[Zipperfish]

Bogus. Take his licence away, but the gummint has no business helping himself to the guy's car.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Bogus. Take his licence away, but the gummint has no business helping himself to the guy's car.

The Libertarian in my agrees. But others point out, with access to the car he has the ability to cause more damage and possibly loss of life. Riding transit or the shoe leather express, he's probabally less likely.

[Yogi]

Xort Xort:

Thanos Thanos:

I remain a lot more concerned about the other lives that this reckless psycho would inevitably destroy than I am about some ephemeral right he has to his property.

I'm not saying that he should still be driving. What I'm saying is that you can limit his driving without selling his vehicle, prior to him being found guilty of a crime.

Even after, if he has been found guilty he should still be able to own a vehicle just not operate it on public roads.

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Lock a man in a cold grey cage for his entire life (or kill him) = okay/somewhat okay
Take his weapon and his computer = not okay at all
Just seems odd that possessions are for some reason supposed to be treated better than human life..?

A basic differance of political belief.

If only we could control or regulate all the items then we could be safer.

If only we could control or regulate people then we would be safer.

If this guy is a danger then take action to protect people. If you think that his operation of vehicles are the danger than remove his legal right to operate a vehicle on a public road.

The problem is not that he owns a vehicle it is (in part) how he uses it on public roads.

Private possession of property is a basic human right, the government should respect that. The government has ways to limit the danger he poses while driving that respects the right of private property.

Although I guess telling a communist about the right of people to own property is a waste?

ANY WEAPON can be/usually is forfeited due to criminal misuse. The idiot in the story has chosen (9 times) to use a motor vehicle as his weapon of choice in the commission of a crime.

[Lemmy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Bogus. Take his licence away, but the gummint has no business helping himself to the guy's car.

The Libertarian in my agrees. But others point out, with access to the car he has the ability to cause more damage and possibly loss of life. Riding transit or the shoe leather express, he's probabally less likely.

They shouldn't be able to confiscate his car, but they should be able to require him to sell it/dispose of it, in a reasonable time, and prohibit him from owning/possessing another vehicle for a certain time period...in this case, forever.

[Public_Domain]

[Public_Domain]

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Xort Xort:

Thanos Thanos:

I remain a lot more concerned about the other lives that this reckless psycho would inevitably destroy than I am about some ephemeral right he has to his property.

I'm not saying that he should still be driving. What I'm saying is that you can limit his driving without selling his vehicle, prior to him being found guilty of a crime.

Even after, if he has been found guilty he should still be able to own a vehicle just not operate it on public roads.

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Lock a man in a cold grey cage for his entire life (or kill him) = okay/somewhat okay
Take his weapon and his computer = not okay at all
Just seems odd that possessions are for some reason supposed to be treated better than human life..?

A basic differance of political belief.

If only we could control or regulate all the items then we could be safer.

If only we could control or regulate people then we would be safer.

If this guy is a danger then take action to protect people. If you think that his operation of vehicles are the danger than remove his legal right to operate a vehicle on a public road.

Yeah, cuz taking away his little piece of paper is going to stop him from driving

Xort Xort:

The problem is not that he owns a vehicle it is (in part) how he uses it on public roads.

And since that's the problem, you remove his ability to continue being a problem. Your solution is akin to telling your child he can't have any more cookies and then leaving the open cookie jar in front of him while you leave the house for an hour.

Xort Xort:

Private possession of property is a basic human right

I guess using that property to put people's lives at risk time after time is also a basic human right? Tell me Xort, what guarantee is there that he wouldn't get in his car again? What guarantee is there that he wouldn't end up killing someone?
After 9 previous incidents(that were reported) where this goof proved he should NOT be allowed on the road, I hardly think abrogating his right to own a vehicle is something to get worked up over.
If you think taking someone's licence away and telling them they can't drive anymore is going to stop a determined individual from driving, well there's a LOT you need to learn about human behaviour.
A woman I used to date, before I met my wife, had her licence revoked for a period of 5 years. That didn't stop her from driving for those 5 years. In fact, it was another 10 years before she finally went and got her licence back and she drove almost every day for those 10 years.

To put it bluntly, there are people in this world who when you tell them they're not allowed to do something, well it's about as effective as putting a Band-aid on an axe wound.

[Zipperfish]

This guy sounds like a nasty piece of work. So instead of putting him in jail, where he belongs, they help themselevs to his car? That's fucked up in my opinion.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

This guy sounds like a nasty piece of work. So instead of putting him in jail, where he belongs, they help themselevs to his car? That's fucked up in my opinion.

