old-woman-burglarized-while-visiting-husbands-grave/

We've reached a new low...I hope the supernatural pays a visit to those despicable crumbs....

While we are reaching new lows, the rubbish is reaching epic highs.  And no help seems to be in sight since HPD is too busy trying to clean the rubbish in their own back yard.

And the rubbish at the state capitol is trying to figure out which trash heap is on the take.

Hawaii:  rubbish, rubbish everywhere and nary a rake, broom, or water hose in sight......

Wow...robbing an old lady at a graveyard. Wtf is wrong with people nowadays?

That graveyard isn't very safe.

The street is a dead end.

Wow...robbing an old lady at a graveyard. Wtf is wrong with people nowadays?

After reading the article I contemplated for quite a while, trying to comprehend, visualize, and work through what type of conditions and frame of mind would make individuals plan and implement such heinous behavior.

Because obviously these individuals planned this.  It wasn't spontaneous I believe.

I'm just flabbergasted.  All I can say is what goes around comes around.  Karma awaits these asshats.

It has happened there before. I had a friend that went to visit her mother's grave site anher car was broken in to. Easy pickings for slimeballs there.

Fair enough, but the alternative of putting them in prison for repeated violations of criminal traffic laws (since fines aren't stopping people like this) would also cause them the loss of their job. Granted they will still have housing of course but locking this person up still causes much of the same hardships which you cite as your opposition to forfeiture.

I am pretty familiar with forfeiture and I have some qualms with it generally but I also recognize it as a tool to combat crime. It isn't a guaranteed solution but no solution is guaranteed aside from being locked up. I think taking their car is a lesser punishment than locking them up for an extended period of time.

As to your alternative suggestion I do like your out of the box thinking there.

You say that like it's a bad thing.  Piloting a projectile at speeds capable of maiming and killing others sharing the road both in vehicles and as bike riders and pedestrians is much more serious than just breaking a traffic law.

This judge got it right....

https://youtube.com/shorts/b3IDS3LdMJk

did you graduate from a community college with a degree in Obvious Arts?

When people miss the obvious, sometimes you have to point out the obvious....

You say that like it's a bad thing.  Piloting a projectile at speeds capable of maiming and killing others sharing the road both in vehicles and as bike riders and pedestrians is much more serious than just breaking a traffic law.

This judge got it right....

https://youtube.com/shorts/b3IDS3LdMJk

I never said it was a bad thing, I am not opposed to jailing those who continuously drive without a license. I only pointed out that one of the objections you raise to forfeiting a vehicle for traffic violations would apply to putting them in jail as well.

You say I am incapable of making a judgement call but you never asked my position. If you want to know my position then just ask instead of doing a strawman

I never said it was a bad thing, I am not opposed to jailing those who continuously drive without a license. I only pointed out that one of the objections you raise to forfeiting a vehicle for traffic violations would apply to putting them in jail as well.

You say I am incapable of making a judgement call but you never asked my position. If you want to know my position then just ask instead of doing a strawman

Wrong.

The consequences of putting someone in jail are widely varied from case to case.  A father losing their job because they have no car is a different circumstance than him going to jail.  Taking the car does not guarantee he won't find a way to drive to work, etc.  Going to prison guarantees it.

My arguments were not against taking the car as much as finding an alternative that addresses the actual problem.  Taking the car keys treats them like a teen that broke curfew.  taking the car is excessive in most instances based on the crime.  But, when someone routinely ignores the court taking their license away, that becomes criminal contempt of court, and prison might be the thing that stops them from driving long enough to realize they need to stop breaking the law.

Wrong.
The consequences of putting someone in jail are widely varied from case to case.  A father losing their job because they have no car is a different circumstance than him going to jail.  Taking the car does not guarantee he won't find a way to drive to work, etc.  Going to prison guarantees it.

I didn't say the punishments were equal in any way. I only pointed out that one of your objections (the loss of job due to the loss of car) is an outcome of going to jail as well.

My arguments were not against taking the car as much as finding an alternative that addresses the actual problem.  Taking the car keys treats them like a teen that broke curfew.  taking the car is excessive in most instances based on the crime.  But, when someone routinely ignores the court taking their license away, that becomes criminal contempt of court, and prison might be the thing that stops them from driving long enough to realize they need to stop breaking the law.

I agree with most of what you said here. The only potential disagreement being where to draw the line on what crime would and would not qualify for asset forfeiture.

I didn't say the punishments were equal in any way. I only pointed out that one of your objections (the loss of job due to the loss of car) is an outcome of going to jail as well.

I agree with most of what you said here. The only potential disagreement being where to draw the line on what crime would and would not qualify for asset forfeiture.

Just like with red flag laws, you avoid the obvious.  Putting someone in jail prevents the inmate from committing more crime perpetrated against the public at large. 

Taking a car -- just like taking guns -- will not prevent the criminal from committing crimes.  It only makes doing so slightly less convenient.

Rather than take away the means, take away their ability to commit more crimes.  Taking property is a fine, and the fine of a car (or several firearms and ammo) is in most cases excessive financially.  To replace it would cost more than a reasonable fine.