He's facing criminal charges and is in custody. What more do you want?

[Unsound]

I think it's ok to take the vehicle pending trial. If convicted the gov't can sell it, if aquitted he gets it back. Pretty simple.

[Xort]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

And they did their job, yet you're crying about it.

The selling of his vehilce is the issue.

Taking away a vehicle pre trail is questionable, more so if it takes months or years for the trial to happen. But in an extreme case I could support taking property before a trial.

But to take it and sell it?

That's too much, and I do not support that.

Yogi Yogi:

ANY WEAPON can be/usually is forfeited due to criminal misuse. The idiot in the story has chosen (9 times) to use a motor vehicle as his weapon of choice in the commission of a crime.

I think he used his body as the weapon, it just happens that we have 9 reported acts from times when he was in a vehicle.

Anyway, with a weapon being forfeited should they be sold before a trial? Wouldn't you want that as evidence?

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

He's facing criminal charges and is in custody. What more do you want?

Well if he is in custody, to return his vehicle to 'him', maybe another family member might need that vehicle to drive (to say nothing of the massive holding charges placed on vehicles in storage). If you are taking the vehicle away for reasons of public safety, then him being in jail renders the justification for taking it invalid. If you are taking it as punishment, I would point out that we are a nation of rules and laws and part of our tradition is not to punish people before they have be found guilty.

[Xort]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Yeah, cuz taking away his little piece of paper is going to stop him from driving

Enforcement is the problem of the police/law enforcement officals.

I can think of two way off the top of my head that would reasonably enforce his ban on driving his own vehicle that would leave the vehicle in his ownership until his trial. Or at least let the police arrest him within a few hours of breaking the ban.

You snear at the suggestion that he would not resepect a driving ban, while seeming to ignore the idea that if he was going to break the driving ban he could do it without using the vehicle he owned at the time of his actions.

$1:

]And since that's the problem, you remove his ability to continue being a problem.

You do nothing of the sort. The only way to stop him from driving is to lock him up or have him watched 24hrs a day.

$1:

Your solution is akin to telling your child he can't have any more cookies and then leaving the open cookie jar in front of him while you leave the house for an hour.

And if we come back and find him eating a cookie then you have something to put him in jail er time out over. As if the last 9 times didn't matter.

$1:

I guess using that property to put people's lives at risk time after time is also a basic human right?

No, I never said that.

$1:

Tell me Xort, what guarantee is there that he wouldn't get in his car again? What guarantee is there that he wouldn't end up killing someone?

None that he will not get in his vehicle or someone elses, or that in his day to day life he doesn't have a rage attack and attack someone. The only way to guarantee that is to put him in jail. And even then you are just limiting his victim pool.

$1:

After 9 previous incidents(that were reported) where this goof proved he should NOT be allowed on the road, I hardly think abrogating his right to own a vehicle is something to get worked up over.

See that's the point, I don't think he should be driving either, but I don't think he should be free. After the first incident he should have been either in jail or on bail. After the second incident he should have been in jail on charges for the second incident as well as breaking his bond.

$1:

If you think taking someone's licence away and telling them they can't drive anymore is going to stop a determined individual from driving, well there's a LOT you need to learn about human behaviour.

If you think taking away one vehicle will stop a determined individual YOU need to learn about human behaviour.

$1:

A woman I used to date, before I met my wife, had her licence revoked for a period of 5 years. That didn't stop her from driving for those 5 years. In fact, it was another 10 years before she finally went and got her licence back and she drove almost every day for those 10 years.

Enforcement is the problem of the police/law enforcement. If the body that revoked her licence couldn't make their punishement stick then they need to review their value as a legal body.

$1:

To put it bluntly, there are people in this world who when you tell them they're not allowed to do something, well it's about as effective as putting a Band-aid on an axe wound.

And If you have not figured it out yet, I say let them try then nab them on a much more serious crime, on that will let you hold them where their actions can be controled for the safety of the public.

[Public_Domain]

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

This guy sounds like a nasty piece of work. So instead of putting him in jail, where he belongs, they help themselevs to his car? That's fucked up in my opinion.

He's facing criminal charges and is in custody. What more do you want?

I want them to put him in jail to cool his heels for a while, and leave him his car.

[ShepherdsDog]

leave him his car, but bar him from ever holding a license again